Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RED's New Digital Stills and Motion Camera Pushing the Limits

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the paint-it-red dept.

219

rallymatte writes to mention that camera maker RED has announced a new digital stills and motion camera system that includes one model that can shoot up to 28K at 25 fps. The new system will come in three tiers: Scarlet, Epic, and their top of line model which won't be out until possibly 2010. Still image capture will range anywhere from 4.9 megapixels to an insane 261 megapixels. In addition to some impressive 'traditional' hardware, RED also announced a 3D camera.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Actual Red URL (5, Informative)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747391)

Here's the actual info & specs from Red themselves [red.com] - be sure to scroll down to the bottom where they have the "Oh ... by the way - 3D" teaser. Crazy stuff (makes my Canon 40D [komar.org] look pokey) - we'll see if they deliver.

Re:Actual Red URL (1, Informative)

duguk (589689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747569)

Amazingly, I was playing around with this yesterday after watching Quantum of Solace in Digital Cinema. Astounding quality.

I found some example videos, here [redrelay.net] and especially on here [redrelay.net] . Amazing. My PC can barely play it in high quality, and my monitor can only do 2048 pixels across, but still it's impressive!

Re:Actual Red URL (1, Flamebait)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748655)

Quantum of Solace in Digital Cinema. Astounding quality.

Quantem of Solace, is that the new James-Bond-movie-that-again-fails-to-be-a-James-Bond movie?

Digital Cinema is nice in the sense that it delivers a very crisp image without the normal signs of wear, but it is "only" 4096 x 2160px. That doesn't beat a good 35mm film, let alone 70mm.

Re:Actual Red URL (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749095)

Digital Cinema is nice in the sense that it delivers a very crisp image without the normal signs of wear, but it is "only" 4096 x 2160px. That doesn't beat a good 35mm film, let alone 70mm.

Yeah it is that film. I enjoyed it though it isn't very Bond-like. Still an improvement over Casino Royale (which is even less an a Bond film, imho!)

Sure Digital Cinema might not beat film in terms of resolution, but the clarity made it appear to be far more detailed; and certainly seem a lot higher definition. Especially without the distracting signs of wear that film has, I found it a lot easier to watch and a lot easier to see details of the astounding amount of product placements.

Re:Actual Red URL (0, Troll)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747615)

I hope you're not comparing the video capabilities of your 40D (which has a CMOS sensor) to the Red (which has a CCD sensor). The former is great for taking youtube videos of your cat, the later is great for creating films.

Re:Actual Red URL (4, Informative)

sith (15384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747677)

Wow. That's ... wrong.

The RED has a CMOS sensor, as do a number of other fancy-pants video cameras these days.

Re:Actual Red URL (1)

davolfman (1245316) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748355)

What I want to know is what's the yield on the 617 sensor? 1 for every 100 wafers? It almost sounds like vaporware as even most incredibly expensive 6x6 backs actually use a 4x4 sensor.

The Upper Limits. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747413)

Looks like they're pushing the financial limits too. Anyway that picture reminded me of Lego.

Re:The Upper Limits. (3, Informative)

m3rck (1110319) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747731)

Actually cinema film cameras go for $65,000 and up. Add film and film editing to get that analog film into digital ($100K), Red looks pretty cheap.

Re:The Upper Limits. (1, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747917)

I was under the impression that film cameras cost upwards of 110k for HD with no analog conversion since all the HD transmission methods are digital.

Of course the camera itself is about 65k, but then you need a lens for it which bumps it up especially if you need multiple different types of lenses since they all have to be custom made.

Re:The Upper Limits. (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748925)

I was under the impression that film cameras cost upwards of 110k for HD with no analog conversion since all the HD transmission methods are digital.

I find what you are saying confusing. Film isn't digital. HD is. (As far as broadcast, or BluRay, or Internet distribution, etc.) The two worlds (film and HD) don't really interact unless you scan the film and make it digital. There's no such thing as film sourced material distributed in HD, without some sort of analog digital conversion.

Something like Red is a digital cinema camera, but it has nowhere to put film in it.

Grammar nazi! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747447)

wont =/= won't. If you are wont to rely overmuch upon the spell checker, you won't ever write properly. Also, do the names of the three tiers really begin with lowercase letters?

