Mike Miller

I am not on anti-Red campaign. I just have some questions and some doubts on a brand that has no tradition. Should I become an instant fanboy? It takes more than reading through Red's marketing campaign on these forums. They are the manufacturer and if they want to come here and someone asks them for test results, they should provide it. They are getting a lot of free ride here.

Why are then the major manufacturers using 3 chips - and on one chip consumer and prosumer cameras - to achieve equal resolution - major manufacturers have to use many more pixels? Are Red engineers so much more knowledgeable than the best brains from Sony, Panasonic, and JVC?

Of course there is some loss in the optical path. I agree with that.

How does Red deal with this issue? Are they mapped out and corrected automatically? How many dead pixels the cameras in use have?

Does anyone remember such a marketing campaign in the digital cinema, TV, or pro-video field? Sony employees are not even allowed to participate in forum discussions. I call that class.

They can never perform the same. Three chips are not only capable to deliver full resolution, but also 4:4:4 output. Try that with Bayer.

Thee is no resolution difference on HVX200 between its 720p and 1080p output. That means that performance-wise it is at most a 720p camera, just as Red is performance-wise a 3K, not a 4K camera.

You are wrong! You can get true 1080p out of three 1080p chips but not from one. That makes F950 a 1080p camera, Red 3K, and HVX200 720p performance camera.

The new digital cinema standards call for 2K and 4K digital projection. True 2K and 4K projectors and theater screens are now a reality and it is obvious that future high end productions will be 4K. How does this camera with actual resolution of 3K fits in? Will it be used primarily for 2K projection? Is 3K acquisition needed in a digital 2K post production, where there is no resolution loss and 2K will mean the same resolution as 3K when acquisition is concerned? 2K camera with the same size sensor would have an advantage because of bigger pixels. Would not it be then advantageous for the camera to have 2K output, gathered from the whole 35 mm sensor, rather than 4K?

They will not give you 4K worth of B/W information, only 3K, when it comes to color, the resolution is much lower.

F900 delivers 1440x1080 to tape and 1920x1080 to HDSDI. Red delivers 3K. If it had (3) 4K CMOS sensors or one 6K sensor, it could deliver 4K. Why then call it 4K just because it carries 3K over 4K. Would you call HVX200 1080p camera when it delivers 720p over 1080p? As (1) 4K CMOS can't deliver 4K but only 3K resolution, the camera is not 4K Sony 4K projector is 4K; this camera is 3K.

QUOTE (Jim Jannard @ Dec 13 2007, 11:47 AM) Yes, a 4K Bayer is equal (with Graeme magic) to about 3K-3.2K. QUOTE (Jim Jannard @ Dec 14 2007, 12:18 AM) No one else has a problem with our 4K resolution and it is not my job to "fly him out". The above was supposed to be a part of the original post. F900 delivers 1440x1080 to tape and 1920x1080 to HDSDI. Red delivers 3K. If it had (3) 4K CMOS sensors or one 6K sensor, it could deliver 4K. Why then call it 4K just because it carries 3K over 4K. Would you call HVX200 1080p camera when it delivers 720p over 1080p? I would not, so please don't tell ME to shut up!

I think that if Red claims to have such a high resolution and better debayering algorithm than Sony, Panasonic and Kodak, they need to prove it with independent testing, not just words.

As Jim himself admits to 3, rather than 4K, lets agree to that and examine the noise. I read somewhere that it is quite noisy, although Jim's Red released in another forum frame grabs that indicate low noise even at around some 10K ASA rating. What is the reality?

Can we then agree that this camera has 3K resolution and Jim will quit calling it 4K and Phil less than 3K until true tests are carried out. Could Jim pay Phil's ticket to come witness a resolution test or could he arrange for such a test to be carried in England with Phil's presence? I trust Phil. Jim is too much of a salesman. It is obvious this is a 3. not a 4K camera as Jim is promoting it everywhere. This misrepresentation is what pushes Phil's and everyone else's button.

No test results are available?

How does it compare to F900?

If these cameras ends up being used strictly for 2K projections, as there are only a few theaters with 4K projectors, would not it be better if the camera was 2K with larger pixels? I think that 4K theaters will be reserved for high end productions shot with film or true 4K cameras. The camera could have used 3K CMOS, with true 2K resolution output.

There are so many Red cameras out already. Has anyone run complete tests? Manufacturers often give editor free loaners to run tests. I haven't seen any.

JVC was bought by Kenwood. Is the video division staying intact? It was a money loser for Matsushita and the cameras had reliability issues.

So is it more like a 3K camera? Does it mean that a 2K camera would deliver just as good results for digital 2K projection? Would the Red camera be OK for digital 4K projection, which is one of the new standards? Are there any real 4K resolution digital cameras? Are the Red lenses good for 4K throughout their range and high contrast? How solid are they mechanically? How good is the camera in low light? How noisy is it?

How does Red fit into this scenario? I read that it is a superior camera, but I have hard time believing it.

Projection resolution is about 1.5K for optical and 2K for digital. 2K and 4K are the new digital projection standards. How does the Red camera fit into this, where when work flow is digital, there is no resolution loss, therefore to achieve 2K theater output, no higher than 2K acquisition is needed and for 4K full 4K is needed. Is there any camera that achieves full 4K right now?

Is the camera that is replacing the older one addressing all these issues, or are they really issues? Has anyone else found these problems?

http://www.high-techdigital.com/integration/Camera_t_1.htm This analysis claims 65% of the full horizontal resolution and 80% of the full vertical resolution when using Bayer filter Kodak, which invented the Bayer filter has similar claims. Other sites and test claim 1/2 resolution for Bayer filter: http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/camer...olution/#camres http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2007/09/actua...ensors-you.html How does Red do it? How are they able to achieve full 4K resolution from a 4K single CMOS sensor with Bayer filter when neither Sony, nor Panasonic are able to do it? I do understand that Red is using some innovative algorithm that is superior to Kodak, Sony, Panasonic and everyone else. Could someone shed some light on it? Is Red using licenced technology? Is it their invention? Is it patented? Could someone direct me to their patent number? I have hard time believing that Red can achieve 4K from a 4K sensor, but everything i possible. The Red concept is quite innovating.