Jim Jannard

Oh all right congratulations

I think what I actually said was basically: 'Whaddya mean 'we' white man?"

As in: you aren't going to be making the chip, someone would be making it for you nicht wahr?

The question is not so much whether "you" can produce the chip but whether "you" could mass-produce them cheaply enough to put in a <$20K camera.

 

If it was a NASA or Military project where money was no object, you could make a prototype by direct ion implantation but that is hideously slow and expensive. So you have some "secret sauce" which is going to succeed where everyone has failed? Why are you wasting it on this particular project; surely the commercial potential is vastly greater in other fields.

 

I mean if you can deliver the goods, you will certainly be providing a product with actual advantages to cinematographers, which hasn't been the case thus far with all the other manufacturers. But you've got to be able to actually deliver the goods.

 

Everybody else's spiel would be appropriate if there was some reason why we we would no longer be able to use film, like we were running out of silver or there were environmental issues or something similar. As it is, they seem to expect people to switch to a more expensive medium which is generally more complex to operate, doesn't give as good a result and has unresolved archival issues. For what?

 

Film is still readily available, has a proven track record and is still the medium of choice for high quality Commercials and Episodic dramas.

Thank you. Jim

Deanan... thanks. We understand that we are in deep water. No question. We have the highest respect for Dalsa and the science you have going over there.

Jim (Murdoch)... I thought I would hear some sort of soft congratulations from you! You are the main one who said we could never build our own sensor (some of your past posts are pretty dramatic to this point).

Jim Jannard

With the RED camera you have lots of options for the data stream. RAW 4k if you choose the best and most difficult trick, 2K (easier to deal with) and various compression schemes and sizes that make the data much easier to handle. You are not stuck with the hose in the fully open position.

Jim

It's not the sensor so much that is the challenge, it's recording the data, especially if it is 4K.

David... you are too funny. Wasn't it you who said earlier that the sensor was impossible? If it wasn't you, please forgive me. I heard it 10,000 times. It is so hard to keep track.

We still have our hands full. David is right. This is a tough project. Just the way we like it. But the biggest hurdle WAS the sensor. And we are excited to show what we are seeing from it.

Jim

On re-reading, what he actually said was: If it didn't live up to his expectations, "he would appear at NAB '07 without trousers". <_<

 

I'd love to see where you pulled this quote from. Or do you just make this stuff up?

 

Jim

Images from full 4k sensor were accomplished this week. See you all at IBC. I assume you'll be there Mr. Murdoch? I would hate to miss meeting you in person.

Jim

Correct. It is a small section of the large sensor to test both the sensor design and pixel design. Since we are doing things quite a bit different from the current group of existing sensors, we needed to prove the concept (which we did).

Forum leaders... take a stand. Either this is a sub-forum (then stop complaining about it) or take it down. The banter whether or not we are real is getting old. We'll move forward either way. We have finally received some useful info from this site, it is a shame that some can't recognize the importance of us including the community during the process rather than just presenting something we think is right and then hearing the group complain that we "just don't listen". If you think we are wasting your time, just turn the channel.

Jim

Richard... one of the reasons that HD cameras depreciate so fast is that everytime there is a new feature (sensor, codec, or other capability) you need to buy the next camera to get it. The RED camera is upgradeable (including sensor). The onboard recording (flash or drives) grow in capability with advancing technology. And the RAW output is designed to handle today's standards (dual fiber channel and Infiniband) while being open to future generations of high speed standards. The lens mounts are interchangeable so you will always have the flexibility of choosing past, current or future lenses. The body is designed to handle a wide assortment of accessories, with many mounting points for today and tomorrow. I haven't seen any of the above design philosophies in past HD cameras, so I think it is safe to say that it would be hard to put the RED camera in the same deprecation class as the others. Jim

Emanual... I am on your side. But in this particular case I have a different viewpoint. There is considerable work that Century did on their conversions besides adding a ring. All the internals are completely rebuilt, as is the shell. The focusing mechanism is converted and re-scaled for a longer throw (compared to SLR). And every piece is machined instead of molded. Another problem they faced is that they converted so few that there was no economy of scale to amortize the very expensive design work necessary for this extensive type of conversion. It is true that some can just add a ring to an SLR lens, but it is not the same as a full conversion.

My best. Jim

In all the posts on all these forums, all I'm reading is hyperbole, market speak and what is becoming diatribe with no solid concrete numbers. Just asking here.