Re:Grammar nazi! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747723)

Whatsa spell checker?

Could someone tell me... (2, Interesting)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747463)

...what would be the printed size of a 261 megapixels image, using current printers?

The mind boggles

Re:Could someone tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747657)

About 12 feet by 4 feet, at approximately 200 dpi.

Re:Could someone tell me... (3, Informative)

Hankenstein (107201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747703)

    Well with a standard 3:2 format the dimensions would roughly be 18360x12240 which at 300 dpi printing (somewhat standard high quality printing) would equal ~ 60x40 right out of the camera.

Mind boggling indeed.

Re:Could someone tell me... (2, Interesting)

zigziggityzoo (915650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747827)

93.33x31.11 Inches at 300DPI.

Re:Could someone tell me... (1)

PopularEthics (717707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747931)

Or almost 8 foot by 3 foot. That would look FANTASTIC above my couch.

Re:Could someone tell me... (2, Funny)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748089)

Depends on who was in the shot...

Re:Could someone tell me... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749243)

Jan Levinson-Gould of course. Also, those shots also look great in a warehouse.

Re:Could someone tell me... (1)

Chris Kamel (813292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748087)

About the same size as the drive you'll be using to store the files.

More to the point... (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748907)

What handheld device can write 19 gigabytes/sec.?

(25 x 261000000 x 3)

Re:Could someone tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25749181)

Of course, the intended use of such a large sensor is high-detail digital projection onto a huge screen ... the digital version of IMAX.

28K what? (2, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747469)

Shoot up to 28K whats at 25fps? 28 kilobytes? 28 kilopixels? Units, please!

Re:28K what? (4, Informative)

nattt (568106) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747513)

28,000 x 9,334 or 261mp.
28k is the horizontal resolution, which is typically how frame sizes are measured in digital cinema.

Re:28K what? (1)

zigziggityzoo (915650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747887)

What sucks is that a 261MP photo at typical RAW format is roughly 400MB in size. You'd fill up a 1TB disk (900GB Formatted) with just 225 images.

Re:28K what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748001)

Check your decimal: 2250.

Re:28K what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748195)

So frames are always 3 to 1?

As a comparison, what's the resolution of film?

Re:28K what? (1)

digitalfilmmaker (935507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748599)

Yes. And 25fps, is frames per second. So the top end camera takes 25, 261 megapixel images per second.

Re:28K what? (1)

Trevin (570491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747863)

My first guesses were meters (range) or grams. (Of what, I'm not saying...)

OTOH, SI units normally use 'k' for kilos, not 'K'. 'K' is used more for computing units of 2^10. But 28KB seems awfully small for an image which contains over 4.9 Mpix.

Re:28K what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748849)

I don't know what you are smoking, but 'k' is always 'kilo' and the SI unit 'K' stands for degrees Kelvin. The method of removing confusion between base 10 and base 2 units is to add an i. kB = 10**3, kiB = 2**10, MB = 10**6, MiB = 2**20 (and 'b' is for bits, and 'B' is for bytes=8 bits)

Re:28K what? (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747979)

In the motion picture industry "4K" means there are 4,000 pixels across the long edge of the frame. Consumer cameras are advertised by the total number of pixels in the frame. Typically measured in "mega pixels"

But as it turns out resolution is proportional to the number of pixels across the long edge of the frame. Note that movie cameras are marketed to profesionals who understand this while consumer cameras are marketed to "the masses" who just want a big number of "whatevers"

Re:28K what? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748135)

But as it turns out resolution is proportional to the number of pixels across the long edge of the frame. Note that movie cameras are marketed to profesionals who understand this

Too bad that the "profesionals" don't understand that it depends on the ratio between the width and height of the sensor as well, thus "28K" doesn't mean a thing unless you know the aspect ratio.

28k furlongs (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748833)

It's a pretty good lens system. Hope they have good anti-shake processing.

28k! 261mp (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747481)

Incredible. Imagine the possibilities.

Puny! (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747995)

Only 261Mpixel? That's not particularly impressive, compared to GAIA [newscientist.com] (1.5 Gpixel!)...

