Greg Lowry

RED will reportedly have the capability to do in-camera scaling of its 4K image to 2K output, thus using the full sensor for both 4K and 2K capture while maintaining the same image magnification of S35 format lenses for both 4K and 2K-scaled capture.

 

In the 2K windowed mode, however, the sensor is cropped to about S16 format dimensions so lens image magnification will be greater when using S35 format lenses.

The first part of my post is not longer correct. RED has changed the format specs.

RED will reportedly have the capability to do in-camera scaling of its 4K image to 2K output, thus using the full sensor for both 4K and 2K capture while maintaining the same image magnification of S35 format lenses for both 4K and 2K-scaled capture.

 

In the 2K windowed mode, however, the sensor is cropped to about S16 format dimensions so lens image magnification will be greater when using S35 format lenses.

The first part of my post is not longer correct. RED has changed the format specs.

2. Could someone explain to me how RED (or so I've herd) maintains the proper angle on a given lens even when shooting 2k. Lets say I can use the same 50mm lens to shoot at a normal angle in 2k mode. Or am I misunderstanding and this 50mm lens become effectively a 100mm telephoto lens?

RED will reportedly have the capability to do in-camera scaling of its 4K image to 2K output, thus using the full sensor for both 4K and 2K capture while maintaining the same image magnification of S35 format lenses for both 4K and 2K-scaled capture.

In the 2K windowed mode, however, the sensor is cropped to about S16 format dimensions so lens image magnification will be greater when using S35 format lenses.

Looking forward to seeing the movie, David. Congratulations!

I'm afraid to say anything, because I am fairly new here, and I know I'm going to get harassed for saying ANYthing, but here I go:

 

From what I read, your all complaining about peoples opinions, and last time I checked, this was America where we can have opinions. Also, I dont know too much about the RED camera or what happened at the "break-in", but from what I read, no one really seemed to ask Jim Jannard about the actual break-in before he left. You all just seemed to assume and speak without getting some facts, which is your right, but it caused plenty of bashing and arguing.

 

Why can't we be friends? LOL :D

 

Brendan...

Hi Brendan,

Please be careful about terms like "you all" because this forum, like the others, is comprised of individuals with varying opinions.

Greg

Once again, we have no indication RED will stop the first batch at a hard number. All we know is that RED will stop taking reservations on Oct. 31. What happens after that is anyone's guess. Maybe RED will introduce a new pre-order program, with prices raised. Maybe yields on the sensor aren't that great, and RED will only be able to make 100 cameras a month off the bat, and they don't want a huge backlog. Maybe RED plans to start production runs of 5,000 units each in May, so reserving won't be necessary.

 

We've really got no idea, and it's unproductive to try to draw useful conclusions about RED's business model merely from the fact that the current reservation program will end this month.

To which I would add: who cares? RED says they'll make as many cameras as they can sell.

Speaking from knowledge of other highly-touted and much-anticipated camera systems that had reservation deposit programs, I can tell you that 600 reservation may only translate into 50 actual sales. Remember the reservations are fully refundable no matter whether RED delivers or not. When someone's number comes up they may decide to back out. The harsh reality is that most do.

It'll be interesting to see RED's ratio of reservations to sales ... not that we'll ever know the precise numbers, but there will be anecdotal info.

You don't think that at 17 grand and with the fuss RED is causing that rental houses won't be picking some up?

Otto Nemenz has reserved 5, I believe. Probably others too.

My point is that when counting cameras, 1 reservation is most likely to be 1 camera. If RED says they have 600 reservations, that's 600 cameras, not 635. I'm sure Otto Nemenz would be very unhappy if he didn't get 5 RED "Rs" for his $5k.

No, there was no flashing and hardly any filtering -- it was shot on 5247 (100 ASA) stock processed normally, not pushed like "Barry Lyndon", "Full Metal Jacket", "Eyes Wide Shut" were because they wanted a pristine look. Mostly what you are seeing in terms of milkiness is lens flare from the bright windows and practicals, especially with any shots made using a zoom. Or you are seeing some aging of the negative causing the blacks to be lifted, or the projection at the Rialto has trouble getting decent blacks (a common problem at some art house cinemas.) A few shots may have used a Low Con filter to reduce contrast, also causing some increased flare and milkiness.

The same milkiness/flare is evident in a few scenes in FMJ, especially in the first barracks scene with the bright windows blowing out and serving as backlight. This is one of Kubrick's visual trademarks.

Remember, a single reservation can hold up to 5 cameras.

1 reservation = 1 camera is more likely.

post deleted by writer

When Canon first showed this lens to the Motion Picture Research Council, it was shown with a pair of Canon

anamorphic macrozoom prototypes, a 40-135 T4.5 and a 60-200 T4.5, and a 30mm anamorphic prime that focused to a half meter.

 

They were fairly compact, smaller than the spherical zoom.

 

The MPRC had commisioned the anamorphics. When they were informed that Canon would be using flourite elements, that asked Canon to also make a spherical zoom prototype.

 

This is in an AC article from the 70s.

 

While the spherical zoom was an after thought, it's the one that went into production.

& there was an anamorphic rear attachment.

 

But what became of the anamorphic prototypes? I'm guessing there was only one set.

Canon? The MPRC? Ed diGiulio?

Although the late, great Ed diGiulio had a most interesting collection/accumulation of stuff, my guess would be Canon, especially if the lenses were prototypes.

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but what is RED? It has it's own forum here (which I don't really visit,) so I imagine it is of some significance. Production company? Anyone...?

Bill, your question may be the only one asked here in weeks that has not resulted in a fight. Welcome.

