Jim Jannard

Are the Bayer mask colors different on the new M-X sensor? What are the CIE 1931 (x,y) coordinates of the primaries?

 

-- J.S.

Bayer mask colors are a bit different on M-X but that is not the key difference. The color science, native sensor color to debayer color (Camera RGB to REDcolor) has been improved dramatically. It would have been more precise to have said that "getting M-X to match or intercut with film color is easily done now". It wasn't so easy early on...

There is one way that people can make matching film color virtually impossible. And many people have done this. Export RAW R3Ds to an RGB space (DPX, TIFF or ProRes) without White Balance. Color science is based on a proper WB. Then try to "fix" the color in a grading app. It is next to impossible. Not only have you sent a twisted color matrix to an app that can't fix it... often times you have thrown out highlight info in the process.

Best RED color grading options to match film or get any other result you want:

1st Choice. White Balance and grade native R3Ds in a system that supports the R3D SDK like Scratch, Pablo, Baselight, REDCINE-X, FCP, Color, Adobe CS4, Vegas, etc.

2nd Choice. After selecting the correct White Balance, output full range (REDlog or REDgamma) and full res debayer to DPX, TIFF or ProRes 444 from REDCINE-X/RED Rocket™. Open output in 3rd party grading applications.

Jim

Hello Jim,

 

I know I'm going to draw a bunch of heat on my head for this post. But, I think it's worth making.

 

Before I get rolling, I'd like to first say that you've been an, honest to God, good sport about me making fun with you. I'd admire that above all other things that I find admirable about you.

 

Here's where I have to square off with you. Answer #1. From a viewer's ability to differentiate film from digital you're right as rain. No argument possible. But, you're statement was that digital passes the resolution of film. That's just not correct. Film is a pan-resolution capture medium. The pixel size that digital currently and near-future has to offer is only as small as the biggest chunks measurably found on a film negative. Optical path prints are no defense because the things that make RED more and more viable are the things that support film origination as well (4K digital projection).

 

Beefs about scans (beyond those of cost) are no defense. Scan technology has always lead digital acquisition in resolution with no presumption that it won't continue up to a limit since the sensing technologies for it are improving at a pace a few steps ahead of DA. As well, scan technology can rock with no compression. Scan costs are coming down, resolution is going up and storage is getting really cheap. DA bottlenecks from current processing limits, even with storage costs being about the same game for both.

 

This thing that "the sky's the limit" on sensors is starting to show wear and tear. I'm getting hints from here alone that there are physical limits to CCD and CMOS sensors. Though, I don't know where that limit is. Even the sloth-like film manufacturers are showing that there stock improvements have room for growth. Just like sensors, I don't know where those limits are.

 

On the speculative side: Jim. Oh, Jim. If Kodak can get off it's a** and pull a cine HDRI out of it's hat? Especially one that uses the existing 6 layers (swiped that one from Dominic) of emulsion on one strip? Where you gonna' go? Splitters and 3 sensors needed to catch up with film's exiting high DR + HDR? Overscanning with processing bottlenecks?

Paul... I have no problems with squaring off in a respectful way. One of the biggest studios (which I have promised not to name) has conducted many tests on film resolution from a 4K scan. Their results show 3.2K from slow film and 2.8K from ASA 500 film. Compared to RED "old resolution"... the slow film matches at 3.2K. Compared to new debayer 4K RED... the RED has more resolution (3.5K). Now given that the new sensor can record 4.5K (measured almost 4K) and EPIC at 5K (measured well in excess of 4K)... it is academic. Proof is viewing. The same studio, along with another "big one" have both acknowledged that RED out-resolves a 4K film scan. If you would like to come see the results yourself... you are welcome to stop by.

EPIC has a legitimate HDR mode... which will be showcased at NAB (actually the Tropicana) in April.

Film cannot keep pace with digital. That is a fact. And those that think CMOS has an end to its capability are correct... but we are nowhere close to it.

A 400' load of film will not get any smaller, lighter, cheaper or easier to process. What was the equivalent to that (an 8GB CF card) is now 8X more powerful. The 64GB cards are now available. And 128 GB on the way. All are reusable. Hard to compete with.

Film does not submit to Moore's law. And the world is moving at a high rate of speed.

