Jump to content

RED production schedule


Carl Brighton

Recommended Posts

What most of us care about here, in a cinematography forum, before all other things, is simply what does the footage look like from the final camera, in all sorts of shooting conditions. And until the camera is out, we can't know that! Everything else -- matteboxes, filters, lenses, workflow, costs, etc. -- is secondary to that, and are often things where there is already marketplace support for and are known issues.

 

That's a fair point. But I think this forum could have been a useful resource for people who were moving up from 1/3" cameras or whatever, on all the matteboxes/filter/lens stuff you guys know, and they don't. Because I know some of you guys would be complaining if they all turned up in the 35mm forum here.

 

And I think this forum probably will eventually get used to discuss post issues. Because of its price point, Red's user base is likely to skew toward indie do-it-yourself types. The line between cinematography and post has been breaking down anyway, with so much of the look of a film being done in DI, with some movies shot entirely in front of greenscreen, etc. Red's RAW shooting modes can shift even more of the decisions that cinematographers used to make on-set into post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 495
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmm... You know, it occurs to me some of the disagreement over how much can be said about the camera might stem from an information gap. There's a lot of information out there that isn't on the Red web site. It's in posts by Red employees on forums. Not, for the most part, this forum.

 

People over at Reduser probably talk as if they know a lot more in part because, if they're regular readers, they actually do know a lot that isn't easy to come by in any other way.

 

For instance, Red's answers to all the questions S. Whitehouse just asked....

 

Finally, perhaps someone can help answer this question, will the RED be able to shoot using the full sensor, aka 35mm depth of field, but down rez it to 720p or 1080p for storage and post reasons without using some sort of REDCODE propriety codec in 4:4:4?

 

You can shoot 1080p or 720p in-camera, scaled from the full sensor, to the RGB version of REDCODE. You can also shoot 4K to the RAW version of REDCODE, and then convert to any format you can encode from QuickTime using the REDCINE desktop software (free with camera).

 

Red is also releasing a QuickTime component that supports REDCODE, so you'll be able to bring footage right into Final Cut Pro, Shake, etc. without converting.

 

I think some people are under the impression Red is going to try to do their own complete end-to-end workflow that nobody knows anything about. They're not. They're going to take a fairly straightforward approach to getting the footage into existing workflows.

 

Similarly what is the maximum resolution I can expect to put down to the hard drive when using S16mm PL mount lenses ( I understand that it will not use the full sensor)

 

16:9 2K (2048x1152).

 

and what codecs will I be able to work in camera with (in particular will I be able to work in DVCpro HD)?

 

As far as has been announced, the camera can only shoot using RGB and RAW variants of REDCODE (to on-board storage), or uncompressed RAW to an external RAID. If you need something else directly out of the camera (your workflow doesn't give you a chance to convert, etc.), you can always hook up the appropriate deck up the HD-SDI taps and record to that.

 

I wouldn't expect support for other codecs on-camera, because there are probably licensing fees, etc. involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Given that they actually roll the camera out (which I think), my little calculation has some value.

 

If I'm going totally hardcore on costsaving, I find that I can actulally go out and shoot with the cam and have 1500$ of my "Early adopters allowance" intact - if I go cheapo on everything.

 

This is BTW not how I plan to set up my kit, but I see the possibility to do so.

 

So, given that I was ready to pay 17.500$ + almost the same on extra kit to record my first frame, does net 16.000$ scare me?

 

...

 

 

I guess you can figure thatone out.

 

And should they not deliver, I'll have my 1100$ back on my 1000$ deposit.

 

I feel sorta comfortable. Have to say.

 

Gunleik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Premium Member

"If you need something else directly out of the camera (your workflow doesn't give you a chance to convert, etc.), you can always hook up the appropriate deck up the HD-SDI taps and record to that."

 

Is that correct? Could you put three Reds into a studio configuration, run them through an HD switcher, and record to a Sony SRW 5500 HDCAM SR deck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you need something else directly out of the camera (your workflow doesn't give you a chance to convert, etc.), you can always hook up the appropriate deck up the HD-SDI taps and record to that."

 

Is that correct? Could you put three Reds into a studio configuration, run them through an HD switcher, and record to a Sony SRW 5500 HDCAM SR deck?

 

 

Definitely, they're genlockable ( is that a word?) and you can take dual stream HD-SDI 4:4:4 RGB 1080p, or single stream 4:2:2 YUV 1080P/1080i/720p right out of the camera

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Back in January I asked the question:

"So, are you going to be displaying live 4K images at NAB then? I'm only asking because I'd really like to see it in operation, (just as I'm sure I'm sure an awful lot of your "usual suspect" competitors would like to see it NOT in operation)

 

To which Jim Jannard provided this answer (which is to a different question):

 

Of course we will show 4K footage at NAB and have working cameras there along with our REDCINE workflow. Other announcements at NAB. We'll be right next to Apple if you are looking for us.

