RedRay a reality?

[Jim Jannard]

I think you've already answered your own question.... :blink:

 

So... can you use the RedRay format for anything other than Redcode?

 

What am I missing here?

Is there some device attached to a sensitive part of your anatomy that's going to go off if you tell me?

Has some other race of aliens beaten me to it?

 

You're frightening me, Jim...

 

It is my nature to answer every question with good intent. You know that because you frequent reduser.

 

Your nature is to harass and turn every real answer into a mock. When you actually want to interact in a civil way I'd be glad to oblige. Until then... it is just a joust. Your answer will confirm my observation.

 

Jim

[Keith Walters]

It is my nature to answer every question with good intent. You know that because you frequent reduser.

 

Your nature is to harass and turn every real answer into a mock. When you actually want to interact in a civil way I'd be glad to oblige. Until then... it is just a joust. Your answer will confirm my observation.

 

Jim

 

 

Hmm. And I couldnl't help noticing that other people have asked the exact same question ... on Reduser.

They never seemed to get an answer either. If they had, I wouldn't need to be asking here.

 

Regarding Red Ray:

Personally I think the whole Blu-Ray thing is a massive con, whose intent starts and stops with what will ultimately be a futile attempt at enforcing so called "Digital Rights Management".

I don't have an issue with DRM per se, it's just that (as with the DVD format) all their inept fiddling is going to achieve absolutely nothing.

(So much for "uncrackable" DRM; Blu-ray copying programs are already available, before hardly anybody even has the burners to make use of them!)

All that it going to do (as with the DVD format) is inconvenience legitimate users.

 

So I would love to see an alternative "open" technology based on the existing DVD format.

I can readily accept that 1920 x 1080 HDTV should comfortably fit on the DVD format.

1 hour of 4K on a single-sided disc is a bit of an ask, so excuse my skepticism.

But accepting that as a working premise, all I really wanted to know is, does it allow a linear resolution/playing time tradeoff? You know; can you have 1 hour of 4K or 4 hours of 2K on the same size disc?

[Keith Walters]

Hello-o-o-o-o?

Oh well, guess that's that...

 

 

Gort! No!!

[DJ Joofa]

Nope, it's Nyquist. To resolve N lines, you need 2N samples or more.

 

Unfortunately the way sampling theorem is written almost always, it does not make it obvious that the above is a strict requirement when dealing with a low pass signal. If you are sampling band-pass signals then the minimum sampling rate may be less than 2 x max. frequency present, if a certain relationship is followed -- otherwise schemes such as wavelets would not have their appeal as much as they do. (All bands in typical wavelet configuration are bandpass except one and hence it is routine to downsample them consistent with the fact that a bandpass signal may be sampled at a lower rate than twice the max. frequency.)

Edited April 30, 2009 by DJ Joofa

[Phil Rhodes]

Klaatu!

 

Barada!

 

Nikto!

[Keith Walters]

Klaatu!

 

Barada!

 

Nikto!

Jeez!

That was too close! :D

 

Now Gort, please calculate the sequence of grey levels that will allow 20 columns of pixels to display 19 vertical lines.

I'm here for another 3 hours or so...

Edited April 30, 2009 by Keith Walters

[Paul Bruening]

You know, Jim, your cameras may, in time, kill everything many of us love about film. But, we really aren't obliged to like you.

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

I think you've already answered your own question.... :blink:

 

So... can you use the RedRay format for anything other than Redcode?

 

RedRay is based on Redcode (obviously enhanced with some sort of very strong/smart temporal compression), but you can apparently (the contrary would have been quite a disappointment) compress whatever you like/want in the RedRay format. Graeme indirectly answered that question a week ago by saying the "showreel" file they did compress in RedRay was a 10bit RGB footage :

 

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=409083#post409083

 

I know this (RedRay) thing sounds very hard to believe, but so was the idea of an affordable "4K" digital movie-camera about 2 years ago...