I love film. I just want to see film replaced with a worthy candidate. We are almost there.

Jim

So, er... to get back on topic how's RED Ranch actually going?

 

On another topic, what's the bet RED winds up buying Panavision?

(We respectfully request that Mr Jannard refrain from participating in this particular wager :lol: )

 

I'd like to offer my services as a consultant with regard to necessary staff cuts.

Fees to be negotiated, depending on what I can afford.... :P

And we are not buying Panavision.

Jim

So, er... to get back on topic how's RED Ranch actually going?

 

On another topic, what's the bet RED winds up buying Panavision?

(We respectfully request that Mr Jannard refrain from participating in this particular wager :lol: )

 

I'd like to offer my services as a consultant with regard to necessary staff cuts.

Fees to be negotiated, depending on what I can afford.... :P

I don't need to participate in any wager... it seems to me that any bet is really not "if" but "when". It appears that everyone agrees that digital will replace film. It won't replace film altogether but rather the majority. Exactly when that happens is just an over/under bet of a date.

The really important issue is whether digital will replace film properly. Can digital rise to film quality and above? I personally think there is no question about that. Digital already surpasses film in many ways, especially with these two new sensors (Arri Alexa and M-X). But I also agree that there is still a ways to go for digital to beat film in every aspect. Monstro is our next version that pays homage to film. And we have begun development of the one after Monstro.

It seems to me that digital will respectfully replace film when 4 things happen.

1. Resolution passes film. That has happened.

2. Color matches film. That has happened. You may not agree but I would say you are not informed (yet).

3. Dynamic Range exceeds film. While getting closer, that has not happened but will happen by next year.

4. There is no need to in-camera sharpen digital, which negates the "soft feel" of film. That has happened with the highest resolution digital capture cameras.

There are a few areas that digital has already significantly surpassed film. The ability to shoot in low light and the "cleanness of the image". Also, instant results and grading.

We believe that 4K delivery will be the next industry standard. Sony, Christie, Barco, Meridian and Epson projectors... and Panasonic, Sony, Sharp and Samsumg displays are proof. Film can be delivered in 4K. So can RED. I would encourage all the other digital camera systems to quickly step up. 1080P and 2K are not enough.

We have shown comparative images of 1080P, 2K and 4K from a 4K projector on a 40' screen to many in the industry. The common response is... 2K is NOT good enough.

Jim

Jim, I am clearly not romanticizing film's underexposure latitude; it's attrocious frankly. But it's overexposure latitude is phenomenal.

 

 

Digital has the opposite problem and still has problems with compressed dynamic range and artifacts.

 

 

I think that 4K DIs, for all parties concerned are a step up. That still doesn't solve the problem of color space though. I was watching some of my favorite 35mm scope trailers from the '90s and early 2000s yesteraday, and they destroy everything on film I've seen recently.

 

There's something about the saturation, colorspace, and grain pattern of a contacl print that is not met by current 2K or even 4K media.

 

And let's face it, 35mm film prints are going to be with us for at least another 10 years, for better or for worse. I've been to some theatres in the past month that still have slide projectors and ads on film.

Tony Pratt from Park Road Post presented at RED Day a few weeks ago and showed RED footage intercut with film for "The Lovely Bones". He said they had "no problem whatsoever matching color of RED to film". In fact, they had to "dumb-down" the RED footage to match the resolution of film... his words, not mine.

A film print is a different issue. I rarely see a good print in a theater anymore, mainly due to budget. Good news is a digital output always (mostly?) looks the same... even after being shown 100's of times. I do think that you may be surprised at how many directors don't agree with your point of view. I also disagree about your future view of the industry, however. Here's why.

A film print costs about $1,000 (and won't ever get cheaper). A studio releases 2 prints to 3,000 theaters for one feature film. That costs someone $6M. Two 4K RED Ray worm flash cards delivered to 3,000 theaters costs $200K. A new Sony T420 4K projector costs $150K. Studios and theaters are motivated by cost. I'd argue that if you saw what many have seen the past few weeks... you might actually welcome the change. Let's agree to disagree until you see it for yourself?

Jim

That is great to hear Jim, as I always scratch my head to the notion that we, mere mortals, DI at 2k rather than 4k.