 

Jim

 

So, any idea when we'll be able to see a RED hooked directly up to a 4K display device, and showing its "4K" pictures? LIVE?

 

Is there any particular reason what they can't be done right now? I mean a 4K camera hooked up to a 4K large-screen video projector would be that rarest of commodities: Something We've Never Seen Before?

 

Explain that: why couldn't you do what would seem the most obvious thing. I must say I'm getting somewhat tired of "canned" footage, why can't we have some fresh stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, any idea when we'll be able to see a RED hooked directly up to a 4K display device, and showing its "4K" pictures? LIVE?

first of all, red is showing (several) working cameras in their booth.

 

Among them those 2 peter jackson used recently to shoot his 4k 15min film, which then was graded by weta and is now showing in 4k at the reds very own cinema in their booth.

Its having lines of people waiting for one hour in front of it, btw.

 

then: i think you don´t understand the workflow.

 

the red hast only 2K realtime out, as always announced.

4k and upwards, 2540p, goes via raw to an diskarray or via redcode to another internal storage.

this is then decoded by redcine in a computer, which you actually can see & use at the booth as well.

 

pretty much like film and lab, now its sensor raw data and redcine.

 

also, it can be decoded on the fly, good example was apples keynote where the had FCS decoding redcode live on stage.

 

Is there any particular reason what they can't be done right now? I mean a 4K camera hooked up to a 4K large-screen video projector would be that rarest of commodities: Something We've Never Seen Before?

 

Btw, i have seen 8k live back in 2006 and i can be seen at this NAB at the NHK booth, but that is no news since one year. its also in permanent installation in japan.

 

however, you wont see 4k live with red until they decide to built a rawportdecoder, there is the 4k out in raw.

duallink 2k hd-sdi is the maximum you can feed live.

 

 

Explain that: why couldn't you do what would seem the most obvious thing. I must say I'm getting somewhat tired of "canned" footage, why can't we have some fresh stuff?

I am certain that red will offer redportraw to 4k live, if people demand it, but you are actually the first person who asked for 4k quad-link hd-sdi i have ever met. what is the purpose of the application? measurement? thats integrated in camera AND there are no 4k vector/waves on sale by tektonix etc iirc.

 

or do you secretly plan a live 4k broadcast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, why camera needs real time live output in its full resolution?

Does film camera have live full resolution output?

 

Actually if you connect 4K monitor with deBayer input that supports 10GB port that RED has on its body, you could see live RAW at full 4.9K (full sensor resolution). But why anybody will need raw deBayer output? Yet they did it just in case. I call it OCD output.

(Obsessive Compulsive Disorder)

http://www.miramax.com/aviator/

 

Andrew

Edited by Andrew Ray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, why camera needs real time live output in its full resolution?

Does film camera have live full resolution output?

 

http://www.miramax.com/aviator/

 

Andrew

No, but we do spend an awful lot of time an money getting rushes done, which in case you don't know are a contact print made directly off the negatives as soon as they are developed, and "rushed" back to the set ASAP.

 

All modern movie cameras have video assist, which already gives you the much-touted "Instant Playback" feature which is supposed to be such an overwhelming advantage of Digital Acquisition. OK it's usually only VHS quality, but that's more than good enough for checking framing, actors' performances and so on, which make up the bulk of what we want it for. The final check is to see an actual contact print taken directly off the negative and for that there is usually a projector set up on location. That's the only reliable way of checking for focus errors. Some people have tried using HD "video rushes" but it hasn't proven to be all that good a substitute, and doesn't really save all that much time or money anyway.

 

So, exactly what is the advantage of using a so-called "4K" camera if you can't get on-set playback at 4K? It's starting it sound like you get all the disadvantages of shooting with an electronic camera, but none of the advantages of it. You might as well shoot on 35mm and be done with it; there'll be no questions asked then!

 

And Mr RED can keep telling me it's a 4K camera until he's BLUE in the face; it's really only a 2K camera. If he has some magic Al Gore Rythm that can make 2K into 4K, well I would image that before too long everyone will be doing it to THEIR 2K cameras. And of course, converting their old SD Betacams into HD at the same time!

 

Not (as I seem to have to keep repeating) that there's anything wrong with 2K at that price!