The RED ONE camera body will be $17,500, including LCD (with a new focus assist system), and battery. There will be a 2.5" SATA slot that has several recording options. Cheapest will be a RED-Drive solution for under $1000. PL mount lenses can be found anywhere between $1000 and $300k for a complete Cooke set with a RED 300mm. You choose what you can afford. Our system will be "matt box and rods ready". We will not offer these as there are many companies in the industry to offer them. We have spoken with and will support a company that makes underwater housings. Our cages systems will not be expensive and will provide many shooting alternatives, from Steadicam to ENG style, to studio work. Add mics, monitors and other recording options as you wish. We will offer interchgangeable lens mounts if you wish to shoot something other than PL Mount and use lenses you already own.

Short answer, for just over $20K you can shoot and record 2k. Or you can build any kind of system you want... just like with every other camera, as your budget dictates.

Jim

Actually, that wouldn't be such an issue with a 35mm-sized sensor, since the lens only needs to focus as well as the optical low-pass filter will allow.

 

It's much more critical with 2/3" sensors or 16mm film.

 

Actually, a worthwhile option would be some sort of micro-actuated auto-focus. Not the sort of full auto-focus you get with a Handycam, but just something that can automatically "trim" the focus by a couple of percent for maximum sharpness. That would go a long way toward eliminating the perennial problems of trying to focus on an electronic viewfinder.

Oh, my! Productive, accurate and informative. Not a hint of disrespect. I love this post. Now I am all ears.

Jim

Dear Jim:

 

wot elz....? On behalf of everyone here, sorry for the abuse, but as they told me on my first day in USMC boot camp- SUCK IT UP, BUTTERCUP!

Thanks for the feedback.

In Boot Camp they say it to your face...

Jim

What will it be able to do for you that no actual working camera on the market cannot do now?

A lot, actually. I can't think of any 35mm DOF camera (with full frame sensor) that shoots 4k at 60fps (other than film cameras). Let alone 2k at 120fps. Or 1080p and 720P with 35mm DOF without adaptors. And 4k and 2k RAW, 4:4:4 or 4:2:2. There are digital cameras that do SOME of these, but not all. And the cameras that do SOME of these are not for sale. If they were, speculated prices are all above $250,000. Add in modularity, flexibility (interchangeable lens mounts for one) and UPGRADEABLE (including the sensor as technology advances) and the list shrinks to none. And these are just the top line advantages. Correct me if I am wrong... there are no other full frame 35mm sensor cameras that are for sale on the market.

Now, if you don't believe we can do it (the hope that Mr. Murdock clings to for some personal reason) that's OK. Sit back and watch. I'm looking from the inside and see all the pieces and feel comfortable enough to take reservations. Some the outside, who have no visibility whatsoever of what we are doing or the technical capabilities that we have, strongly believe that they can't see how we will be able to do it. Pick a side. No problem with me. The only issue I have is someone being disrespectful.

Jim

You might be surprised at the names of some DP's that have placed reservations.

Jim

Please read my posts. I didn't come here to promote our camera. I came here to ask for ideas. What I received was heckling. I do appreciate the many direct emails from this group with real suggestions. Some here actually have reservations.

It is funny. When companies ignore the suggestions of their customers, they get trashed on boards. When a company actually embraces suggestions from a board... it gets trashed.

Between cranks like you and Jim Murdoch, I'm amazed anybody bothers to post on this site at all. The genuine information you add to the discussion is completely wiped out by your jerkwater attitude.

Kim,

I agree. I'm particularly tired of one little mouse behind his big keyboard. I came here to ask for ideas, not idiotic banter. If any of you have suggestions you would like us to consider, please email us at 4k@red.com. Or visit some of the other forums where this stuff isn't tolerated.

Signing out.

Jim Jannard

RED

Mr. Murdoch... I'm starting to take this personally. I used a Private Message with you in hopes to aviod such foolish posts on your part. I deleted several of my posts on this thread to show good faith that I didn't want to engage you personally. Please check your facts (do a little research) before you post such nonsense.

Over 600 patents worldwide. Win every optics shootout in the industry by miles with XYZ patents. Successfully defended in court against the two largest industry companies (both over $10B market cap). Only half of Oakley's business is eyewear (including RX). I'd like to avoid making this personal. Please use PM to ask questions about things you are unsure of. I'll be happy to respond. Respectfully. Jim

To take this a little more seriously - part of the reason people are being cautious about this is that the camera market, at least in the position that you seem to be aiming your camera, has little in common with the market you're experienced in.