Re:28k! 261mp (1, Interesting)

niiler (716140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748101)

Am I missing something here? In my current lab, we're using 8 of MAC's Eagle cameras [motionanalysis.com] at the relatively low frame rate of 200 fps.

The Eagle Digital Camera, with a resolution of 1.3 million pixels at 1280 x 1024 full resolution at up to 500 frames per second, 1280 x 512 at 1000 frames per second, 1280 x 256 at 2000 frames per second, and a processing rate of 600 million pixels per second, revolutionizes the motion capture industry with its extreme resolution, unprecedented high frame rate, upgradeable functionality, and ease of use.

MAC has just put out their Raptor camera [motionanalysis.com] :

The Raptor-4 uses the Micron Corporation MI-MV40 sensor and operates up to 200 fps at a full resolution of 2352 x 1728 pixels, and up to 10,000 fps at reduced resolutions. The Raptor-4 Digital Cameras provide today's motion capture technicians with a tool that assures reliable and accurate data. With digital technology there is no degradation of the signal over distance, less noise, and no resampling of data on another piece of electronics.

These have onboard tracking technology which allows for auto identification of shapes (usually circular markers) in 2/500 of a second.

It seems like this RED camera under-performs in all categories.

Re:28k! 261mp (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748883)

1. It's not a high speed camera
2. The 28k refers to the horizontal resolution of the image, so you're Raptor-4 would be referred to as a 2.3k. The RED captures a 261 Megapixel image vs the 4 Megapixel image the Raptor-4 captures. Or nearly 65 times as much spacial resolution. The Raptor-4 does have a higher temporal resolution, though.

Re:28k! 261mp (1)

omnipresentbob (858376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748889)

1 megapixel = 1 million pixels [wikipedia.org]
Therefore:
261mp = 261 million pixels

If I'm not mistaken, you're missing something like 259.7 million pixels ;)

Re:28k! 261mp (1)

Tsujiku (902045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749041)

The RED cameras with 261MP appear to have about an order of magnitude greater width than either of those. However, I have no real idea what I'm talking about.

Meaningless numbers (1)

ATMD (986401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747485)

can shoot up to 28K at 25 fps

28K what? Does it mean 28000 somethings, or is K itself a unit?

Re:Meaningless numbers (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747547)

It is a temperature! 28 Kelvin, or -409 degrees Fahrenheit. Fuck! That camera is ICE COLD!!!

Re:Meaningless numbers (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747691)

Lawyers or Marketing people hopefully.

Anything that can shoot 28k of them at any rate is good enough for me.

Re:Meaningless numbers (4, Funny)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747709)

28 Kelvin.

The superconductors used in the camera only work when it's really, really cold outside.

If you buy one of the first 1000, though, they give you a free pair of gloves.

Re:Meaningless numbers (1)

Johnny_Longtorso (90816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748927)

My guess is $28,000.00 for the complete camera

Vapor codewords... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747501)

"Specifications subject to drastic change"

They've been promising this thing for what, 4 years now?

Re:Vapor codewords... (4, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747839)

Actually they've been shipping cameras for a while, these are just the next in the range. The Red One was considered vapour for a while by some people - they started taking pre-orders in April 2006 and actually shipped the first 25 units in August 2007. There is apparently still some wait time between ordering and receiving the camera, but they definitely exist.

They announced the Scarlet and the Epic in April this year, and announced today they they've somewhat revised the design of them.

Re:Vapor codewords... (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749107)

I think there is now no waiting queue for the cameras.

Re:Vapor codewords... (2, Informative)

xmpcray (636203) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748659)

Wired had posted a really detailed article on where Red is in its September issue. You can read it here - http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera?currentPage=all [wired.com]

Peter Jackson loved the camera so much that he suggested Steven Soderbergh to use it for his new movie on Che Guevara...which he has made now. So definitely it is not vaporware.

Still, DSMC is a whole new ball game.

Insane is the word (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747519)

Quick glance through the article did not mention anything about dynamic range. These pixel counts mean nothing if the range is still the same old three orders of magnitude. At least if they come up with an image sensor with better range, we could upgrade to that. So the idea of modularized camera system makes sense. But it is high time sensor makers quit the stupid megapixel race and concentrate on things like color correctness, dynamic range etc.

