Jim Jannard

We are using a new methodology that lands read/reset somewhere between a global shutter and a typical CMOS rolling shutter. Closer to a global shutter, especially if you look at something like the HV20. We'll publish read/reset specs.

Jim

Looking into it...

Jim

Hi Rory,

 

Totally bizarre, to make ENG crews or Nikon lens users more comfortable?

 

Stephen

How about cost? If you want T-stops, buy some Cooke or Zeiss glass. Our 5 lens prime set costs less than one Zeiss Master Prime. Our zoom costs 1/6th the price of an Optimo. We are building a very sharp set of digitally corrected lenses with the idea of getting glass into the hands of many. Really not so bizarre...

Stephen... you in charge here?

Jim

It is very worrying from a CG standpoint, though - which is a shame on a camera which would otherwise lend itself well to shooting plates. It is very unusual to find a cinematography camera with a rolling shutter, though - I suspect this may be the only one.

 

Phil

Not sure if you actually read my post. Ours is a solution you have not seen before. And ALL film cameras have "rolling shutters". I assume they are usable for cinematography? It amazes me the conclusions that people draw out of thin air.

Jim

Every film camera has motion blur... that is why there is a suggested "do not exceed" panning speed. Arri's is different from Panavision... the shutters enter the frame from different directions. Rolling shutters in most CMOS sensors produce more "skew" than film cameras. Some are intolerable depending on the read method. We use a unique methodology. Our read is faster than most CMOS devices and a bit slower than most film cameras, but closer to film than conventional CMOS devices. We do not think that anyone will complain about the skew in our cameras, unless you really want to magnify the difference and make it a problem. My bet is that some here will attempt to do that. That would be in contrast to the cinematographers that want to use the RED camera for what it does better than film. I have always said that there are advantages to film and advantages to RED. We don't hide from the differences. The one main differences is that film is not likely to ever get much better at anything going forward. The development curve has pretty well run its course. Digital Cinema is quite the opposite. The remaining issues are being worked on feverishly... dynamic range and read/reset. In the future, digital will always have more resolution, provide a cleaner image and will be much easier to work with. My bet is the dynamic range issue will be matched in a couple of years or less. One of the reasons that the sensor in our camera is upgrageable. Read/reset will actually swing in favor of CMOS within the next year. The read/reset will be faster than film cameras in the next generation. The question will be if it should actually be slowed down to maintain the "filmic feel". Good news is that this is easy to do.

Jim

You were promoting a camera system that is heavily dependent on the REDCODE software you were writing for it, which was and probably still is, under development. To me that comes under the definition of "vaporware".

Carl... REDCODE is done and patents filed. "Crossing the Line" was shot with REDCODE. We may continue to tweak it as time goes along, but it is ready to go. Does that still fall under your definition of "vaporware"?

Jim

I don't think it is accurate at this point to call a camera that is shipping to customers in a month or so, "vaporware". It is not uncommon for new technology to be a little late compared to the originally announced shipping date.

 

It's also strange that some of the people who said that the RED camera would be difficult to develop in only one year (including myself) are now making a big deal about the delay in release. Even if it comes out three months late, it's still practically a year ahead of a typical turnaround schedule for a new camera design. So I don't even see this as a "delay" -- I see it more as reality catching up when trying to do something so advanced and get it right. But it's definitely way beyond anything like vaporware -- they didn't show up at NAB 2007 with a wooden body painted black like some manufacturers do.

 

Now I do think some people who planned their lives, or their feature shoots, around a camera being shipped exactly on the day originally announced were somewhat naive or inexperienced, or just plain overly optimistic. I certainly don't plan an upcoming shoot around new product release dates.

I was very happy to see David at NAB and glad he had time to watch "Crossing the Line". I also agree that it is not prudent to plan a project around a schedule that has always had the tagline "things can change at any time... count on it". We have been very careful NOT to lock anything down. We have always given specs "that can change, and probably will" and an "estimated" schedule. This is our 1st camera and we did/still do have a lot to learn. For example, the cage/rail system has changed TWICE since NAB (for the better).

We appreciate everyone's patience. This is not an easy trick.

Jim

The big problem with the RED phenomenon is not the mfg production delay but the firestorm of hype the inventors created around their vaporware product, causing massive distraction for potential buyers who would have otherwise moved along with their upgrade plans.