Truth be known, I have been involved in this industry a lot longer than the sunglass industry. I started shooting in 1974, started camera collecting in 1982 (two years before our 1st sunglass was released). I have over 1300 cameras to date and have shot almost every one of them. While many are still cameras, several hundred are not. I had experience with Arri's from the beginning, own Aaton's and Mitchells, 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm. I purchased one of the 1st Plumicon Betacams. Then a Digi-Betacam. Currently we have and use a Sony 900 HDCAM, Varicam, SR3, Fuji, Canon, Zeiss and Cooke lenses, plus a Smoke HD system and several FCP stations. I shot my 1st commercial with an Arri 535 in the early 1990's. I am surrounded by equipment capable of making almost every aspect of a camera, and a team of trained professionals from the industry, including electronics.

We really didn't "just decide" to go from sunglasses to high-end cameras over lunch.

BTW, if anyone is interested in a tour when you are in Southern California... let me know.

My best,

Jim

Does that give me more experience than Mr. Murdoch? :-)

If any of you have real suggestions on features, details or ideas that you would like to see incorporated in the camera feature set, please email 4k@red.com. I'm really more interested in ideas than trying to convince anyone here whether or not we have the expertise and funding to do this project.

My best to you all.

Jim

It is too early to say what all we plan on doing. We have a big list. But as soon as we commit it to a board and then don't deliver, we are in trouble. I will say that we are including a very innovative focus assit invention. 35mm DOF will be the big surprise for many who are not used to focusing such a large sensor. We know what all the problems are, know what many of the requests are, and are trying to fill up our camera with as many options as possible. Full specs and footage in the fall.

Jim

It was my call to "lock down" the cases. I didn't want to have our prototypes floating around or have to make a "yes" here and a "no" there if asked to pull them out. My final descision came after hearing that Sony had lost a 950 and other stuff had "walked out the door". We only had one of each thing with us and I just didn't want to hear any bad news. We took everything with us at night.

We do have a test sensor with the same design characteristics as our full size sensor. It works great. That is why we are comfortable saying it "does".

Jim

4k footage in the fall. Supervised shooting and comparisons from recognized industry super stars. Can't release names yet, but no one will question their independence.

Jim

"Great, wonderful, but one thing you can do to avoid the sort of criticism you've been getting is to not say "it performs", but "we anticipate it will perform" if you don't actually have one yet. One person on your NAB booth told me you had a finished sensor which fulfilled the spec; another person told me you haven't, which isn't terribly helpful."

Well spoken. We have a test slice sensor that performs exactly as expected. The full size sensor will be in our hands in a few weeks. That might explain different answers. I agree that in the customers eye we are nothing except hope without footage. It is just hard to contain the excitement because we see what the project looks like fom the inside.

The design is simple. Build the smallest form possible to hold 4k capable sensor and boards with onboard recording options and as many I/O capaibilities imaginable. Then provide several "cages" (only three rough ideas shown at NAB) to configure the body into a system that is flexible for as many applications as possible. The cages shown were each designed and prototyped in three days or less. We have 8 months to get them right and add several others. We talked to Steadicam operators to see what they need. We got ideas from several DP's that we are now taking to the design group. I think it is fair to say that we were clear that this program is "in development". We gave people a peek into the process. Nothing we showed is finished. Those that assumed it was might be disappointed in some of the executions. Those that saw a rough outline of the concept and realize that we are capable of listening and fine tuning our program seem truly pleased with the project. There are many phases of this project that need to come together. We have all the parts and pieces and are now working them around to get to the finished product. There is no question that we will have a more polished showing in a couple of months. More refined and adapted to the feedback we have received so far.

1st off, our 4k will not suck. I'd have killed the project if that was a starting premise. If it did suck... I'd have a LOT of EXPLAINING to do! Since it doesn't suck, I'm not sure why we would throw it away... especially since we deliver 2k scaled (35mm DOF) and 2k windowed @ 120 fps (needs S16mm lens for 16mm DOF or 35mm lens with 16mm DOF and 2x focal multiplier) for the indie filmaker if he/she finds it more convenient for now. And 4k is waiting in the camera whenever the filmaker needs it.

The sensor specs that everyone is relying on as the benchmark are for older designed sensors. The main reason we finally pulled the trigger on this project is ONLY because our sensor design performs dramatically better than current technology. 4k at 60 fps, >66db and high sensitivity from 5.4 micron pixels are real numbers that we haven't seen from a competitive product.

Yes to PL mount and accessories. LDS is a nice feature but not sure if we can integrate. Cooke's system is independant of the camera.

I agree with the HVX assessment. I actually think Panasonic did a good job getting a fairly good picture out of those small sensors. The problem they had was up-rezzing to get the specs. The noise issue is pixel size related. We won't have those problems.

Don't get me wrong. We have grabbed a tiger by the tail and he is wicked pissed off. He is either going to scratch our face off or sit quietly in the corner. We'll all know here in a few months.