 

Yes, you can do all this "if you have the right algorithm" as Graeme Nattress once told me. Just as, if I have the right silicone sealant and the right antigravity machine, I can fly my Volkswagen to Venus :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Mr RED can keep telling me it's a 4K camera until he's BLUE in the face; it's really only a 2K camera.

 

Please define what a 4K camera is! Or better yet: please give us an example of a true "4K" camera then...

 

But, before you even try to answer that, let me quote David Mullen ASC in his review from the RED: "It's to the point where I don't care if "de-Bayered 4K Bayer-filtered is truly 4K", etc. because all that matters to me is that I didn't see any compromise in image resolution compared to 35mm, unlike with HD where it visibly craps-out in extreme long shot on the big screen."

 

As far as I (and pretty much the rest of the planet) am concerned:

 

- RED IS A 4K camera

- You don't need a 4K Monitor on set to be sure you got the focus right or not!

Edited by Emmanuel Decarpentrie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but we do spend an awful lot of time an money getting rushes done, which in case you don't know are a contact print made directly off the negatives as soon as they are developed, and "rushed" back to the set ASAP.

no need for that with red (and sony 750/900/750/23 and panavision genesis etc)

this is expensive, dangerous as neg can be damaged/lost, time consuming, requires more people on the crew and doesn´t allow creative adjustments because its to slow.

 

All modern movie cameras have video assist, which already gives you the much-touted "Instant Playback" feature which is supposed to be such an overwhelming advantage of Digital Acquisition. OK it's usually only VHS quality, but that's more than good enough for checking framing, actors' performances and so on, which make up the bulk of what we want it for.

video assist ist just a bad compromise.

you can´t tell fokus exactly

you can´t tell lightning exactly

you can´t tell stock problems etc exactly

etc.

 

The final check is to see an actual contact print taken directly off the negative and for that there is usually a projector set up on location. That's the only reliable way of checking for focus errors. Some people have tried using HD "video rushes" but it hasn't proven to be all that good a substitute, and doesn't really save all that much time or money anyway.

So, exactly what is the advantage of using a so-called "4K" camera if you can't get on-set playback at 4K?

once more you underline that you

a- assume thing and come to conclusions, when you simply don´t know something.

b- instead of asking questions if you don´t have knowledge, you assume things.

 

so, to answer you hidden question, if one can monitor 4k on set.

of course you can.

simply take a computer (a small notebook will do) on the set and connect it to the reddrive.

or if you work on rotating ExpressCard or rotating CFflash simply plug it in.

Then you can monitor 4k.

You can even measure it, what you can´t do with film. So no need for rushes anymore. Its faster, it gives you feedback on set within seconds, not hours. it can be measured. it can be backupped. it can already be put in the timeline, according to script for a rough cut, what many people will find quite helpful.

 

then your next open question, "So, exactly what is the advantage of using a so-called "4K" camera ".

- first of all, better images.

- high speed

- less cost

- immediate feedback instead of lab

- fewer or no reloads

- silent camera

- raw data, which is superior to rgb for colorcorrection, di etc.

 

i won´t list all the advantages here as it would take to much time, then as you are obviously biased and anyhow will find out within the next 5-10 years for yourself. and i suppose anyhow that you wouldn´t be a help to any digital shooting crew right now, so i recommend you stay with the technology you like and which worked well for a century and which most probably will keep on working for a decade. That is, if you can pick your jobs.

 

btw, it seems that they have over 3500 orders meanwhile.

 

And Mr RED can keep telling me it's a 4K camera until he's BLUE in the face; it's really only a 2K camera. If he has some magic Al Gore Rythm that can make 2K into 4K, well I would image that before too long everyone will be doing it to THEIR 2K cameras. And of course, converting their old SD Betacams into HD at the same time!

Mr. Brighton, as you have demonstrated perfectly in your recent posts, you can´t be considered as an insider for cinematic production, that is digitally. this is why i won´t go with you through the depths of debayering methods used by panavision, nikon, arri, hasselblad, dalsa, canon or in this case red to explain you how can readout a cmos sensor with 4900 (h) x 2580 (v) elements. i recommend however to read mr. mullens views on this specific aspect.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=22419

 

Yes, you can do all this "if you have the right algorithm" as Graeme Nattress once told me. Just as, if I have the right silicone sealant and the right antigravity machine, I can fly my Volkswagen to Venus :lol:

you would certainly be missed dearly in earths filmproduction industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, to answer you hidden question, if one can monitor 4k on set.

of course you can.

simply take a computer (a small notebook will do) on the set and connect it to the reddrive.

or if you work on rotating ExpressCard or rotating CFflash simply plug it in.

Then you can monitor 4k.