[Keith Walters]

RedRay is based on Redcode (obviously enhanced with some sort of very strong/smart temporal compression), but you can apparently (the contrary would have been quite a disappointment) compress whatever you like/want in the RedRay format. Graeme indirectly answered that question a week ago by saying the "showreel" file they did compress in RedRay was a 10bit RGB footage :

 

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=409083#post409083

Yes, no doubt you "obviously", "apparently", "probably", "logically", "well-of-course" etc etc are right. If that is the case, why don't they just say so, instead of turning every perfectly sensible question into a viral marketing session? I still have no definite answer.

 

I know this (RedRay) thing sounds very hard to believe,

I never said I didn't believe it, I was asking if it can give proportionally longer playing times with ordinary HD material. If not, one would have to ask why not. There have been any number of broadcast video technologies over the years that seemingly offered to do the impossible, and there always turned out to be a catch (often involving either some sort of proprietary camera, or an expensive add-on to existing ones).

but so was the idea of an affordable "4K" digital movie-camera about 2 years ago...

 

Before the RED existed, there was the Arri D20, a functionally similar 35mm sensor-sized Bayer masked CMOS camera, that produces similar pictures, so nobody could have sensibly argued that the technology was not possible.

 

Anybody over 30 could also hardly have failed to notice the breathtaking advances in digital manufacturing technology that have made available unbelievable computing power and storage capacity for ludicrously low prices (compared to what it cost in the past at any rate). So no sensible person would have argued that the RED (a "portable" version of the D-20 with more resolution and using uses cheap flash or Hard Disk memory) was not possible either.

 

As it is, judging by the number of complaints posted, the thing seems to barely work sometimes, with massive power consumption, requiring über-specialized flash memory cards, and an equally specialized post workflow. None of this was mentioned in the early days.

 

The real question was always, given the relatively small size of the market the RED is pitched to, would it be possible to recover the vast amount of R&D necessary to produce such a low-cost item, at the performance level claimed? That we are unlikely to ever find out.

 

And that was a real concern. The Post-production battlefield is similarly littered with the decomposing carcasses of countless whizzbang new devices, that are no longer supported by their manufacturers, mostly because the companies could not sustain the aftermarket infrastructure required. OK Jim Jannard is a billionaire; he'd probably like to remain one.

 

The other problem was that the routinely quoted "affordable" $17,500 price tag was very misleading; you needed to spend a lot more than that to get anything in the can or on the card. As it was, even now, there is still a lot of industry confusion about Post Production workflow and so on. Even the most basic Post setup is going to cost far more than the camera itself. So much for "democratisation of the media"

[John Sprung]

As it is, judging by the number of complaints posted, the thing seems to barely work sometimes, ....

 

The real question was always, given the relatively small size of the market the RED is pitched to, would it be possible to recover the vast amount of R&D necessary to produce such a low-cost item, at the performance level claimed?

 

We've used it successfully on TV shows and pilots. There's a list of a few dozen issues you need to know about, and address the ones that are relevant to your particular production. Do that homework, and it can be made adequately reliable for major network television.

 

As for the return on investment, just do the math. 4000 cameras by my calculator is a gross of $70 million. Is Red in the black? Maybe -- That's Jim's business. He doesn't have to tell us unless he wants to. 4000 units in two years is huge. Panavision has about 100 of the Genesis, Technicolor only had 36 of the System 4 cameras, even the Arri Models I and II only produced 17,000 units in half a century. There are things I worry about. Red going out of business isn't on that radar.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Kenny]

Seriously? Still? People have been shooting real jobs with this camera for over a year now, and it seems the same old nonsense is still being repeated by people who've never touched the thing.

 

As it is, judging by the number of complaints posted, the thing seems to barely work sometimes, with massive power consumption, requiring über-specialized flash memory cards, and an equally specialized post workflow. None of this was mentioned in the early days.