Does this not also mean that charges in handling and storage also go up ?

I have to assume (always dangerous) that the extra 15% is for something because the original file size of the R3D (Compressed RAW "digital negative") is the same file for both outputs. Both 4K or 2K are graded directly from the R3D (not DPX files) realtime so there is no extra time/cost in grading. The only difference is the actual file size of the deliverable.

Jim

Knowing nothing of the innerworkings of the camera's software, I will venture a guess:

 

I bet there would only be one software "build" that contains libraries and code for both versions. Either during the install, or just as a function of the chip talking to the main processor, the camera will determine which chip it has and which set of instructions to load. But that would mean large sections of code are specific to one chip or the other, so in the future I assume a problem in one camera may not necessarily present in the other version, given the same build.

 

of course this is just a guess.

You are correct... there is a camera firmware Build 30 coming that works with both M and M-X sensors in a RED ONE. REDCINE-X, along with the SDK that has gone out to 3rd parties, supports both M and M-X footage in the same apps.

Jim

Quite a big difference between 2 hours of uncompressed 4K data for an edited feature and some 60 hours of uncompressed 4K data that a feature could shoot. It's not just storage, it's processing & playback speed.

 

And 4K is four-times the data of 2K. 4K D.I.'s will become more common, but they will generally be more expensive than 2K even if overall costs eventually drop, simply because post houses charge more to handle more data... and as long as that happens, producers often will opt for the cheaper price.

 

Compression is more popular than ever, so I don't see that going away.

The RED Rocket has leveled the playing field between 2K and 4K. It doesn't know the difference. RED Rocket is now integrated with Scratch, Pablo, Clipster and others...

A reputable DI company in LA told me that they now charge (only) 15% more for a 4K finish as compared to 2K. That includes film record, IP, IN, DCDM, DCP and all video deliverables.

Seems like an easy choice to me.

Jim

I disagree. I think that film worked on every level, in part by either before or after photography making the story take place in fall, where cloudy, grey skies are the norm.

 

 

And, you can certainly blow the skies out with film. Especially on a bright, sunny day, it is very easy to have a huge differential between the exposure for the subject and that of the sky.

I love the romance of film... but some give it more credit than is real. Like it never blows out or blocks up.

Digital needs highlight protection. Film needs shadow protection. Ever have to deal with blocked up shadows? Ever miss exposure on film?

Try shooting any film at ISO/ASA 1000 and tell me how useable that is.

I have said before that I love film... but I also know from experience that it is not a cure-all, snake oil or a panacea. (Is that redundant?)

I know there are a lot of film fans here, including myself. Film is great, but there is a tendency to over- romanticize it? Just a bit? I'm not trying to say that digital doesn't have its own issues... but film is not perfect either.

The trick is learning the capabilities and limitations of whatever you are shooting...

This should kick off 100 posts... :-)

Jim

I still don't care much for the EVF -- we were doing a slow pan at night and I asked the AC to do a stop-pull, and with all the bulky coats we are wearing, his sleeve bumped those three buttons on the EVF and switched the camera into RAW view, which since I was shooting at 1600 ASA, made everything go dark so I cut to find out what had happened. On my last RED shoots, we just disabled those buttons but they really are in the wrong place, it's too easy to grab the EVF there. And in extreme lighting situations, the EVF image starts acting weird, banding problems on snow, almost solarization around a bright sky, etc.

 

I know that's a minor thing unconnected to the image.

 

At night shooting into car headlights, on primes with no filters, there is a ghost image of the headlights near the top right of frame, sort of pinkish. I assume there is some sort of internal reflection going on between the IR/OPLF in front of the sensor and the back of the lens maybe.

 

Those were the only two annoyances, other than we discovered a thumbprint on the sensor once we got into night shooting. I suppose I could fingerprint everyone and track it down... either that or every Red goes out with Jim Jannard's personal thumbprint of approval on it! I mark this down as due to the rush to get the camera from NYC into Chicago and testing it immediately, causing a lack of basic prep on everyone's part.

 

IR problem seems minimized now and I didn't catch much of that sensor protection effect around points of light.

 

I'm still waiting to see all of the footage on a big HD monitor at a post house.