Well, all I have to say about it is that I will apoligize for doing the same thing when I hear the RED-heads apoligize for blaming well respected companies like Canon, Sony, DALSA, Panavision, and etc. of industrial espionage. That was just as bad, if not worse, than implying that the break in was a hoax.

It's a pity that you don't seem to grasp that someone else's inappropriate accusation doesn't mitigate your own.

You're right. I was presuming you were a grown up. Your nasty, childish posts prove otherwise. Let's act like adults, and leave each other alone, as I already asked you to do offline.

I'm happy to let other readers of this thread decide whose posts are nasty and childish. And even more pleased not to respond to your posts again.

Don't be. You also shouldn't be sucked in by one member of a company offering a reward on this forum, while at the same time someone else from the company is insinuating on a different forum that they already do know who's responsible. It's insulting to play the members of this forum for a bunch of suckers. One should question the motivation for any aspect of this matter being posted in the first place. Your obsession with this guy's wealth is beyond ridiculous.

You're the one who previously questioned his wealth. I simply stated the facts as recently published. Mr. Jannard's wealth IS of consequence to the RED project because it means that the financial resources are available to complete the project, and it renders ridiculous any suggestion that Mr. Jannard intends to "run off" with $500,000-$1,000,000 in RED reservation deposits. Those insinuations are ridiculous, insulting, and potentionally libelous.

I haven't reserved a camera, but I would have absolutely no hesitation in paying a $1000 deposit (or more) to RED. And I dare say my life, business, and financial experience far exceeds yours. I don't need someone like you to advise me on anything. Nor, I dare say, does anyone else. The only reason I have not yet reserved several cameras is that I want to use them for stereoscopic work and I'm not yet sure if they're appropriate. I've decided to wait.

Presuming to tell other people what to think is just that ... presumptuous.

It's inconceivable that anyone could make a statement like that with a straight face. C'mon. You were kidding...right? Come to think of it, only an "addlepated fool" would put a deposit on something that was still in R & D. That's a terrible business practice, fraudulently preying on the naive. Perhaps your indignation should be focused more on the perpetrators, rather than those who're merely pointing it out. Swallowing everything someone tells you, especially regarding such things as their massive personal bank account (which shouldn't be anyone's business), is hardly a virtue.

Forbes recently listed Jim Jannard in their top 400 wealthiest Americans, with assets of $1.4 billion if I recall correctly. But perhaps that information was "planted" as part of the elaborate RED conspiracy.

I don't know why you guys presume to be the guardians of other people's money, i.e. those who may choose to put $1000 down to reserve a RED camera. It's their money, not yours. Why does what other people do with their money so offend you?

Having said that, I'm embarrassed to have been sucked in by your ridiculous trolling.

One thing you havent considered Clint is that Jim could indeed give you a product, but it can be a crap product if he wanted because he makes no guarantee as to specifications or anything honestly. So you can be on the hook for the remaining 16,500 only to receive a subpar product. Not saying he would do it, but there would be nothing illegal if he did.

Nobody who has reserved a RED camera is "on the hook" for anything. A reservation is not a commitment to purchase. The specs and performance will be known before initial deliveries. And while specs are not finalized now because the product is still in development, at some point they'll be frozen and purchasers will know what they're buying. What's the point of spinning highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios? And why are you so suspicious of J. Jannard's intentions? His history in business is one of major success and his reputation seems similarly strong. At some point caution and skepticism just twists into paranoia. It's very tedious.

Yes, that is definitely a Canon K35. Does anyone know which primes (if any) were used on this movie?

More evidence that it's a Canon K35 zoom. http://images.google.ca/images?q=canon%20k...sa=N&tab=wi

What kind (make/model) of lens is this? :D

I agree with John Holland. Looks like a Canon K35 zoom to me.

I recently found my way to the DVXuser.com based on a link regarding a claim of a break in at Red, and, after three incredibly reasonable comments on that site, found myself facing this statement after trying to log in:

 

You have been banned for the following reason:

None

Date the ban will be lifted: Never.

If you think it's "incredibly reasonable" to accuse people of dishonesty without any proof whatsoever, you'll find no peace here.

I pose the question in my previous post realizing that the DCI format applied to capture does not maximize the available spatial resolution of the RED sensor for 2.40:1.

4096 x 1714 = 7,020,544 v. 4520 x 1884 = 8,515,680 pixels. A big difference. But perhaps there is value in a standardized workflow.

My usual preference would be to go with max spatial res, so it's just a question for discussion.

FYI ...

The DCI spec for 4K 2.39:1 is 4096x1714; 2K 2.39:1 is 2048x858.

Maybe it would be best to adopt these formats for 2.39 (2.40) spherical capture too?

Would it negate the low-light benefit of digital, with the light requirement of anamorphic lenses?

The "low-light benefit of digital" is, of course, ultimately a matter of the ISO rating of the sensor, but anamorphic lenses are often slower and have less DOF than their spherical counterparts, so that's definitely a factor if you're considering low-light work.

It would be visually lossless either way. I'd vote for the elbow room.

 

Jim

I'd vote that way too.

Addendum to my previous post.

It would be more accurate to say that the field of view of the anamorphics would be decreased when using a left-right cropped or windowed portion of the RED sensor.

I'd also add that RED's approach may actually be more closely aligned with DCI's approach to 2.4:1 widescreen because I don't think DCI's spec calls for anamorphic projection lenses so anamorphically photographed content will ultimately be projected spherically (after being unsqueezed for the DI or master of course). I stand to be corrected on that.