Evan Owen

I don't see how it's any more complex either. It's just very different. What makes it more difficult (IMHO) is the size of the team and the short development cycle they've attempted. It does do onboard demosaic (for the LCD and HD-SDI/HDMI preview). It just doesn't record the demosaiced data, thankfully.

It looks like HVX200 footage to me. Way too noisy.

That's right. Panasonic has been able to get a pretty good 1280 x 720 image by pixel shifting the HVX200's 960 x 540 sensor, but I have trouble calling it a 1080p camera.

I don't think anyone would argue with that... :)

But why use video even for HDTV? Yes it may be a bit cheaper, but with digital cinema cameras like RED becoming available at lower price-points, video isn't looking as attractive anymore. It may just be starting, but I think eventually video will be on its way out as well... even the most expensive HD video cameras just don't compare.

I have to agree.

OK, got it. I was responding to this: .. but I guess I missed "for the money", and I'm still not sure I agree with that anyway...

Max, that's a very interesting article. Thanks for the info. I have to wonder though (since this is the RED forum) how much a comparison of the F900 versus 35mm will tell us about how RED will perform under similar scrutiny. While the vast majority of the problems with 24p footage that the article was citing were rather subjective, it was quite obvious from the blow-ups that the F900 footage was soft, flat and noisy. These problems are quite common with modern digital cinema cameras. Yes, in the past digital hasn't stood up to film very well in any way except MAYBE workflow. However, what I've seen so far from RED tells me they've overcome most of the remaining limitations. I'd love to see a side-by-side of 35mm and RED.

And these are more 'filmic' than what we're seeing from RED? I guess I need to reevaluate what I consider to be a film look...

Great point Robin. I expected someone to bring this up eventually, and it proves a very good point. If the film look IS preserved through a DI, then the look is most definitely an addition made by the film process and isn't somehow just a more lifelike representation of reality. If a digital scan can accurately preserve the look of film, there's no reason a digital sensor can't accurately preserve the 'look' of reality when focused through a camera lens. Logically then, as long as the 'look' of film can be accurately added in post, there isn't any disadvantage to shooting digitally in the first place. [EDIT] Sorry, that's exactly what you and Michel were saying. Missed that.

Different thread about a different camera with problems. But yeah, the sticky was created soon after the first bugs started popping up. The way RED is handling development makes alot of sense to me. They're treating the camera more like a piece of software in beta, with regular updates coming every week. It's definitely a break from the way cameras have been built in the past, but breaking tradition seems to be what they're good at. By the way, from what I understand, the early adopters were warned that the camera was still in development and could have serious issues. They all decided to take the cameras anyway, and ride through the bumps and glitches with the team. If anyone had issues with these first 50, it shouldn't have come as a surprise...

I've been thinking about this whole "film vs. video" thing, because I know what you mean. Even with RED footage, as nice as it is, there's a definite difference (some would say lack) compared with film. I think your description pretty much nails it on the head. At the same time, I'm not sure it's such a bad thing. Hear me out. At this point, the main quantifiable difference between RED footage and film is grain. There are other differences, but not as obvious. If you think about it, film grain has a tendency to pull a scene together. Grain is visible whether the image is in focus or not, so it's the only element that's always present in the image no matter the content of the shot. It smooths the edges between the in-focus elements of the image and the out-of-focus elements. When there's no grain, there's no common denominator to pull the image together in the same way. If it's out of focus, it's completely out of focus with no detail at all, grain or otherwise, hence your feeling that it looked photoshopped. The borders between in focus portions and out-of-focus portions will be just as sharp and defined as they are in real-life (ie. the light coming into the lens), with no grain to soften the edges. I don't think there's anything else "inherent" to an image captured on film that's exclusive to the film realm. For instance, by the time a digital scan has been made, it's already been divided up into square pixels, so the "infinitely variable" argument is gone. It seems to me it's the grain that people are missing in all these digital images. While I can definitely see and understand the positive affect grain can have on an image, I DON'T see why starting with a clean image is a problem. Grain is a subtle element, and one that CAN be effectively introduced in post, if that's what you want. It's being done all the time, and no one has been noticing or complaining. A clean image just gives the artist more room to work, and in my opinion, that's never a bad thing.