Thanks... we had known calibration issues that have been improved in the newest camera firmware. We'll make sure that camera gets it.

The new EVF has many improvements (starting with being 1/3 the size)... hope to begin shipping that fairly soon. Buttons are better and has built in heater.

Fingerprint on the sensor (OLPF actually) isn't an official part of manufacturing... :-)

There are still many things to do to finish up the new sensor program... but we hope we are pretty close. I'll have the guys take another look at the posted headlight issue. If we could get the R3D of any problem scene it would be helpful.

Jim

I'm testing a Red One with the new M-X sensor right now in Chicago, for a TV pilot I'll be shooting in March.

 

My initial impression is that the camera is vastly improved over what I worked with in the summer of 2008 on "Manure" and "Stay Cool".

 

I tested the camera in 3200K light (a SMPTE 11-step chart, and then a face with a MacBeth chart), at different ASA ratings from 250 to 3200 ASA.

 

The noise is extremely low all the way to 1000 ASA, and even above that, it's fairly mild. But what's important to note is how the noise LOOKS -- in 3200K, it no longer has that chunky blue noise look of the old Red sensor in earlier builds, it's a tight, smooth noise that is more like mild film grain -- the noise at 1000 ASA looks like the grain of a 200 ASA film stock.

 

The roll-off into the clipped highlights is smoother now, less artificial looking, and overall there seems to be wider dynamic range.

 

RedColor works better as a viewing format and RedGamma works great as an output format, much better than RedLog. The image has a nice film-like smoothness to it.

 

But what pleased me the most was the performance in low-levels of tungsten light, which was an important step.

 

2000 ASA was certainly usable, even 3200 ASA wasn't bad -- the jumps in noisiness as you rated the camera faster were less extreme than when boosting the gain on a video camera. Practically speaking, the new sensor makes the camera at least a stop faster than the F35 / Genesis due to the low noise floor, even if the actual sensitivity of the sensor isn't necessarily faster. In other words, 800 ASA on the M-X sensor reminds me of 400 ASA on a Genesis camera.

David... it sounds like your experiences matches that of others that have shot the new sensor. Do you have any negatives to report? We are anxious to improve.

Jim

Yeah, but all of the different manufacturers' IR ND, IR, and hot mirror filters have different properties, so testing and picking the right one/combination is a pain. And then each rental house probably carries a different brand. So it would be great if we could just eliminate them altogether and make the AC's life easier. ;)

Agree. Which is why we spent a lot of time to design a new OLPF that is better at IR blockage. We can confirm, as others now have, that the new sensor combo is much "safer" with NDs than the original sensor.

I have to say that we really had a lot to learn when we started this program. Many upgrades later... our program is much better than 3 years ago. RED is finally coming out of infancy. Many of the problems are being solved every day. While it is a bit premature to say that our program is mature... it certainly is much better. RED is not the same as yesterday. We still have many ways to improve, but I am comfortable that we are in a good place now. David's post seems to indicate that. Trust me when I tell you that we have worked very hard to improve every aspect of RED. And we haven't stopped just because we are getting a few good reviews.

This is a RED thread. It is about sharing info and suggestions. If we weren't interested to do better, we should be ignored. Our "cowboy" entrance was probably not the best way to begin, but I hope that our improvement over time on a regular basis will, at some point, earn real feedback and suggestions.

Jim

Have you considered some sort of IR warning system?

You could have a function that detects a color balance shift between two different levels of ND, indicative of excessive IR "pollution", and post a suitable warning.

Keith... difficult trick but the boys continue to look at it.

My thought in the meantime was to do a White Balance with no filter and another with the ND in to see if there was a major change. The problem is you'd have to look at the whole image because some parts of the image may show no IR contamination (like a white polyester fabric) and other parts could show alot...like black cotton dyed fabrics. I still like the idea because it could also be used to check if your filter has a color bias in addition to being an IR filter.

One thing is certain... and tests have proven out, the new sensor and OLPF filter does a much better job with IR contamination. 1.2 ND should be no problem and 1.8 is significantly better than with the original sensor.

Jim

You just click on "insert image" button, (just under the "Fonts" box above the reply/post window) and paste in the location where the of the image is stored.