Re:Insane is the word (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747675)

In the brochure it stated that the dynamic range would be approximately 13+ stops on the the 28k sensor.

dynamic range (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747837)

on slide 3 they show the dynamic range. Depending on the sensor it can be 12 to 16 bits, which means 11+ to 13+ stops (estimated).

Re:dynamic range (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748133)

The A/D converters full potential is never reached by most image sensors. They are limited by noise levels and such stuff. This just tells the maximum possible dynamic range, and it is not too different from the cameras already in the market.

I think Olympus was trying to get extra dynamic range. Something like each pixel having two sensing elements, one saturating slowly and another saturating rapidly. Properly done, you are essentially getting one under exposed and one overexposed pictures taken simultaneously. By changing the weights of blending, you could get much better pictures. Exported in RAW file format, one could do this processing completely offline using more powerful computer, memory intensive operations taking more CPU time. The work is based on earlier Fuji camera film. They were trying to get two sets of grains in the same negative (one at ASA24 and another at ASA400).

In chemical processing you can not really adjust the weights between under and over exposed pictures and the technology did not take off. But in digital cameras it should find more applications.

I wonder if it is possible to read the charge in the CCD without really erasing it. Thus a still image exposed for, say, 1/100 sec we could save a picture after 1/1000 exposure, and a 1/500, 1/200, and then the 1/100. Now we have four pictures and we blend them with different weights off line using RAW images! Don't know if it is really possible.

Re:dynamic range (1)

kcitren (72383) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749043)

I wonder if it is possible to read the charge in the CCD without really erasing it. Thus a still image exposed for, say, 1/100 sec we could save a picture after 1/1000 exposure, and a 1/500, 1/200, and then the 1/100. Now we have four pictures and we blend them with different weights off line using RAW images! Don't know if it is really possible.

I wondered about that too a few months ago. Turns out you can't read the charge without erasing it. But, if you can read and clear the element fast enough, you could theoretically take (for example) 10 1/1000 second exposures, accumulating the results in a buffer, then write that out for the equivalent of a 1/100 second exposure. Repeat as required. You'll run into problems of noise and transfer rates though. But that's a problem for the engineers.

Re:dynamic range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25749223)

The A/D converters full potential is never reached by most image sensors. They are limited by noise levels and such stuff. This just tells the maximum possible dynamic range, and it is not too different from the cameras already in the market.

Except in this case, we're told that the sensor has a maximum of ~11+ stops, not the A/D converter's potential.

I wonder if it is possible to read the charge in the CCD without really erasing it. Thus a still image exposed for, say, 1/100 sec we could save a picture after 1/1000 exposure, and a 1/500, 1/200, and then the 1/100. Now we have four pictures and we blend them with different weights off line using RAW images! Don't know if it is really possible.

No it is not possible; the charge in this case is the electrons accumulated from the light knocking them out of the substrate and into the gate. The gate is then emptied of its newly gained charge and the level is stored digitally. However, we know how to make very fast charging, fast emptying gates, so it is theoretically possible to take a lot of composite pictures at higher speeds and emulate the behavior of a lower speed camera.

The disadvantage of this is that it creates a much noisier picture than the slower camera would, which defeats the purpose. Something like Olympus' system of having an over- and under-exposed cell layout would be better, but would be technically hard to make work, since you would only want to store the charge of some of the transistors at one time and the rest at another time, which more than doubles the amount of complexity in reading a row of pixels off the sensor. Both sensors would also need to be smaller than one sensor to use the same order of magnitude of silicon, which means that the picture would also be worse because each gate is absorbing less of the photoelectric charge (i.e. closer to the noise-floor of the sensor).

Rule 34 (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747527)

I can't wait for 261 megapixels. How long before we can download that at a relatively reasonable rate?

I think the way to go would be to adopt Google's map technology for speedier downloading of these larger images.

The detail on these pix will be so massively good, I wonder how much blurring would occur due more to human error than technology?

Re:Rule 34 (1)

Wheely (2500) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747715)

No it won`t. It would out resolve current lens technology by an order of magnitude.