So Robert... what do you make of Sony's recent announcement of a 4K camera, with a two year development plan? That seems a bit disruptive to their 2/3" customers considering buying an F23. How many other camera manufacturers "hype" their future cameras that won't be released for a year (or more)? I think you are confusing "hype" from "announcement". Either we all are hyping or we all are announcing. And I prefer to think that we are causing a massive change to the industry as opposed to a massive distraction. I think your "vaporware" terminology needs a definition. Do you believe that we will not put this product on the market? Or that we are just speaking of it before its release?

Jim

and he told me he heard the chip you used for the NAB footage was taken out of some other camera.

This has to be the single dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life...

Jim

Just to be clear.It is my understanding that you executive produced that short. I have a feeling you financed it then? It wasn't Jacksons choice or his dp's choice to use the camera it was something you bought with the included condition being that they use the RED proto right?

This kind of stuff is what makes me want to stay off this board. PJ had placed an order(s) for RED cameras last year. Peter invited us down to shoot test footage so he could be included in development and on the workflow. Peter volunteered to shoot this movie. We had no idea what type of test footage he would shoot when we showed up in NZ. And he has since upped his order for cameras. You can try to paint this some other way, but you would be wrong.

Jim

So Carl and Werner... it sounds like your position is that any cinematographer that uses RED is really NOT a worthy cinematographer? And their work should be discounted because they chose another medium besides film?

As for marketing tactics... we said we had someone shooting our NAB fotage but couldn't say who it was. At that point we were called down for "hyping". As it turned out, Peter Jackson shot the footage, which turned out to be a mini-movie. I don't think ANYONE felt like we had over-hyped the reality of what we showed. It is really hard to stay quiet here about what is happening because of all the "real men won't shoot RED" posts.

Here is the good news for you. You can shoot film all you want. The good news for us is that no matter how married to film you are, we are going to build and finish this camera. And we will continue to improve it over time.

Jim

I fully expect even big-budget Hollywood films to be shot on the Red, after all they have shot on the F900, Viper and Genesis as well and are looking at the Dalsa too.

 

But I'm very curious if those films actually go uncompressed or shoot Redcode.

Every single one (so far) is planning on shooting REDCODE RAW. I think "Crossing the Line" changed a lot of minds on what compressed raw can look like. There is no reason to carry huge drives around unless there is a meaningful visual advantage.

Before we will accept an order for a RAW Port, we will make sure that the customer has seen a side by side comparison and just isn't assuming that uncompressed is better. REDCODE RAW looks as good, shoots on portable media, is much easier to clone for backup, and has several very convenient workflow options.

Jim

I am quite happy to allow that the RED could be a great benfit to videographers, but cinematographers, no.

I guess you will be quite surprised at what films will be shot with RED this year...

Jim

They are not blown out on the 4k... but if your point is that film has more dynamic range, that is correct.

Jim

You could shoot a movie with it, as much as you could shoot a movie with a Viper.

Many would disagree with you here, even discounting the full frame 35mm vs. 2/3" sensor size.

They're JPEGs, so it's hard to make any very critical judgments (which in itself makes me suspicious), but what strikes me is this: it looks like it's all been slightly unsharp-masked. This is an artifact typical of DSLR owners with feeble cameras trying to make very large prints look better in Photoshop, and it is somewhat effective.

Agree that critical judgment is hard to make on a jpeg. No sharpening done in Photoshop (or anywhere in the process) as you would suggest. Demosaic has changed several times since this posting.

 

However.

 

It is also an artifact typical of overoptimistic de-mosaic work, to the point that here I think it may have been processed so much to get every last iota of information out of it, that it's actually been damaged by the effort. The dark suspicion I can't avoid here - and honestly, only because the Red people have been so vocal about it - is that it has exactly the problem that I (and anyone who can count) said it would have, in that you can't make a very convincing 4K picture out of a 4K bayer array.

You won't get any support on this from anyone who has seen the footage.

But I want to see TIFFs or something more concrete.

Maybe you would have a different point of view.

The one that particularly alarmed me is here:

 

http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/009000.jpg

 

Look at the crosspoints on the mesh on his helmet.

What exactly?