If your storage site doesn't allow hot linking, (ie displaying its stored images on pages other than its own) you can store your image a free site such as ImageShack which does.

 

Have you considered some sort of IR warning system?

You could have a function that detects a color balance shift between two different levels of ND, indicative of excessive IR "pollution", and post a suitable warning.

Keith... you and I have no gotten along very well in the past. I'll take this post as a good sign.

It really is a good idea... I'm checking with the boys to see if it is possible.

The new M-X sensor has a new OLPF that performs much better with IR, but knowing is better than guessing.

If Reagan and Gorbachev could figure it out...

Jim

There are some new changes coming with the new FLUT Science camera builds... which will start with Build 30. Your meter now matches the camera. Incident metering will match mid grey. Additional changes include a new histogram with "goal posts" on either side of it. The "goal post" on the left tells you when you are nearing the noise floor in RAW. The "goal post" on the right tells you when you are clipping RAW. If you keep exposure between these "goal posts"... you are OK and have a lot of elbow room in post. If you light up either side, you are one button away from bringing up RAW Check. That is a new False-color-like overlay screen that shows you exactly what is clipping (in red) or in the noise floor (purple)... so you can decide if it matters.

So let's say you are outside, incident meter T4 (probably have NDs). You set that and look at the LCD. Looks good. But you have just lit the right goal post. You do a Raw Check and see that a small specular highlight on the chrome bumper is red (which means clipped). You can choose to ignore it (reasonable) or you can stop down until the red goes away and lift the rest in post (also reasonable). The good news is you see exactly what you are going to get. What you see on the LCD is what will open in post.

The new sensor is 2 stops+ less noisy than the original sensor... so you can lift under-exposed footage without pain, shoot much higher ISO/ASA and get clean images.

The new color science to select is REDcolor and REDgamma. If you want the "flat neg" option, you can use REDcolor and REDlog in post.

If you have interest to test the new color science, REDCINE-X is now up on www.red.com/support for both Mac and PC. If you need files to download, I can set up a link. If I can figure out how to attach a jpeg here, I'll post what the new U/I looks like.

Jim

With all due respect, REDCINE-X is great and free, but "early BETA software" can be only tried and not used for any serious project if it gets updated every second day with something else.

 

The only software which we indies can afford to grade properly on in a proper workflow is Apple Color and we yet have to see the new Color Science implemented there (which is I guess very soon) - so we for example didn't get access to the new color science in post yet because of this limitation. We just can't deal with "one light" in redcine-x beta and then take it to DPX and then to Color if the build might be crashing etc. - no good for a 90 minute movie with deadlines. The workflow in Color is great, but I can only listen to how great results people are getting playing around with REDCINE-X, but for proper finishing I can't really use the NCS yet.

 

So I don't know if it's so good to point people to BETA software without stating that, maybe that's another reason for the frustration. If the post production tools are not streamlined and up to date for everybody it's the same as not available. The same happened with the BETA firmwares and the RELEASE firmwares, people in commercial enviroments couldn't use the NCS although everybody was talking about how good it was. In the real world, you couldn't use it. Just can't go into a feature film with a BETA software that might render 50% of the RED drives out there useless unless you have them serviced.

 

I understand that this whole BETA testing is voluntary and such but RED is advertising all those great new achievements, but most of them are in BETA. So until they go into a release build it's such a big risk to use them on a proper movie and thus they are not really features yet. Not everybody has the ressources of Peter Jackson or Soderbergh to surround themselves with the best of the best that can make everything work.

 

So if I understand correctly the only software where you can actually use the new FLUT and new color science is the beta redcine-x. I think by advertising beta features a lot of anger has been brought upon RED.

This is a reasonable complaint... part of the problem of moving so fast. As to not being able to use these tools on a serious project, David Fincher is using REDCINE-X on "The Social Network" and Soderbergh is on "Knockout" as we speak. Scratch supports the new SDK as does Pablo in 4K. Others are coming on quick. But your point is valid. It is the dark side of RED. On the other hand, we get great feedback from our customers during the process which speeds up our learning curve.