 

It works fine. It shoots to slightly modified commodity flash memory. Its power consumption is not particularly unusual by high-end camera standards. The post workflow is more involved than onlining DVCPRO HD in Final Cut. This is not surprising. It's a digital cinema camera, not a prosumer or broadcast camera. I'm not aware of any digital cinema camera that provides more accessible post workflow. You just don't really hear about this with other cameras because they cost so much that few people are attempting do-it-yourself post with them.

 

The other problem was that the routinely quoted "affordable" $17,500 price tag was very misleading; you needed to spend a lot more than that to get anything in the can or on the card. As it was, even now, there is still a lot of industry confusion about Post Production workflow and so on. Even the most basic Post setup is going to cost far more than the camera itself. So much for "democratisation of the media"

 

Even without the contrast patronizing reminders in this forum, I think everyone who considered themselves a serious Red customer was well aware of the fact that the complete system would cost more than $17.5K. The camera system is still vastly cheaper than anything that delivers remotely compatible quality. This is not really even debatable.

 

As for even the most basic post setup costing far more than the camera itself, this is complete and utter nonsense. Red offers far more options for low-cost post than any other camera in its class. You can literally post a Red feature all the way through a 2K DPX deliverable on a laptop. A credible Red workhorse machine is an 8-core Mac Pro with an MXO2, a Dreamcolor, and an eSATA array, total cost under $10K; substantially cheaper than anything that requires you to work with uncompressed HD data end-to-end or ingest any professional HD tape format.

[Keith Walters]

Note what I was responding to.

 

"I know this (RedRay) thing sounds very hard to believe, but so was the idea of an affordable "4K" digital movie-camera about 2 years ago..."

 

This is pure Fanboy strawman-ism

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

Note what I was responding to.

 

"I know this (RedRay) thing sounds very hard to believe, but so was the idea of an affordable "4K" digital movie-camera about 2 years ago..."

 

This is pure Fanboy strawman-ism

 

"Argumentum ad hominem"... Please...

 

The fact of the matter is that I challenge you to find any other example of a "4K" camera which could compress and record actual 4K footage onto a compact-flash card (with data rates of around 30MB/s thus indeed requiring specialized compact flash cards) or an "affordable" hard-drive, while keeping excellent visual quality. Those kind of compressions were (and still are) unheard of in the acquisition world... Unless I am totally mistaken, but if so, please give me any other example... The Arri D20 you mention is shooting HD, and recording it as HDCAM-SR, currently the most expensive and least compressed tape recording format. It is neither capable of recording 4K, nor is it capable to record 10 minutes of footage to something as affordable as a 300$ compact flash... So, this is certainly NOT a good example to prove that I was wrong to be a Red-skeptic two years ago. What else? Genesis? Nope! Dalsa? You've got to be kidding me... Two years ago, this (huge)... "thing" had to be hooked to a "small refrigerator" sized stack of hard-drives to record footage...

 

REDCODE-RAW: that's what really made the Red system "affordable". What's the point of building an "affordable" US$ 17.5K "4K" camera if you have to hook it up to a >US$ 100.000 (tape) recorder? Could you really call such a camera "affordable"?

 

You can claim you never doubted this could be done, both from a technological and financial point-of-view, but I find it very hard to believe. Especially when you realize this came from an unknown company. Sounds like you are a "monday morning quarterback" to me...

 

Let's be honest, please! I, for one, really was a skeptic for a long time... And I know I wasn't the only one over here, on this forum! In fact, I hardly remember anyone, except a few hardcore "fanboys" which I don't think you are part of, who claimed, 2 years ago, he didn't have any single doubt this Red-One camera could be done at all, let alone with half the specs they were claiming at that time.

 

The Red-One was a big surprise for me, and challenged my own perception of what could be achieved real-time in terms of spatial compression, especially on a 4K camera. I thus wouldn't bet against them this time over... but if you do, I'll be glad to bet against you :)

[Keith Walters]

"Argumentum ad hominem"... Please...

