RED Sensors getting bigger

[Paul Bruening]

QUOTE (Max Jacoby @ Nov 22 2008, 11:12 AM)

Futuristic? That word always reminds me of how they imagined the future in the 50s.

 

Either way, I was not referring to the cameras themselves, but to your tendency of avoiding arguments based on concrete, real-world knowledge by saying either:

 

a) Time will tell

We shall see

c) Watch and see

d) Let's see what happens

 

Which as far as I'm concerned are merely euphemisms for: I don't have a clue.

 

 

 

Thanks Paul, I was looking for a term for that sort of tactic.

 

Actually Tom is adopting another debating tactic which I don't know the name for either, but it's another variant of the Straw Man fallacy . (Don't bother looking that up on Wikipedia, there's a complete nutjob there who keeps reverting the page to an unreadable hodge-podge of meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo).

 

Basically it's where Mr A's viewpoint/argument is pointing out that Mr B's proposition/argument is not supported by any hard evidence whatsoever, and therefore there is no rational basis for anybody doing (or not doing), or being forced to do (or not do) something, based on Mr B's assertions. Government laws or regulations being based purely on people's religious beliefs are the most common example.

 

Then Mr B will enter the fray with a phrase to the effect of "Well what if I could could prove that so-and-so actually did such-and-such in blah-blah-blah BC etc etc..."

 

The correct response to that is basically: "Well, if you (or anybody) could actually DO that, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation!" Mr B is really misrepresenting Mr A's position, which is essentially that Mr B's assertions are without any factual or verifiable basis.

 

In the case of the RED, the main source of criticism (and ridicule) here has been the fact that certain people insisted (and still insist) on discussing the cameras as though they were real functioning products, and not just concepts and computer generated images.

 

OK they did eventually produce working hardware, (although the term "working" appears to have a somewhat elastic definition), but that it the point where the discussion should have started, where people could actually look at a real operating product, and THEN decide what it's impact on the industry might be.

 

The only difference with the Scarlet and the Epic is that Jannard has demonstrated that he was able to actually organize the manufacture of a working HD video camera and mass produce them.

 

It took me a while to understand that fallacies are used like a tool of control by all kinds of big people. We see it used most obviously during political campaigns. My assumption about it is that fallacies are something like holes in the otherwise solid fabric of our thinking. These holes are not easily detected by common sense. Thusly, they get used on purpose to distract or divert us. They are clearly weaknesses we have. At the same time, I have seen fallacies used as a viable way to move thinking around in a way not available to the inherent limits of logic and reason. My feeling is that fallacies are there for a good reason but they get used for the worst reasons. When I catch a politician use a fallacy on purpose and that purpose is obviously a devious or evil one, it gets me a little irked. When us common folk use fallacies, it's often just an honest mistake of untrained-in-the-membrane. So, I try to let it go or offer a compensating suggestion.

 

As far as Citizen Jannard is concerned: He's a marketing guy. That's his gig, babe. He knows people will talk way more on speculative stuff than on actual stuff. Actual stuff is known, therefore, boring. The sky's the limit on speculation and imagination. He awakens our imaginations and we delight in the possibilities. He awakens our actual creativity. These RED threads are 'da bomb in terms of shear, forum entertainment.

[Keith Walters]

This is precisely why journalists are so fond of using phrases such as "The new generation of" or "The New Breed of" or "The Latest in XXX" and so on.

 

Because it's new, nobody can really gainsay what they've written, because hardly anybody knows anything about it. Those who do, and dare to suggest there might be inadequacies in the journalist's coverage, are easily dismissed as Luddites or XXX-haters, or only having an interest in maintaining the Status Quo and so on.

[Tim Carroll]

As far as Citizen Jannard is concerned: He's a marketing guy. That's his gig, babe.

 

THREADJACK

 

Jannard was one of the marketing geniuses behind the Oakley sunglasses. A perfect example of marketing taken to a new level.

 

I remember back in the 1980's, when I was still racing bicycles, Oakley Blades were the sunglasses to have on the bike (and they did work extremely well). But their cost was a premium, something like $75, which back in 1987 was pretty expensive for a pair of plastic sunglasses.

 

It was funny, you could buy replacement parts from Oakley for them, in fact you could buy the lens (which was one piece) along with the nose guard, for $20. And you could buy the ear stems/arms, for like $15. Which means, for $35, you could have a whole pair of Oakley Blades, except for the little piece of plastic that ran across the top of the lens(something that probably costs 5¢ in plastic).