This is a gimick. If you want a quality camera that has the benefits of speedy focus, shutter speeds, flash sync, good bulb shutter, great light metering, white balance and can drive a flash at low power/high speed, can be quickly adjusted to suit the shooting conditions etc etc etc, you want a device where the R&D has gone into making a camera. If you want video, you need a video camera.

Re:Rule 34 (1)

setirw (854029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748293)

Depends on the size of the sensor. 35mm, yes. For a 6x17cm sensor, 261 MP isn't unreasonable.

Re:Rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747753)

considering that in a 6mp camera more blurring occurs due to human error than due to the resolution limits, I think you have your answer.

Re:Rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747851)

"I can't wait for 261 megapixels."

That capability is beyond lens resolution, I believe. And imagine what a picture that size looks like scaled down to 1024x1024 to put on Flicker. I think there will be artifacts shrinking it that small for computer viewing.

Re:Rule 34 (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748155)

Not likely, the sensor is over 7 inches wide. You could probably use it without a lens.

Re:Rule 34 (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748229)

I think there will be artifacts shrinking it that small for computer viewing.

No.

Well ok, a longer response could be that it's more or less trivial to "shrink" or enlarge images to any resolution you want.

Re:Rule 34 (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748417)

Well, we can already download it at a reasonable rate if "we" live in civilized countries.. :)

Also, the technology you're talking about is called JPEG2000 and is already a standard, but since it doesn't offer that much quality improvement over standard JPEG it's not much used yet. The good progressive update would be great for the web though.

Imagine goatse in 261 megapixels! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747541)

Someone needs to update the goatse.cx to make use of all the 261 megapixels!

Re:Imagine goatse in 261 megapixels! (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747647)

Someone needs to update the goatse.cx to make use of all the 261 megapixels!

It doesn't work that way. You can't put more info into the thing than was there originally.
Oh, wait...

Re:Imagine goatse in 261 megapixels! (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747685)

You can't put more info into the thing than was there originally.

Think Doctor Who's police call box: goatse man's anus is actually built around a tesseract [wikipedia.org] .

=Smidge=

What about the "traditional" camera companies? (4, Interesting)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747759)

Red makes a big splash here in the tech world, but I'm curious to know how their cameras stack up against anything from Arri or Panavision; they're theoretically the "big dogs" when it comes to filming motion pictures. Do they see an upstart like Red as a threat? Do they have similar products? Yes, Googling is my friend and I could find out models, prices, etc., but what I'm really trying to get at is whether or not these companies are feeling in any way threatened by this announcement, and whether filmmakers see Red's cameras as a way of making blockbuster-quality movies cheaper, better quality, etc.

More precisely, why would anyone continue to shoot film in this day and age? Especially since programs like Avid and Final Cut are likely going to be the tools to edit the movie, regardless of origin. Seems a pure-digital workflow would be the way to go.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1)

Squapper (787068) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747943)

The big thing about Red is that they make this technology affordable to smaller companies. The Red One is really cheap compared to similar cameras made by the big dogs.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (2, Interesting)

Patchw0rk F0g (663145) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749101)

I've worked with a studio in Toronto that uses these cameras, especially for the image capture. I've been most impressed with the quality of images I've gotten out of it. I was giving them a really insane task (capturing a spray of liquid) and they came back with a "no problemo" answer. I didn't believe.

Needless to say, when we got to studio shooting, it was as seamless as spraying beer around a closed area could be (please allow for physics in this case!). If equipment like this wasn't available at an affordable price to smaller studios, there would be a lot of creative visions that wouldn't be realized. As another post above said, not everyone can afford to rent a Panavision for a day... especially when that day could be a few... or a few weeks.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748007)

Because film can still do things digital can't. Digital still has a long way to go for low light shooting, though its dynamic range continues to improve.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748513)

Digital is much better than film at low light levels. There's a reason why DSLRs support up to ISO-25600 sensitivities.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25749147)

Wrong. Digital sensors have and have had for a long time better dynamic range than even very, very slow film.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748175)

They stack up and very well, why rent a panavision when you can buy a RED one for less than a week worth of rental? You can do color correction on the fly with their software correct aperture exposer and balance with out refilming.