Jim

The Moore's Law reference wasn't intended to be literal... but here is an example of what I meant. The RED ONE was released with 8GB Compact Flash cards that recorded the same time (at 24fps) as a 400' film load. Today we are packaging 64GB CF cards that record the equivalent of 8- 400' loads. Film is not going to get smaller, lighter, cheaper... digital can. There are many other parts of the digital program that lean in this direction, especially sensors and data processing inside the cameras.

As the migration continues... it puts pressure on film stock companies to afford the development they need to do to continue to improve the film stocks.

I stand corrected that both Canon and Nikon haven't discontinued their stills film cameras... apparently only Canon has. I just had seen a new Nikon body in awhile... but the point still seems clear to me that not much is happening in the way of development, which usually predicts the future.

I agree with the hope that film stock will always be around along with processing labs. Mitchells and Arris will still work... that is for sure.

Jim

Why must this be so? Why can't there be a future that includes film?

Maybe I should clarify... when I say "films days are numbered" I mean that every year more and more film projects are switching to digital... not the other way around. Film use is shrinking. And I don't see any way to reverse the trend. Just like with stills cameras. Motion has trailed the stills world because it is much harder to get the frame rates up in digital capture and the dynamic range that film possesses, without sacrificing the "feel" of film. But it is coming. I believe that the only way to buy a film stills camera today is to buy one from old stock. I don't believe Canon or Nikon has current production of a film camera. That is telling.

The really important question is will the digital motion capture cameras provide a worthy replacement? Our fear was that digital cameras vastly inferior to film would "take over". Our goal is to try to match or exceed film's capabilities before the transition is complete. The one remaining obstacle is dynamic range... and that is coming.

Film doesn't submit to Moore's Law. That doesn't bode well for the future of film in a fast changing world. As much as we all love it... it's days are numbered. Film will be available for many years to come but its use will shrink every year. We can only hope for an alternative that is respectful of film's characteristics. That's what we are trying to accomplish.

Jim

Where do I find that button on my Mitchell?

At the film processing and scanning station. Where else?

Jim

Instead of offering marketing about who is using the camera how, I recommend offering how we can best use the camera, honestly why certain things are coming up, and how we can address them in the real world situations we find.

Probably the smartest post of the thread...

Just in case anyone really wants to know... there are two primary things people seem to be doing to get less than desired results.

1. Do a half-res debayer (because it is faster) to 2K or 1080P, convert to an RGB codec and finish from there. If you do that, you have thrown out a ton of captured info before you started. Do a full res debayer (now the only thing you can do with a RED Rocket) grade and scale at the finish.

2. Bad color. Color science is tied to White Balance. Make sure you correctly WB before converting to any RGB space for grading. If the WB is off, you will have difficult time getting color right. The farther off you are, the more difficult it will be.

REDCINE-X is free. It has the new FLUT Color Science that works with all RED footage, including original R3Ds shot three years ago. The actual color science is much better. We are learning. Use REDcolor and REDgamma... which now uses the full range of info captured. Try grading old footage with the new science. That is the power of RAW. As the tools get better, you can get better results from old footage... just like with a film scan.

Jim

First of all Jim claims that his camera is a 4K system but because it has aliasing artifacts caused by a Bayer filter a low pass filter has to be installed that reduces the resolution to 3.2K. But remember this is only the luma resolution of the camera. The chroma resolution of the red and blue channels are only 2K and the low pass filter further reduces it to 1.6K before the upconversion algorithm tries to restore the lost data.

 

Second Jim claims that his camera is not a video camera which implies that it is a replacement for film. Yet all the images are captured by pixels in a matrix of square tiles just like any other video camera with the only difference being it captures the data in a raw format. So if in order to emulate the random grain pattern of film or the rod and cone pattern of the human eye a mathematical algorithim must be used which causes the cartesian coordinates to be converted to space variant logarithmic polar coordinates. However this mathematical translation results in a 16 fold resolution loss with the result that the 4K image is reduced to 1K.

Thomas... you explanation just doesn't match reality... the projected RED images at 4K, out-resolve the best 4K scanned film images and every other digital cinema camera in the industry. Not sure how you explain that. Not sure what else we can do to dispel the misinformation.

If you are saying that RED is a 1K camera, then scanned film (4K scan) must be less... because the RED has more resolution. Pick a path and stick to it. Either way you want to measure, resolution is not an issue with RED.