 

But what I want to know is, what sort of "small notebook" have you got that can display 4K resolution? My 15" model wasn't exactly cheap and it only has 1280 x 768. Where can I get one?

 

(I'll ignore the rest of your post as you're obviously talking out of the incorrect end of your alimantary canal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I want to know is, what sort of "small notebook" have you got that can display 4K resolution? My 15" model wasn't exactly cheap and it only has 1280 x 768. Where can I get one?

 

try to click with your mouse button on this little cirlce with an "+" in its middle and a line downwards its right in your software. it should be called magnify or zoom and give you pixel by pixel even on a cheap notebook.

 

however, if one really feels the need to have on set 4k monitoring, then i would recommend DVS clipster + 4k lcd in the tent. or a sony srx if you really want to burn down the budget.

 

we will go for 1080p sony BVM class 1 14´ videout + 1920*1200 notebook for redcine on set.

 

(I'll ignore the rest of your post as you're obviously talking out of the incorrect end of your alimantary canal).

the truth must be pretty annoying for you those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, I was as skeptical as you, when I had my first contact with RED back in December 2006. Since then I did read some material, upgraded my knowledge about the digital cinematography and guess what, we just placed the order for 2 RED cameras.

However I like your method of learning, by throwing the wrench in the gear box. It is the fastest way to learn how gear box works. This way we do teach each other. More controversial questions you ask more people will answer to your controversy.

 

I did post this in my previous post here but again.

4K format is defined as a 4096 pixel in each horizontal line of frame.

The vertical pixel count depends from aspect ratio.

Now I can ensure you that from 4,900 horizontal photosites of Bayer sensor you can get 4096 unique values of RGB for each horizontal line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_sensor

It is bit tricky to see it right away, with old way of thinking, but try it.

(Question: Canon DSLR camera 20D or 30D is it 8MP camera or 2MP camera?)

 

So which part of this definition you misunderstood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At NAB Astro unveiled a 4K monitor that's 54" across. We're going to test it with our Phantom 65. It looks gorgeous, and only costs four REDs!

 

Maybe that should be a new unit of measurement. A Zeiss Master Prime costs 2 REDs, an Optimo 12-1 costs 4 REDs, a Phantom HD costs 8 REDs, etc. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, guys, I think the best thing to do about these very unproductive diatribes and exchanges is do what David Mullen advised... ignore the damn posts! You know when someone is trolling. You can tell when they really don't want to interact, but confront. Please don't feed their narcissistic goals. This forum is bigger than any one ##@@#hole! That's as far as I'm willing to take this. Behave yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4K format is defined as a 4096 pixel in each horizontal line of frame.

The vertical pixel count depends from aspect ratio.

Now I can ensure you that from 4,900 horizontal photosites of Bayer sensor you can get 4096 unique values of RGB for each horizontal line.

 

So which part of this definition you misunderstood?

I don't misunderstand any of it. You're the one who doesn't understand.

I know that from your 4900 horizontal Bayer Filtered Photosites, you can make 4096 "unique" values.

The question is not whether you can get 4096 different RGB values across the width. It's how closely these synthesized pixels resemble what you would get from shooting the same scene with a 12,288 (3 x 4096) horizontal pixel sensor with straight RGB filtering, or a three-chip camera that used three 4K sensors and a conventional dichroic beam splitter prism, or 35mm film scanned with a proper RGB telecine.

 

Look if what you say is true, WHY hasn't some other manufacturer taken a standard 1,920 x 1080 HDTV chip, applied a Bayer mask and produced a true 1920 x 1080 color HDTV camera? There are already plenty of cameras out there that use that system; none of them produces anything like the output from even the oldest and crummiest 3-chip HDTV cameras.

 

the truth must be pretty annoying for you those days.

I wouldn't know. I'll let you know when I hear some of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's really only a 2K camera.

 

Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that you're just plain wrong! And the results speak of themselves. Please allow me to quote David Mullen, ASC, who wrote the following yesterday: "It's to the point where I don't care if "de-Bayered 4K Bayer-filtered is truly 4K", etc. because all that matters to me is that I didn't see any compromise in image resolution compared to 35mm"

 

Obviously, there are aspects of the de-bayering process you don't understand, for which you are forgiven because you're not an engineer, but to make a long story short, a good de-bayer algorithm can achive over 80% of the sensor's physical resolution. Your guess that "Red is only a 2K camera" is off by more than 400% (because 2K is less than 20% of the physical resolution of Red's sensor).

 

Look if what you say is true, WHY hasn't some other manufacturer taken a standard 1,920 x 1080 HDTV chip, applied a Bayer mask and produced a true 1920 x 1080 color HDTV camera?