 

The fact of the matter is that I challenge you to find any other example of a "4K" camera which could compress and record actual 4K footage onto a compact-flash card (with data rates of around 30MB/s thus indeed requiring specialized compact flash cards) or an "affordable" hard-drive, while keeping excellent visual quality. Those kind of compressions were (and still are) unheard of in the acquisition world... Unless I am totally mistaken, but if so, please give me any other example... The Arri D20 you mention is shooting HD, and recording it as HDCAM-SR, currently the most expensive and least compressed tape recording format. It is neither capable of recording 4K, nor is it capable to record 10 minutes of footage to something as affordable as a 300$ compact flash... So, this is certainly NOT a good example to prove that I was wrong to be a Red-skeptic two years ago. What else? Genesis? Nope! Dalsa? You've got to be kidding me... Two years ago, this (huge)... "thing" had to be hooked to a "small refrigerator" sized stack of hard-drives to record footage...

 

REDCODE-RAW: that's what really made the Red system "affordable". What's the point of building an "affordable" US$ 17.5K "4K" camera if you have to hook it up to a >US$ 100.000 (tape) recorder? Could you really call such a camera "affordable"?

 

You can claim you never doubted this could be done, both from a technological and financial point-of-view, but I find it very hard to believe. Especially when you realize this came from an unknown company. Sounds like you are a "monday morning quarterback" to me...

 

Let's be honest, please! I, for one, really was a skeptic for a long time... And I know I wasn't the only one over here, on this forum! In fact, I hardly remember anyone, except a few hardcore "fanboys" which I don't think you are part of, who claimed, 2 years ago, he didn't have any single doubt this Red-One camera could be done at all, let alone with half the specs they were claiming at that time.

 

The Red-One was a big surprise for me, and challenged my own perception of what could be achieved real-time in terms of spatial compression, especially on a 4K camera. I thus wouldn't bet against them this time over... but if you do, I'll be glad to bet against you :)

You've completely lost me I'm afraid.

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

You've completely lost me I'm afraid.

 

Well... it's rather simple in fact: when you said

"So no sensible person would have argued that the RED (a "portable" version of the D-20 with more resolution and using uses cheap flash or Hard Disk memory) was not possible either."

I believe you must have been joking! Or you never ever read this forum before, now did you?! I hardly remember ANYONE over here who honestly and openly believed (at least in the beginning) this wasn't some sort of scam!

 

You seem to focus solely on the technological feasibility. Of course, theoretically, everything is feasible, but at what price? And by whom? So far, no one came even close to offer something truly comparable to the Red-One. Forget about the D20, the Genesis, the Dalsa, the Phantom. These are all super-expensive devices whose compression technology is nowhere nearly as efficient as the one these "industry new-bees" (Red) implemented in their first product.

 

I can't believe you honestly never doubted these guys, who came out from nowhere, with no industry background whatsoever, could make something like the Red-One (along with its compression), and sell it at such a low price point! Because, no matter what you think or what you claim ("misleading price", "lots of defects", etc.), the Red-One is working great, makes great pictures and is very "affordable"... compared to its competition at least.

 

I honestly maintain that I was wrong in my assumption that they couldn't do it! I'm not going to make that same mistake again. These guys (i.e. the Red team) are true "industry changers", whether you (and I) like it or not.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Emmanuel Decarpentrie

[Stephen Williams]

I hardly remember ANYONE over here who honestly and openly believed (at least in the beginning) this wasn't some sort of scam!

 

Hi,

 

Not sure there were many people (except Jim) using the word scam here. I was skeptical that a reliable working camera could be delivered without delays in the schedule & all the specs implemented. The cameras were delayed more than once and there were a no. of issues with the original cameras, (first 100 cameras replaced), I found the camera unreliable until build 16 & still waiting for 4K @ 60 fps. Generally the cameras do most of what was promised & are fairly reliable now.

 

YMMV.

 

I hope Epic will work reliably from day 1.

 

Stephen

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

Hello Stephen,

 

Hi,

 

Not sure there were many people (except Jim) using the word scam here. I was skeptical that a reliable working camera could be delivered without delays in the schedule & all the specs implemented.