Also no need to digitalize as it already is digital, only one transfer has to be done to have the finished product. The company who I see is at more of a loss is SONY with there cine alta which costs 10x and is a lot less competetive.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (2, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748335)

One plus of film is that you can carry an hour of film. You can't really carry the SAN you'd need to store an hour's worth of data from that enormous 261Mp camera. It sucks up around 6 TB/minute. You'd need a pallet jack just to move the finished 90 minute film, let alone all the takes.

This is how you reduce film piracy, give the pirates a freaking hernia.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748859)

Umm.. An hour of 70mm film (which is smaller than the the 6x17cm sensor in this digital camera) weights about 200pounds, not something I would just carry around for fun. Assuming the RED camera uses JPEG compression, one frame is about 10-25MB, or 800-2100GB per hour, and a SAN of few terabytes should be less than 200pounds.

Ofcourse I am just pulling these numbers from google, but film is probably less portable you think and digital film more portable, though you most likely don't wanna be running around with either of them.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1)

XeresRazor (142207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749199)

Well, they haven't announced anything about storage for the new systems other than a CF adapter for the lower-res units so I can't judge it yet. The Red One however's been out for awhile and has a couple of storage systems. They've got a CF adapter built in with 8GB and soon 16GB high speed cards available. The 8GB cards provide about 4-5 minutes at 4k which is about the same recording time as a 400' film canister (though much, much smaller obviously). Unlike film you can shoot a scene, swap cards and walk that card over to your on-set laptop and dump the footage onto it and a couple of external drives for backup and start editing together a rough cut while the next scene's being shot and then go reuse the card for another shot.
They also offer a hard drive option that uses a pair of 160GB 2.5" SATA drives in RAID-0 and can record 3 hours of footage at 4k (4096x2304).
Compact storage is pretty advanced these days, and RED has a very effective codec that wavelet compresses the RAW footage instead of the processed RGB data. The current camera has 2 encoding modes that work out to approximately 28 or 36 MB/sec at 4k. The top end of the new models is about 35x the resolution of current camera though so even accounting for codec efficiencies they're still going to need quite a bit of bandwidth to actually record that much video data.
Then again given the size of this unit, especialyl once you add lenses, it's pretty much going to be tripod or dolly mounted for any motion shots, not a big deal to have a storage pack on the trolley built into a carrying case. A couple hundred terabytes of RAID configured for speed and hooked up via cable wouldn't be out of line for a setup like that.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748811)

Red makes a big splash here in the tech world, but I'm curious to know how their cameras stack up against anything from Arri or Panavision; they're theoretically the "big dogs" when it comes to filming motion pictures. Do they see an upstart like Red as a threat? Do they have similar products? Yes, Googling is my friend and I could find out models, prices, etc., but what I'm really trying to get at is whether or not these companies are feeling in any way threatened by this announcement, and whether filmmakers see Red's cameras as a way of making blockbuster-quality movies cheaper, better quality, etc.

Compared to other digital cinema camera, Red One is very much a threat. It offers good value for the price, sort of blowing away anything in the same range. Biggest drawback to Red is the fact that you need a Red specific workflow, and the fact that is has a "rolling shutter" which can result in some strange effects. (The top of the frame is sampled earlier in time than the bottom, so a moving camera shooting straight objects can result in a frame full of bendy lines in the final image, and a strobe light can make only part of a frame illuminated under some circumstances)

Compared to film, the biggest difference is probably dynamic range. Red is damned good. It's a hell of a lot better than a standard 8 bit video camera. But, film still handles extreme ranges of brightness better than Red.

Other people will point to other things as the most significant differences, but that's what stands out in my mind. As for the new camera's, I don't know anybody who has shot with them. For now, I can only talk about Red One. Ask again next year when there are some of these new cameras in the wild, and you'll be able to get more information about the drawbacks of shooting with them.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749267)

How do they stack up - from what I've heard from some top people in the industry, is that the RED One looks fantastic. There's a lot of FUD about RED though - understandably as some people don't seem to get what they're doing, and some just like to be critical. But from the images I've seen from the RED One, I can only imagine how amazing these new cameras will be.

Beyond limits (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747857)

There's currently nothing that can project the resolutions they're talking for the upper range.

Beyond just the camera, a server farm will be needed to edit a full length movie just for the mid range.