 

This "ad absurdum" is no valid argument! First of all, because NO ONE here ever claimed a 100% efficient de-Bayer algorithm: it is clearly not possible to produce a full 1920x1080 resolution by using a single 1920x1080 sensor! There will be at least a 20% loss and that's a fact!

 

Second: there are many reasons for manufacturers to choose 3 (small) chips and a prism rather than one big super35mm sensor (like Red's), but they generally all come down to one main reason: profitability--as sensor size increases, manufacturing prices increase exponentially. However, to resolve the true physical HD resolution of smaller chips (like 2/3"), you need optics with over 80lpmm (or more than 180lpmm for 1/3" sensors) resolving power. Those are very expensive (or even doesn't exist at all, in the case of 1/3" sensors). So, in many cases, the 20% resolution you don't loose by avoiding any sort of de-bayer process in a 3 "small chip" design is completly offset by the typically inadequate optical resolving power. In the 1/3" consumer-prosumer case, the actual resolution loss is typically more than 50%, even though they are using 3 separate sensors (RGB). Adding another loss like the typical de-bayer loss (20%) would only compromise quality even more than it already is... not a good idea if you want my opinion!

 

This was my last reply, for if you're still not convinced and keep writing false informations because you like jumping to conclusions and avoid the pain of learning what you are to talk about, there is nothing I can do to help you from now on.

Edited by Emmanuel Decarpentrie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, it is amazing how brains of different people do follow the same pattern to discovery. Maybe because we read the same books and information material.

 

We took some of the cameras here and tested maximum horizontal resolution.

Both for 3CCD cameras and Bayer camera. Well you can follow the same experiment and you will get the same result.

First I was surprised that prism does introduce so much distortions, both in terms of XY alignment and in terms of back focus plain. Higher camera resolution camera you pick more of these problems you see. So maybe you have 3 X 1920X1080 or 3X2K pixels but the prism and lenses working with the prism do screw up the picture big way.

Because of this I don?t think there will be any 3CCD 4K system out there build.

 

Carl, you can not discuss 3CCD systems without taking all elements under the account.

 

If you take 3CCD 4K system based on prism and flat one surface of 4.9K Bayer sensor,

You will see it gives you the same horizontal lines test resolution.

 

Yes it looks like we are comparing 3X4K versus 1X4.9 K pixels.

But remember these 3X4K CCDs are on top of each other in the same place and looking through the prism in to the lenses. Such arrangement doesn?t give you any more horizontal sensors does it?

Yes Panasonic is shifting green sensor in its 3CCD camera but that is different story.

On 2K cameras with 3CCD shifted sensor, YES it is equivalent to 4K Bayer.

But again on 4K 3CCD shifted camera the prism will screw up the resolution so badly that it will compare to 4K Bayer anyway.

 

 

It is like discussing 4K digital cinema versus 35mm cinema.

Everybody is discussing the master copies. But reality is that we should discuss the final projection output in the cinema. This is what people do watch. 35mm film goes 3 times through the lenses before it hits the viewer eyes. Digital 4K will go only once during the acquisition, via camera lenses.

Then if material is displayed on non projection display system the digital 4K stays 4K and digital copy is 100% mathematically lossless.

Film material though, I don?t want even to mention how much resolution you loose when you do copy the film.

Edited by Andrew Ray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-20864-1177080805.jpg

 

Note how scanning the sensor for unique RGB value works.

The unique design of Bayer pattern gives you always 3RGB pixels in each circle for only one pixel offset when you move in horizontal direction and also one pixel offset when you move in vertical direction. So each pixel move in 4096 horizontal pixel row will give you 4096 RGB groups of readings. (we have two green pixels in each RGB trio so the higher sensitivity of green is matching the human eye sensitivity)

Edited by Andrew Ray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing.

To be honest, this sensor underperforms if there is no green in the picture.

So reds on blue edges and purple on red or blue edges etc. will give you lower resolution.

However any edge or detail on any color when green is present will give you almost full resolution of the pixel count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing.

To be honest, this sensor underperforms if there is no green in the picture.

So reds on blue edges and purple on red or blue edges etc. will give you lower resolution.

However any edge or detail on any color when green is present will give you almost full resolution of the pixel count.

 

So it could be interesting shooting those photographic darkroom scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, this sensor underperforms if there is no green in the picture.

 

That is perfectly correct and this is very important to take note from: this means that lighting a digital movie (especially ones that are shot with Bayer sensors) is quite a different task than lighting a traditional film set...

Edited by Emmanuel Decarpentrie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...