You have put words into my mouth about implying that RED IS a film replacement. While that is the goal, I have stated here quite a few times that RED was started to be a film alternative. As soon as we break down the remaining shortcoming of dynamic range (which is now closer than ever), RED could be considered a possible film replacement camera. Today, RED out resolves 35mm film. That is easy to see. Even today, film and RED are being intercut in features. Park Road Post said that they had to "dumb down the RED footage to match the film" in The Lovely Bones. Color and skin tones are no longer an issue... they are being matched every day on projects. We showed our reels to 6 different groups in the last three weeks at RED Studios and mostly what we heard was "filmic". RED does no in camera sharpening, which is a big difference from all other video cameras. That coupled with several other things we do different is the reason why. The groups viewing the footage included CML, ASC, and DCS.

I/we would love to post here... but this has been a hostile arena since day one. My strong reactions no doubt have helped perpetuate the negative vibe. I'm more than willing to take a chill pill and try again, but not if met with continued badgering. Stephen has to decide how much crap is going to be tolerated in posting from both sides. I'm OK either way, but am certainly willing to give it another try. This board can continue to be the offset or really become a point of information about RED. You guys make the call.

A final note... I love film. I have said this in all the presentations. But film's days are numbered. What I didn't want to see is it being replaced with a bunch of 2/3" cameras that have a burned in RGB codec outputting in camera over-sharpened video-looking images. Our goal has always been to create, develop and improve a worthy film alternative... and ultimately a possible respectful replacement. If we have forced the other companies to step up... then we have also done our job.

I did not start RED as a business investment. I am a camera fanatic. Most of you know that I am a bit obsessive-complusive. I own over 1000 cameras and have been shooting for over 37 years. As for my credentials, while I don't claim to be the best of anything, I shot every Oakley ad for 20 years (on film). Two commercials are posted on Oakley's website shot in the early 1990's... on an Arri. I don't in any way mean this to be puffing... just to point out that my intentions come from a good place, not as "management". The passion I have for this stuff often gets me in trouble. But it is passion that drives RED, not money.

Let me know if you want me to continue to post here. I'll try to do my part to be more respectful to all and count to 10 before my replies.

Best.

Jim

Here is the quote:

Thanks... I couldn't find that one. Now I feel better about being a sunglass salesman. :-)

Jim

I stand by the quote, for all the reasons I've told you again and again.

 

What I didn't at any time do was state the unqualified opinion that you had a 1K camera. I've said many times you might have had a pretty good 2K camera. What you still don't have is a 4K camera. Clear yet?

 

I'm really not going to be drawn into a misquoting fight with a sunglasses salesman, you can try all you like.

 

P

Actually we do. The M-X sensor RED ONE at 4.5K measures 4K resolution. That is clear.

"Go and look up the actual quote - it's on this forum somewhere - and get back to me." I am getting back to you. I copied and pasted from your original quote. Hard to mis-quote this way.

As usual... this has turned downstream. But at least the mis-information is cleared up.

Back to your regular program.

Jim

No, I really didn't.

 

And no, I'm not going to spend time responding with even the faintest eloquence to such pathetically transparent attempts to smear. Go and look up the actual quote - it's on this forum somewhere - and get back to me.

 

P

Phil... that is the actual quote from you. With date. I can understand you not wanting to have said that.

Jim

No, I didn't.

 

P

Phil, you argued with Graeme at IBC 2006 that RED was a 1K camera... then posted this on Nov. 1, 2006:

- It isn't a 4K camera. It's a 2K camera. It's a Bayer sensor. Calling it a 4K camera is like calling a DSR-570 HD. This is also lying. -

Turns out it is a 4K bayer camera that has a measured resolution of greater than 3.2K (80%). Since there are no 1080P cameras that measure clean resolution greater than 80-85% of 1080P (that we can find)... it seems fairly consistent with what the industry deems acceptable as a ratio or file size to measured resolution. Additionally, ASA 100 35mm film measures 3.2K from a 4K scan (same ratio). The more widely used ASA 500 35mm film stock measures 2.8K from a 4K scan.

I do agree that the numbers are not as important as the image... however we do feel the need to clarify the facts when misinformation is posted.

It did seem too quiet here for the longest time...

Jim