 

So if you break it down, you could buy every part of a pair of Oakley Blades for $35, except that little piece of plastic, or you could buy the whole pair of Oakley Blades, with that piece of plastic, for $75. So they were basically selling that little 5¢ piece of plastic for $40. Marketing genius.

 

END OF THREADJACK.

 

I now return you to the regular rant about everything RED.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Keith Walters]

I remember a strange person at an even stranger place where I used to work.

 

He was always buying expensive sunglasses that cost a couple of hundred dollars (I think they were Ray-Bans), and he was forever losing them in his perennially substance-abused state.

 

Every time he would buy a new pair he would go up to one of the lens technicians and pay him $5 to carefully scrape the brand name off under a microscope (it was usually in white paint) "so no-one would steal them"!

 

The fact that removing the logo removed the only thing that really distinguished them from sunglasses costing 80% less was entirely lost on him!

 

The lenses are just pieces of "zero prescription" tinted plastic. I always found a cheap pair of Polaroids gave much better glare reduction.

 

As far as UV protection goes, the reality is that it's very hard to get UV to pass through any sort of glass or plastic. UV transmissive glass has to have a very high quartz content and is very hard to make.

[Tom Lowe]

This thread is going downhill very fast.

 

[K Borowski]

This thread is going downhill very fast.

 

 

Tom, just a friendly jibe here, but have you noticed this tends to be a commonality that many of your threads share?

 

As to the "thumbs down", actuallly, there was no such thing as thumbs up or thumbs down. The Renaissance painters screwed up, and Hollywood always screws anything they film up in terms of historical accuracy, so they followed suit. Any sticking out of a thumb was an indication of the letter "I", short for "Iugulo" pronounced you-gyu-lo, which means "kill him". :P

 

Now as for you, I'm going to give you an "I" for constantly trying to shake up the world. What do you need to prove, my man? If you feel the need to distinguish yourself in a revolution, go to a third-world country and distinguish yourself as being ruthless in battle.

 

Otherwise, there is no need to glamorize Jim Jannard's mid-life crisis as a "Revolution". It is certainly a technological improvement, and a reshaping of the digital cinema industry, but please quit trying to burry film.

 

It is quite obvious from your screen grabs that you don't have a problem with the results film can produce. If so then why be so quick to dismiss its future importance? You obviously don't have a problem with the results it is capable of producing, unlike others here.

 

Digital is going to continue to improve resolution wise, and will always have the advantage of cost.

 

Film is going to continue to improve resolution-wise, and will (probably) always have the advantage of color and dynamic range.

 

Enough said.

[Tom Lowe]

there is no need to glamorize Jim Jannard's mid-life crisis as a "Revolution".

 

Hahahah. Man, I should quote this as my signature at reduser. :lol:

[K Borowski]

Hahahah. Man, I should quote this as my signature at reduser. :lol:

 

I'd love to see you do it. I'd love to see what sort of reaction it espouses, as well.

[Tom Lowe]

I'd love to see you do it. I'd love to see what sort of reaction it espouses, as well.

 

Okay, it's done. I will leave it up for a week, or until they run me out of town on a rail... haha.

[Chris Keth]

As far as UV protection goes, the reality is that it's very hard to get UV to pass through any sort of glass or plastic. UV transmissive glass has to have a very high quartz content and is very hard to make.

 

I print cyanotype and platinum, which both need exposure to UV light and will not expose without UV, under a piece of $1.29 framing glass from a craft store. I have also done it with a free scrap of plexiglass.

 

It's not difficult to make glass or plastic that passes UV.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Keith Walters]

I print cyanotype and platinum, which both need exposure to UV light and will not expose without UV, under a piece of $1.29 framing glass from a craft store. I have also done it with a free scrap of plexiglass.

 

It's not difficult to make glass or plastic that passes UV.

Perhaps I should have said "short-wavelength UV, the damaging kind."

 

Yes ordinary glass will allow some longwave UV through, but it's greatly attenuated.

 

In commercial photolithographic applications you just need to expose it for longer. In that situation just a few percent transmission is still enough, but as far as eye protection goes, for all practical purposes, no UV gets through.

 

I used to expose printed circuit board resist through ordinary window glass using daylight and it would take about 20 seconds in direct sunlight. However, if during the setup the board was accidentally exposed to daylight without the exposure mask and glass, even for a fraction of a second, it was ruined.

 

EPROM memory chips have to be erased using special short-wavelength UV tubes made from quartz glass. If you put a piece of ordinary glass or plastic over the EPROM, it will not erase no matter how long you expose it for.