 

YMMV.

 

I hope Epic will work reliably from day 1.

 

Stephen

 

I believe everyone was skeptical up to a certain point. And quite rightly so! The word "scam" probably doesn't reflect exactly what was said at that time, but at the very least, most people were saying: "I'll believe it when I see it", exactly what Keith said when he started this discussion. The difference between "This is a scam!" and "I'll believe it when I see it! But in the meantime, I'd be a fool if I was ready to give them a thousand dollars" is very thin in fact... Both are expressing some sort of high level of disbelief or distrust.

 

You are perfectly right in the sense that the development of this camera wasn't exactly as "easy" as Red (seemed to have) anticipated. I think Red (Jim) made the typical mistake of underestimating the challenge they were facing. To be honest, who doesn't make that kind of mistake at one point or another? When you started your career, did you truly expect your first (short or feature) film to be as challenging as it truly was? I certainly didn't!

 

I hope Epic will work reliably from day 1 as well. But regarding the RedRay, I was skeptical up to the point where they made their demonstration in front of hundreds of professionals, a week ago. All these people seems to agree upon the fact RedRay is impressive. So, even though I personally worked on compression algorithms (and I am thus very surprised with Red's claims regarding RedRay) who am I to challenge them? It would be ridiculous, at this point, for me to claim all the people who were lucky enough to get that demonstration, to claim all these people were wrong in their assessment simply because they were "blinded by their so-called fanboyism". :)

 

I really don't consider myself to be a Red-Fanboy in the sense that I would be blinded in my judgment! All I want is to be honest with myself and everyone else: I was skeptical but I have been impressed by the Red-One, even though it wasn't (and still isn't) perfect. I now stand ready to be positively surprised by their future products (Redray) as well... If that kind of honesty makes me a fanboy, according to Keith, then, let me say I'd rather be called a "fanboy" than a liar or a manipulator.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Emmanuel Decarpentrie

[Stephen Williams]

Hello Stephen,

I believe everyone was skeptical up to a certain point. And quite rightly so! The word "scam" probably doesn't reflect exactly what was said at that time, but at the very least, most people were saying: "I'll believe it when I see it", exactly what Keith said when he started this discussion. The difference between "This is a scam!" and "I'll believe it when I see it!

 

From wikipedia A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, or swindle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence.

[Keith Walters]

I can't believe you honestly never doubted these guys, who came out from nowhere, with no industry background whatsoever, could make something like the Red-One (along with its compression), and sell it at such a low price point! Because, no matter what you think or what you claim ("misleading price", "lots of defects", etc.), the Red-One is working great, makes great pictures and is very "affordable"... compared to its competition at least.

No offense, but you've really dropped the ball here.

 

Define "these guys" and "make".

 

I had no doubt they could get someone to design and machine a sexy-looking camera housing out of a block of aluminium. I know I couldn't do as nice a job, but I know enough to be able to find and hire people who could. In the early days that was all they would talk about.

 

I also had no doubt that they would be able to hire people to design and build the actual electronics, as well as the software to make it run. OK the D-20 is not a RED, but it goes quite a long way down the path leading to a RED, so there was no reason to think it could not be done.

 

But in their initial posts here, RED & Co came across like a gaggle of nouveau riche hillbillies on some hare-brained get-even-richer-quick scheme. It was only somewhat later that one of the people they later recruited actually let it slip that he was not expecting the size and sophistication of the design team they actually had in place.

 

So their whole approach looks to me like it was a deliberate Viral Marketing strategy, to initially make themselves sound somewhat clueless to any technically literate person, just so they could say "I told you so" to all the skeptics later on. (Or more correctly, be seen saying that by all the Fanboys later on).

[Michael Most]

Those kind of compressions were (and still are) unheard of in the acquisition world...