And... where does all that data get stored afterward?

Legacy data?

He's got a long history of incredible promises with this camera range but these logistical issues are just massive.

Re:Beyond limits (4, Informative)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748499)

If you shoot at the resolution you are tend to project at, you can't modify the frames in any non-trivial way other than colour/contrast adjustments. Anything else will in practice degrade the resolution. Shooting at a higher resolution gives you a lot of headroom that can be used to for example cut away areas that you don't want to use, and zoom in interesting areas. Similar to when music studios record and work with 192kHz audio signals to give some headroom for processing, then resample to whatever resolution the end user wants, 44.1 and 48kHz for example.

Other uses could be for reporters, journalists or nature photographers who can film at general areas of interest and then later cut out and scale up interesting areas.

Re:Beyond limits (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749167)

The RED system is geared towards that resolution projection. Final Cut Studio has been modified to edit native. There are a few projectors slated to be released to go along with it.

James Cameron just shot and is editing Avatar in full resolution. There's a server farm dedicated to just this purpose.

Openness would have been nice (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25747875)

For a modular system, I would have expected support of open or, at least, industry standards such as TIFF/EP, Adobe DNG, Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds. These would not have covered all the system, but would have been steps on the correct direction. Instead they went for a proprietary raw file format and popular but proprietary lens mounts.

Re:Openness would have been nice (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748171)

They're modular with themselves - that is, you can exchange modules for other bits made by RED. I don't see how this has anything to do with using open file formats, which makes it modular with other people. Why would you expect otherwise, anyway? Nearly all high-end camera makers use their own proprietary RAW formats.

Re:Openness would have been nice (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748475)

They're modular with themselves - that is, you can exchange modules for other bits made by RED. I don't see how this has anything to do with using open file formats, which makes it modular with other people. Why would you expect otherwise, anyway?

Because I value liberty?

It also makes sense because it makes the system more useful and, potentially, cheaper, for the user.

Nearly all high-end camera makers use their own proprietary RAW formats.

So what? The images are mine, I want them in an open format where I will not depend on dcraw reverse-engineering files...

Re:Openness would have been nice (1)

XeresRazor (142207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749283)

They already provide freely downloadable tools for processing the encoded RAW footage into more common formats (http://www.red.com/support REDCine works on Intel Mac or Windows) and can export to TIFF, JPEG, and OpenEXR (and possibly more, those were just the ones I saw mentioned in the latest release notes). They're also putting out a SDK for the format so it can be integrated into more software. It's not exactly locked down.

Re:Openness would have been nice (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749311)

Because I value liberty?

Then surely you must also value the liberty of the company to use whatever format they damned well please :P

It also makes sense because it makes the system more useful and, potentially, cheaper, for the user.

Doubtful. Using an "open" format would mean that you don't get to keep much of the information specifically produced by that camera (histograms, exposure, white balance, etc.), which is the whole point of shooting in RAW. That is definitely not more useful for the user. You could always convert to a format without the benefits of the proprietary RAW format, like TIFF, later, but you can't add the extra information that the camera can save into the RAW.

So what? The images are mine, I want them in an open format where I will not depend on dcraw reverse-engineering files...

Fine, shoot in jpg then. Of course, that means postprocessing is going to be extra painful for you, and the final product isn't going to be nearly as good, but that's the cost of an "open" format which does not support the full capabilities of the camera.

Re:Openness would have been nice (1)

rgomezc (992326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748225)

I'm not sure Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds mounts would make sense in a camera/system like this, specially when the sensor size is not that size. Supporting Adobe DNG would be great for stills, but I'm not sure the specs of it support movies. Actually I don't think there is an open spec for raw movies.

Re:Openness would have been nice (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748451)

I'm not sure Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds mounts would make sense in a camera/system like this, specially when the sensor size is not that size.

...nor where most Nikon and Canon lenses created for digital 24×36mm sensors. Ðey have trouble enough wið APS-C sensors.

But answering your question, obviously there should have been a Four Thirds sensor in the lineup.

I don't think there is an open spec for raw movies.

