Joakim Sandstrom

Smoke on Mac with 8-core mac pro, 16 GB ram, Quadro Fx 4800, 768 GB SSD (raid 0), Aja Kona 3 + breakout box, Vacom intous 4. Very little used. Optional Eizo Coloredge CG243W. Subscription still valid. System is currently in Sweden, but can ship it word wide. Contact info (at) zermatt.se if you wish to discuss this further, Thanks

If you want video that look like film, use a cmos camera! (and 35mm lenses and sensor). Cmos highlights looks much more 'filmic'. CCDs are more futuristic looking ( collateral ) but cmos is more organic or whatever it is. Even the sony ex-1 looks more like "35mm" than the F23 if you ask me. D20 and RED will give you this.

Mitch - thanks, but I need (hacked) digiprimes. Stereoscopic, dual cameras, lens centers <=70mm apart, infinite focus. Only option at the moment seem to be 2 x hacked f23:s. Unless the HVX3000:s sensor can somehow be hacked into. Must have 60p also.

Thanks Phil, It does have HD-SDI out, single link. Can that do 10-bit and 60p? Why is it so quiet qbout this camera, HPX3000 with a digiprime must look pretty good, the specs are almost F23.

About uncompressed data, I love raid0. All this talk about disk error. I have never heard of a cheetah drive crash. I have 6 SAS cheetah 15K in raid0, windows x64, I got ~450 MBytes/sec sustained. I read 2K diTTo scanned 10bit dpx files off disk. Material shot on kodak 5201. I've written an opengl program that does color-correction, sharpening etc using GLSL pixel shaders. I am using a Geforce 8800GTX. Debayering in a pixel shader would be trivial. This setup is cheap and robust. Now I want to get rid of film artifacts ( gate movement, grain ) = digital cameras. But, did not want to hi-jack your thread, this was about the shutter problem. I think the whole look of red is because of the cmos. Cmos chips does looks great. Red is a canon eos-1 for moving images. So I dont think that is an option, you would get a different look ( f23 style ).

I hate compression. Never a good thing. mp3 is successful. I hate mp3. Above 24bit 96khz uncompressed is where I hear no difference.

Well look at the red forum. People seem overly happy with their images. And the camera produces beautiful results. I feel there are two camps: A- People who use the images, in-camera, just like the stuff we see from it today. B- People who want to capture the most un-compromised quality possible. Think 2001 for example. If I where kubrick I would not want to shoot my elaborate sets, knowing it got 1:12 compression on capture. This fact alone puts the red camera aside from a dual link sdi f23 type of (expensive) workflow I hate this, I want a 4.5K 2/3 ccd 60p uncompressed now! NAB 2008 ! ? D: Thanks Joakim Sandstrom

It seems it will be fine for some people and for some not. I would worry about * Stereoscopic shooting, the two sensors being out of sync. * Motion control work. * 3D tracking ( boujou ). I feel red is going for a much broader market ( for now ?) where some issues can be tolerated. Not competing with for example f23. Claudio Mirandas red vs f23 pointed out the stuff I was curios about. These small nuanses that no one else pointed to, rolling shutter was one of them, there where some more, Q: Shooting into light sources artifacts ( I think you can never have enough backlight ) A: Being adressed Q: 4K does not look 4K. A: Seems like 4.5K with OLPF softness is part of what gives that filmic red look. Red recommends adding electronic sharpness. Q: Compression. 1:12 is way too much. Raw port? A: They've scrapped the raw port due to lack of interest. 4.5K @ 60p uncompressed bayer, on my disc, this sounded futurustic, so ahead of everything else.

I hate compression Anyone know if one would be able to directy access the HPX3000 sensor data? I was hoping the sensor can do 60p, and that the compression is all post-sensor stuff. It says Picture Elements: Total: 2010 (H) x 1120 (V) Recording on a PC using a custom, massive SAS RAID0 setup? It would like that, 2010 x 1120 @ 60 fps >=10bit RGB If not easily, could someone hack into it and perhaps get this working? Many thanks Joakim Sandstrom

How would you do that with wide lenses? How would you use for example two UP 12mm in such a config? They produce ~ 90 degrees fov. http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...2_DigiPrime.pdf With so much science behind a lens, you don't want mirrors or stuff in front of ( or behind ). I want light -> zeiss glass -> sensor. Thanks Joakim Sandstrom Dalarö D:

I could go on forever, but generally: Images are the most powerful form of communication. We trust our eyes and we form our perception of reality based on it. Look at a head, the eyes are two pipelines straight into the brain. A stereoscopic image is so much more powerful than a monoscopic image, it is not even an image anymore, it is a slice of reality. I think the implications for art and science are obvious. For politics, well, take young people for instance, growing up with stereosopic content and the fact that something does not have to be real to feel real... will have tremendous effects on everything. Also negative. Take for example a stereosopic film for kids. They watch the film, being completely absorbed in the presentation. Then some ( evil ) person has managed to hack into the film, suddenly inserting the most terrible images you can think up, people being mutilated, their parents sliced to pieces, whatever awful poop you can dream up. Those kids will to some degree be damaged for life, like people who have experienced war. Stereoscopic content will be that poweful soon. Thanks Joakim Sandstrom

Cesar, I cannot agree more. Once this takes off ( by being properly executed ) it will change everything. It will have huge implications on art, science as well as politics. It will completely blur the line between what is real and what is artificial. Combined with the evolution of computer graphics we are about the see the most fundametal revolution in mankind. We will not be able to trust our eyes anymore ;) Apart from the ability to completely hypnotize ( in a good way ) cinema-goers, think about for example remote presence. We will be able to walk around on mars, or walk around on a computer chip, down at the scale of atoms, as if we were really there. Just two out of eighteen thousand examples.

What? Can you specify? Nothing is wrong. I am 100% right. I don't read I shoot. Thanks Joakim Sandstrom

The reason stereoscopic films could work this time, in terms of technology, is that it can be done without any flaws. The move from film/artifacts to digital/exactness. Razor sharp, digital capture and projection, zero noise, zero grain, infinite focus, lenses with zero distortion. 60fps or higher playback rate (per eye). Humans can detect ~72 fps. All this is just getting possible today. 20 years ago it was silly to even try all this. The quality of the lenses was enough for it to fail. For example Imax 3D is the exact opposite to all this, it is doing everything wrong.

NHK has this 8K camera, using some type of quad 4K cmos setup Optical format approx. 1.25 inch 7680 x 4320 pixels 60 frames per sec. progressive scanning http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/pdf/02_3.PDF Some zeiss glass on that then we are talking. I guess that must mean they got 4K on a ~ 2/3 inch cmos