Phil

Again... Alpha prototypes that produced an image that all said looked fantastic at NAB on a 4K projector. But we are already much further along since then.

Jim

Phil... the only thing you have forgotten to mention is that these were shot with Alpha prototypes (from two months ago) and we have been quick to point out that we had a lot of work still in front of us. We choose to be open about the process, including showing work from unfinished prototypes. You criticque is valid, but only if you consider what I have just said. We have come a long way since then. Your skeptcism remains valid until we post newer.

Jim

All we need now Jim is the abilty to edit it on aN ORDINARY PC Not just FCP on a mac! and then my next request will be some dilithium chrystals! AMAZING stuff.

REDCINE supports both Intel Mac and Windows XP.

Jim

Just to give everybody a mind-twist, we are now recording 4K REDCODE RAW (same as was used by Peter Jackson in shooting "Crossing the Line") to compact flash extreme 4. An 8GB card holds about 4 1/2 minutes of 4K at 24fps. We also got our 48GB 2.5" flash drive up and running. That is about 30 minutes of recording. The 96GB RED RAM (Flash RAID) records for about an hour. The 320GB RED DRIVE (mini RAID) records for about 3 hours. Just so you know.

And no, it is NOT film... it's RED.

Jim

Richard... you might dig a bit deeper before posting.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?...mp;postcount=46

There is a bit more control over there. This guy just wanted to pick a fight. Check user name.

Jim

RED is a money making venture...

Jim

Hi Jim,

 

I only asked because the no. of films taking 100M + at the Box Office is fairly small. Therefore the no. of cinematographers shooting those films who have personally ordered a Red camera is under 1% of reservations & orders to date. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions.

 

Stephen

Stephen... not sure what you really are getting at here. There are lots of $100M+ movies over the years... but yes, under 1% of the people, but over 1% of the units. Some of the movies coming up where RED is planned to be used are over $100M budget, not box office.

Some orders were placed prior to seeing the footage, some after. Some that had orders before seeing the footage ordered more cameras after seeing the footage. I think it is safe to say that the Peter Jackson footage had a tremendous impact on many high profile cinematographers and dp's. One director with more than one $100M box office hit upped his order to 16 cameras after seeing the PJ footage.

Jim

The RED camera is being used on a big budget project in Prague right now (Wanted)... with consequences I guess.

As for the names, we don't have permission to say other than Peter Jackson. But I think that will change in the next month.

A month ago, if I said we had a high profile director shooting our NAB footage... my bet is that there would have been skeptics if we didn't give out his name.

Jim

Its still not going to compete with film from the publics point of view. At least not on what I have seen so far.

The truth is if I was going to make a feature film today I would use a 35mm camera.

I guess the key phrase is "at least not on what I have seen so far". You certainly can shoot your feature on film. Still doesn't explain why so many high profile cinematigraphers ($100M-$1.8B box office) have orders for RED.

This is a great life... you can continue to shoot film and I can continue to make this camera. Both of us will be just fine.

My best,

Jim

Mark... I guess I don't understand why so many high profile cinematographer's have RED cameras on order.

Jim

RED footage is NOT film. The post of RED vs. film was really intended to be a comparison of the two, not one is better than the other (although the headline admittedly implies controversy). They are different.

What I heard from just about everyone at the NAB screening was that our footage looked very "filmic". We heard that it doesn not look exactly like film, but it does not look like video either. It has a "feel" to it that is lacking from most other digital video systems. We have gone to great length to achieve this "feel". Our footage does not have grain, for better or worse. It also does not have the dynamic range of film (although we are working on that). Our workflow is designed to be much easier than working with film. REDCINE got rave reviews from the most hardened critics. And the fact that Apple is supporting REDCODE RAW in FCP6 makes for two compelling workflow possibilities.

We entered this market to provide a film alternative... not a replacement for film. Most cinematographers that are already dabbling in digital seemed happy that they have a better alternative to existing cameras. And we have won over several to consider RED as a real alternative to film. That is all we ever hoped for.

There is one movie in production that will use both. There are several big budget films planned to be shot with a RED camera later this year. But there are still 100's that will be shot on film.

We are still in development. We will continue to be for many years. Each new sensor rev. will increase dynamic range and every update will make our camera more useful.

Jim