[John Sprung]

EPROM memory chips have to be erased using special short-wavelength UV tubes made from quartz glass.

Back in prehistoric times, I used to erase them outside in the sunlight. This was back in the 8088 PC days, when I knew assembly code and had the source for the ROM BIOS.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Neil Duffy]

I really hate to bring back this thread to its point, but here goes a try.

 

I take back my earlier comment about the FF35 being the standard 10 years from now. All I can tell is that I think that will be the standard in the next couple of years. After that who knows. If new technology comes out and 1/4 inch sensors capture everything that a human eye can see on a 100 foot projection screen, then yea 1/4 inch will be the standard. And will have 1/4 inch Cooke primes smaller than golf balls.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Neil Duffy

[Max Jacoby]

I take back my earlier comment about the FF35 being the standard 10 years from now. All I can tell is that I think that will be the standard in the next couple of years.

Are you kidding????

 

Considering that Red only plan to release their FF35 cameras in the winter of 2009 (which with the inevitable delay means 2010 really) I don't think your prediction has no chance at all of happening.

[Stephen Williams]

Are you kidding????

 

Considering that Red only plan to release their FF35 cameras in the winter of 2009 (which with the inevitable delay means 2010 really) I don't think your prediction has no chance at all of happening.

 

Hi,

 

I really se no advantage in shooting FF35with a digital camera or VISTA VISION with film over S35, Academy 1:1.85 or 35 mm Anamorphic, where I have a good choice of lenses and a perfectly good workfow exists today.

 

Stephen

[DJ Joofa]

This was back in the 8088 PC days, when I knew assembly code and had the source for the ROM BIOS.

 

Didn't IBM used to publish the source code for ROM Bios for some early IBM Technical Reference Manual for the PC? I used to have one for XT, and it came with full source code.

[David Mullen ASC]

My main concern is focus-pulling -- I've been watching live Genesis and RED images on an HD monitor lately, and can see how good AC's can struggle with an f/2.8 on medium to close shots of moving actors. I mean, sometimes I'm watching a medium close-up and debate whether I should tell the AC to pull focus forward more for the eyelashes or back slightly for the iris of the eyeball, I can see the difference on the HD monitor. That's scary for a shot that is not even that tight.

 

So to work at f/2.8 on a FF35 / VistaVision-size sensor, with the equivalent of two less stops of depth of field -- an effective f/1.4 in practical terms... it's going to be like shooting in anamorphic where either you start lighting to higher f-stops or you find the best focus-pullers in the business or you live with more focus buzzes. Personally, I think f/2.8 on 35mm cine looks shallow enough for most dramatic scenes.

[Tenolian Bell]

Its interesting that we are participating in this type of discussion. Their really isn't much qualification for who actually works in film or video as a profession. Some kid in high school is free to throw out any prediction they want no matter how ridiculous it really is.

 

Then we who do work professionally in film/video feel forced to answer. When in reality this person who posed the ridiculous comment did not know what they are even talking about in the first place.

[Francis Kuhn]

My main concern is focus-pulling -- I've been watching live Genesis and RED images on an HD monitor lately, and can see how good AC's can struggle with an f/2.8 on medium to close shots of moving actors. I mean, sometimes I'm watching a medium close-up and debate whether I should tell the AC to pull focus forward more for the eyelashes or back slightly for the iris of the eyeball, I can see the difference on the HD monitor. That's scary for a shot that is not even that tight.

 

So to work at f/2.8 on a FF35 / VistaVision-size sensor, with the equivalent of two less stops of depth of field -- an effective f/1.4 in practical terms... it's going to be like shooting in anamorphic where either you start lighting to higher f-stops or you find the best focus-pullers in the business or you live with more focus buzzes. Personally, I think f/2.8 on 35mm cine looks shallow enough for most dramatic scenes.

 

Thank you for posting that, David. The voice of reason. Maybe someone will take you seriously, but I predict your comments will be ignored as people line up with their deposit money for FF35mm and 645s.

 

-Fran

[John Sprung]

If new technology comes out and 1/4 inch sensors capture everything that a human eye can see on a 100 foot projection screen, then yea 1/4 inch will be the standard. And will have 1/4 inch Cooke primes smaller than golf balls.

You might want to find out about diffraction. Bottom line, with small sensors and deep stops, it kills resolution. It comes from the actual physical wavelengths of light, so there's no technical fix coming any time soon. It's the reason that professional cameras don't go any smaller than 2/3".

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Didn't IBM used to publish the source code for ROM Bios for some early IBM Technical Reference Manual for the PC? I used to have one for XT, and it came with full source code.