 

Not really. The Silicon Imaging camera, combined with the Cineform Raw compression codec, basically predated Redcode by at least 2 years. And while the data being compressed wasn't 4K, the approach was essentially identical - and the primary reason for the lower resolution was that Silicon Imaging was, by design, building a camera with available technology. Red decided to do their own compression codec for reasons known to them, but the notion of using wavelet compression techniques on the RAW data directly from the sensor, as well as the notion of recording that on commodity storage, was all done by SI and Cineform prior to Red's entry into the market.

 

Unless I am totally mistaken, but if so, please give me any other example... The Arri D20 you mention is shooting HD, and recording it as HDCAM-SR, currently the most expensive and least compressed tape recording format. It is neither capable of recording 4K, nor is it capable to record 10 minutes of footage to something as affordable as a 300$ compact flash...

 

The D21 - basically an updated version of the D20 that has replaced the D20 in Arri's product line - can output either dual link HD video, or RAW data. The RAW data is 2880x2160 (the sensor is a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, similar to a film frame) and thus, by Red's own nomenclature, qualifies as a "3K" camera. Arri has chosen to output this only in uncompressed form, and it can be recorded by both S.two and Codex recording units. S.two has just released their OB1 recorder, a very small, camera mounted unit that uses removable flash packs. Since these devices - as well as the camera - are intended for delivery to what is primarily a rental based market, the purchase price is not as relevant as it is in the case of Red, which is intended for direct sale to the end users.

 

None of this is intended to demean what Red has accomplished in any way. I'm just offering some background facts to provide context.

[Tom Lowe]

Certain people here should be careful with their words, since there is a large archive of old threads here about Red. I'm sure some of the posts made back in 2006 and 2007 would be very embarrassing to many of the people who tried to degrade and discredit Jim Jannard and his vision for these new cameras.

[Keith Walters]

Certain people here should be careful with their words, since there is a large archive of old threads here about Red. I'm sure some of the posts made back in 2006 and 2007 would be very embarrassing to many of the people who tried to degrade and discredit Jim Jannard and his vision for these new cameras.

Some people should be embarrassed, period.

[Stephen Williams]

Certain people here should be careful with their words, since there is a large archive of old threads here about Red. I'm sure some of the posts made back in 2006 and 2007 would be very embarrassing to many of the people who tried to degrade and discredit Jim Jannard and his vision for these new cameras.

 

Hi Tom,

 

We have a bet running since last summer. Do you think the delay in the release of Epic could effect the outcome?

I seem to remember my biggest question mark was over the claim that the DR of RED One would exceed that of the Viper, nothing to be embarrassed about. Bear in mind not all of the targets got met (Dual HDSDI output, 60 fps @ 4k, Raw output) hence the need for EPIC.

 

Stephen

[Keith Walters]

Hi,

Not sure there were many people (except Jim) using the word scam here.

Stephen

Out of curiousity I entered the word "scam" into the search function, telling it to show the results as posts, only in the RED forum.

 

With one solitary exception, where somebody was referring to a suspicious eBay posting, every ocurrence of the word "scam" was either some pro-red poster claiming that somebody (usually inspecified) called the RED project that, or somebody like yourself simply denying that anybody here actually used that term.

 

The total number of posts containing the word "scam" is 36.

Eight of these were by Jim Jannard.

Many of the others are replies that contain copies of these eight.

[Jim Jannard]

Out of curiousity I entered the word "scam" into the search function, telling it to show the results as posts, only in the RED forum.

 

With one solitary exception, where somebody was referring to a suspicious eBay posting, every ocurrence of the word "scam" was either some pro-red poster claiming that somebody (usually inspecified) called the RED project that, or somebody like yourself simply denying that anybody here actually used that term.

 

The total number of posts containing the word "scam" is 36.

Eight of these were by Jim Jannard.

Many of the others are replies that contain copies of these eight.

 

It is not just the word itself... lots of ways to say it. Just go back and read some of your alter-ego posts (James Murdoch).

 

BTW, people that believed in us motivated us. People that didn't believe in us motivated us.

 

Jim