In fact, if you read the rest of that thread, it's quite clear that the general tone is one of wanting openness and honesty about the few bugs that may crop up early on. Jim even replied acknowledging RED knows about them and is about to release a firmware fix soon. Remember, the camera's only really existed for a few months, in development for only a year and a half. It takes time to work everything out.

Agreed. But Sweet & Low is starting to become palatable, finally.

If by 'lost the film look' you mean grain, then you're right. There's no grain. That's what's so beautiful about having a pristine image to start with. If you want the grain, you can either add it in post, or do a film-out to give it real grain. Here's an example of some of the best footage from RED so far. Whether or not it looks like film, it sure doesn't look like ANY video I've ever seen: Music Video - "Solo El Principio" [EDIT] Oh yeah, this is mostly flat, ungraded footage. The graded version will be coming along soon I think.

It makes it a bit harder for those trying to find specific information, but I see your point. I suppose the original topic has been covered well enough already anyway.

It's amazing how far this topic has wandered... and back... and away again.

Wow, yeah. Actually, that's quite surprising to me. Here's to even more constructive dialog. B)

I believe Rob Lohman and Graeme have been saying for some time now that REDCine is GPU dependent, so I imagine they're making heavy use of pixel shaders. It'll be interesting to see what kind of performance it'll have with modern GPUs. Real-time 4K (sorry Phil) decompression and demosaicing isn't far off I don't imagine...

Good idea. Several RED reservees are holding quite an extensive test in LA sometime this fall (October / November, I believe?). I'm sure they'll be shooting quite a few test charts, so at least we'll have something properly shot that can be examined closely and objectively. I doubt they'll be shooting side-by-side with film, but someone else might be able to supply the scan for comparison.

You know Phil, I've been watching this board for awhile, and I had previously been somewhat understanding of your viewpoint and have even agreed with many points you've brought up. But with this most recent post of yours, I have absolutely no way to express the incredulity I'm feeling right now. I have exactly the OPPOSITE perspective regarding this camera and the standards it's bringing to the industry, and I'm not alone. If it was only myself and the fanboys at reduser.net, I wouldn't fault you for dismissing it. The reality is that the ones getting REALLY excited are those that are actually USING the camera. And I'm not talking about guys coming over from the HVX200. These are veteran 35mm guys being blown away by the image quality and workflow. So far, I haven't heard any complaints from them about it being advertised as 4K. Are you really worried that the industry as a whole is really so ignorant as to be 'duped' into buying a camera that's really only 1/2 or 1/3 what it's being advertised as? At least it costs 1/10 what the nearest competitor costs... it'd be worth it even if it only shot 1080p. How is this a case of 10-dollar sunglasses being sold for 100 dollars? I don't see it.

It's true that the RAW data is compressed first, but even decompressed and demosaiced footage isn't true 4:4:4 since it comes from a bayer sensor and you can't get detail back that's already been lost in compression. Although I'll argue that it's more than 4:2:2. The layout of the photosites and the way every pixel responds at least a little bit to every color means that an efficient algorithm can pull quite a bit of resolution out of bayered data.

Is this sort of advertising any different than Panasonic passing the HVX200 off as a 1080p camera? Or what about Canon calling their new 1Ds Mark III a 21 megapixel camera? I mean, we all know it's a bayer sensor, so really it's only 7 megapixel, right? I have to post this because I have a feeling there's something wrong with the grabs from Crossing the Line. This 100% crop is from a shoot that fxguide.com did when they first got their camera more than a week ago. Most of what's referred to as 'debayering' artifacts aren't apparent at all. I think the Crossing the Line footage had other problems of some sort. Also, it's looks to me like there's more than 2k of resolution here... maybe not true 4k, but obviously more than 2k.

Well, Mark Pederson from OffHollywood is picking up his two cameras in about an hour. From reduser.net this morning: As for those who can't pickup in person, I'm not sure. I'm sure shipping is being arranged.