Greg Lowry

The RED sensor is 24.4mm x 13.7mm, which is 1.78:1 (16x9). To use anamorphics with standard 2:1 squeeze, you'd have to crop or window the imager left and right down to the standard scope frame aspect ratio with the resulting loss of pixels. This would result in quite a small section of the sensor being used. As a result, the focal lengths of the anamorphics would effectively be increased. All in all, not a very happy situation. RED is promoting a top-bottom cropped frame approach, and given the aspect ratio of the sensor that makes more sense. At one point I did the math of the left-right sensor crop w/ anamorphics versus the top-bottom crop with spherical lenses. More RED sensor real estate is used for the latter which settled the debate for me. Unless you like the anamorphic look better.

Looking forward to seeing it. The De Palma / Vilmos Zsigmond collaborations are always visually stunning. "Obsession" (1976) is one of my favorites.

I don't take "it'll be way better" statements seriously until I see the product. The production community will ultimately be the judge of whether it's better or not. They're not asking for "a lot of money" until you purchase a camera (and at $17.5k for the camera body, "a lot of money" is a relative term), unless you consider the $1000 refundable deposit a lot of money. No one is being forced to do anything. If one is skeptical, then don't reserve a camera. Are you worried about other people's money? Let them worry about that.

Phil, Many of the non-specific items on the RED feature set come from people asking questions (often relentlessly) about if there are plans for the camera to have a certain capability. The focus assist feature (or whatever it's called) is one of those. I don't see a problem with RED indicating that a general feature is in the works without providing specific technical details. The "work in progress" nature of RED's approach is unusual and sometimes disorienting, and can lead to occasional misinterpretation or misinformation, but I have come to see the approach as valuable for both RED and prospective users of the camera. Rather than holding everything up to a microscope and parsing every word, I think we should be a little more relaxed and supportive during the development phase. There will be plenty of time for independent testing and analysis in due course. The altenative is for RED to go into stealth mode. I don't think that serves anyone. RED isn't Sony. RED isn't ARRI. RED is a small, talented, enthusiastic, ambitious team out to create an interesting and economical new tool for us. Fortunately, they're well-funded. Sometimes I think the resentment from some quarters (and this isn't directed at you) is because Jim Jannard is wealthy. As he's self-made, I see that as more reason to admire him and believe he'll do what he says he'll do. There is nothing in his history to indicate otherwise. He's not a faceless suit in a black tower somewhere. I see no reason not to trust the RED crew. Are they perfect? Who is? Have they so far done everything they said they'd do? I think so. I see an abundance of goodwill flowing from RED. It's fair to remain skeptical, but to suggest there's anything shady going on just isn't supported by the facts. Regards, Greg

I wonder if it's against the rules here to call someone a pretentious, self-important bore? You certainly qualify.

Stephen, I won't take THAT particular bet, but the camera doesn't have to perform to that spec to be a useful tool. Greg

I'm no RED shill, but I wouldn't bet against them.

RED is not promising a firm delivery date yet. They are targeting Q2 of 2007 for the first production units, but that's just a target at this point. Your delivery will also be subject to your place in the queue.

There are no "facts" about the dynamic range of the sensor other than this: Jim Jannard himself says that the dynamic range of the sensor has not yet been measured and that RED intends to do further testing and tweaking after IBC. He also says that the reports from IBC about the dynamic range are speculation. Why do you choose to believe HD for Indies, DVXuser and DVinfo over the head of the company?

The largest pixel pitch I'm aware of on single CMOS sensor pro digital cinema cameras is 12.5um (156.25 sq um) on the Vision Research Phantom HD and Phantom 65 high speed cameras. Now THAT'S a pixel. I believe the sensor ISO is also very high. They need that sensitivity for high frame rates.

The active pixel array of the RED sensor is 4520 x 2540 (24.4mm x 13.7mm). The sensor pixel pitch it 5.4 microns. 4520 x 5.4um = 24.4mm; 2540 x 5.4um = 13.7mm.

Jim has said repeatedly: no auto exposure, no auto focus. If that's what you want/need RED isn't for you.

This is a useful discussion because not many cinematographers have used single 35mm-sized CMOS sensor cameras yet. Are the variable ISO ratings equivalent to gain or do they exhibit other characteristics?

Thanks for that very candid response, Jim. I appreciate that it was a sprint to get the sensor operable and the demo footage ready for IBC. Lots of testing and tweaking ahead, I'm sure.

Jim, may we know the sensitivity (range) of the sensor yet? Or perhaps confirmation of the EI/ISO you used for the demo footage? ISO 320 is mentioned in one of Mike Curtis' blogs.

Hmm ... mysterium-ous. Even better for RED.

Don't we already have those? haha. We're never happy, are we?

Hi Stephen, Yes, hopefully RED is documenting their adventure. Regards, Greg

It's unlikely that RED is fabricating its own sensors. I assume the secrecy is because RED wants to maintain whatever competitive edge it has for as long as possible. Seems reasonable to me. One can also reasonably assume that this was part of RED's deal with the sensor foundry. Secrets are rarely secrets forever.

Some have commented that the DOF from 35mm-sized sensors is shallower than for 35mm film cameras. Sort of like the DOF challenges of shooting closeups in 65mm. I think the answer to this is ultimately going to be faster sensors so we can stop down a little where necessary.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable to expect Jim to publish a photo of the preprototype "breadboard" camera. What other camera company does that? And even if he did, what would it prove? If you don't believe the footage, why would such a photo be convincing?

Nor is RED releasing the name of the company that fabricated their sensor. It's too soon to definitively rule any possibility in or out, IMO.

The RED business model seems to be based on high volume / low price. If they have pre-orders for 1000 cameras before they start to manufacture in 07, that's a big number for the professional camera world. If they plan to initially order/build a couple hundred 18-85 zoom lenses, then their cost per unit may provide for very high quality at that admittedly low price. It's even possible that one of the above-mentioned big-three manufacturers is building the lens (although Zeiss is unlikely due to its ARRI relationship). J. Jannard is a big Cooke fan. Who knows? There is definitely method in the apparent madness.

Jim Jannard does answer personal email, but I'd wait until after IBC and the promised RED website update on September 8th to see if your questions are answered.

"Digital for digital". I think you've coined a new term.