Yes, they did, for all three: PC, XT, and AT. I have them all, plus another set still in the original shrink wrap. Perhaps some distant day the grandkids will take them to Antiques Roadshow.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[DJ Joofa]

Yes, they did, for all three: PC, XT, and AT. I have them all, plus another set still in the original shrink wrap. Perhaps some distant day the grandkids will take them to Antiques Roadshow.... ;-)

 

Hi John, you have refreshed some good memories now forgotten. I liked the published code in the IBM technical reference manual as it helped me in understanding what the computer was doing, especially during boot up. If I remember correctly there was no support for a "graphics" card/device in those models. Then there was this company "Hercules", that came up with one of the first graphics adapter, perhaps called Monochrome Display Adapter?? (MDA??) at that time, but the PC had no support for it. So Hercules would fool PC Into thinking that it was still in "text" mode.

[Tom Lowe]

My main concern is focus-pulling -- I've been watching live Genesis and RED images on an HD monitor lately, and can see how good AC's can struggle with an f/2.8 on medium to close shots of moving actors. I mean, sometimes I'm watching a medium close-up and debate whether I should tell the AC to pull focus forward more for the eyelashes or back slightly for the iris of the eyeball, I can see the difference on the HD monitor. That's scary for a shot that is not even that tight.

 

So to work at f/2.8 on a FF35 / VistaVision-size sensor, with the equivalent of two less stops of depth of field -- an effective f/1.4 in practical terms... it's going to be like shooting in anamorphic where either you start lighting to higher f-stops or you find the best focus-pullers in the business or you live with more focus buzzes. Personally, I think f/2.8 on 35mm cine looks shallow enough for most dramatic scenes.

 

If you could shoot comfortably at ISO/ASA 1600 or 3200, for example, and stop the FF35 lens down, would that alleviate your worries about DOF?

[David Mullen ASC]

If you could shoot comfortably at ISO/ASA 1600 or 3200, for example, and stop the FF35 lens down, would that alleviate your worries about DOF?

 

Oh, I'm sure I could deal with it, just as I have on my anamorphic shows -- it's not insurmountable. Considering how many years I've wanted to shoot a movie in 65mm, obviously I'm willing to deal with less depth of field if the quality improvement was significant enough to justify it.

 

I just see more of a problem with the notion of FF35 becoming the norm for production, rather than a special case project where you were attempting more quality and resolution. Your typical meat-and-potatoes dialogue scene in some kitchen doesn't necessarily warrant dealing with super shallow focus in an attempt to get higher resolutions.

 

I just wish the 16-bit Monstro sensor being proposed was 6K within the S35 dimensions, so I could get real 4K resolution. Now I'll be stuck trying to decide whether I want to shoot 4K RAW and get to use my cine lenses, or 6K RAW and have to deal with adapted still camera lenses, which I feel is the worst combination of factors -- less depth of field with lenses not specifically designed for cine focus-pulling.

 

But I'm speaking mainly from a practical standpoint, not so much a quality standpoint (though misfocused shots affect quality...)

 

Until you've worked with these modern S35 digital cameras and seen daily focus-pulling problems (always there, just now visible in real time) I don't think it will really sink in how challenging it will be to work in a world of FF35 for live action. But it can be dealt with... it will just weed out the weaker focus-pullers very quickly.

 

Twice this week I had a discussion with two different AC's as to why they couldn't hold a split between two actors despite what the depth of field charts were telling them. I did a shot of two people sitting side by side in two different scenes, at a mild raking angle to the camera, two different AC's, and in both cases, after the first take I had to tell the AC's that the focus looked like it was on one of the shoulders between the two actors. "But I should be holding a split!" But when they actually racked for each actor's face individually, you could see the eyes snap into focus. I've had the same issues when I shoot anamorphic...

 

With modern sharp lenses, film stocks, and digital cameras, I think the focus has to be set on something, it can't be set in midair between two subjects.

[Francis Kuhn]

If you could shoot comfortably at ISO/ASA 1600 or 3200, for example, and stop the FF35 lens down, would that alleviate your worries about DOF?

 

Hi Tom,

 

Hopefully David will reply. But here's a thought: If you have to boost ASA to 3200 just to make a workable stop on FF35, why not just shoot a lower ASA (with equal or better image quality) using a S35 sensor?

 

I could be missing something, or maybe there's some new development that makes a compelling case for these bigger chips, but I'm still not convinced it's necessary for general use to go with these bigger sensors.

 

-Fran

 

EDIT: There's David's reply above. He must type a lot faster than me.