Unfortunately, I have to agree here.

partial debunking here (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25747879)

http://rcjohnso.com/REDFACTS.html

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748113)

It links to a very interesting discussion of the claims made by RED.

film = ~100Mpel per square inch (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748013)

If you really want to replicate the image-capturing resolution of film, you'll need about 150 megapixel for 35mm film.

A good - not great but good - pro 35mm camera with good film and lenses can capture about 100 line-pairs per millimeter. That's 100 white lines and 100 black lines interleaved. Some very-high-end ones can do better. To capture 100 line pairs per millimeter digitally you'll need 400 dots per mm thanks to some worst-case-scenario digitization side-effects. On 24mm X 36mm film that's 138,240,000 pixels. 6x9 medium format is 56mm × 84mm, or 752,640,000 pixels. For 4"x5", assume 100mm x 125mm, or 2,000,000,000 pixels.

Multiply that by 6 bytes per pixel for good dynamic range. That's 0.8GB for a typical 35mm shot-equivalent.

Having said all of that, unless you really like to zoom in close or make huge prints, you don't need that kind of resolution. Today's 8Mpel cameras are fine for most users, and even the 1.3-2Mpel cell-phone cameras are good for web-shots if you don't zoom.

Re:film = ~100Mpel per square inch (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748457)

Having said all of that, unless you really like to zoom in close or make huge prints, you don't need that kind of resolution. Today's 8Mpel cameras are fine for most users, and even the 1.3-2Mpel cell-phone cameras are good for web-shots if you don't zoom.

That's like saying you don't really need blade servers with 16 cores because beige box PCs are fine for most users, and even eees are good if you don't play games. Or that you don't need trucks because minivans are fine for most families, and even sedans are good if you don't have kids.

These things are made for professional digital film production and billboard/poster shots. They're just not meant to compete with the consumer P&S/prosumer/DSLR segment; if anything, they're made to take a bite out of the digital medium format/large format market.

Convergence of Video and Still Cameras (1)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748079)

There are a lot of really interesting developments in video these days, not the least of which is the increasing convergence of video and still cameras. We're not talking about crappy video on your cell phone - this is all about taking the unique properties of still cameras into the realm of full-motion video.

Still cameras traditionally have better resolution, ISO sensitivity and dynamic range than their video counterparts. Furthermore, DSLRs have much better control over depth of field due to their sensor size and lens options (traditional digicams generally have a very large depth of field, which is great for shooting your kids' birthday party but not so good for artistic effects). Furthermore, by taking a 20+MP sensor and downsampling it to 1080 video, you get a very clean and noise-free image. It's also easy to see how the ability to shoot broadcast-quality video from a DSLR would be very attractive to professionals such as photojournalists.

A great example of this is the Canon 5D Mark II. The 5D MkII is Canon's latest full-frame offering, which in addition to a new sensor, improved dynamic range and greater resolution also shoots full 1080 video. The results are impressive, to say the least - check out this sample video [canon.com] by director Vincent Laforet.

This is a perfect example of convergence done right - taking the best features of different tools and making something better.

actual videos shot on a RED (1)

Chalex (71702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748431)

Here are two that I know about:

This lets you see the possibilities of having an HD (or higher) resolution camera shooting at 120FPS.

http://www.vimeo.com/1124192 [vimeo.com]

http://www.vimeo.com/1124192 [vimeo.com]

What about lenses resolution? (2, Interesting)

Yag (537766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748641)

Ok 261 megapixel, yeah, cool, but, since RED cameras use canon/nikon photo lenses how they suppose to obtain such a resolution? I mean, currently with new cameras (like 5dMkII) coming out we are allready speaking about lens limits (also for "top" lenses like L marked ones). So, how can they push this camera to that resolution without enlarging sensor size? For 261 megapixel you will need AT LEAST 6x6 sensor rather than normal 35mm. And 6x6 sensor requires really big lenses (like hasselblad) and probably won't keep up either. So, i think there is too much "megapixel" marketing here rather than "real" resolution.

Re:What about lenses resolution? (2, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749027)

You're completely right, you do need a bigger sensor size.

That's why the sensor is over 7 inches wide.

Re:What about lenses resolution? (2, Insightful)

XeresRazor (142207) | more than 5 years ago | (#25749353)

Read the article before you comment. The 261 mpixel model is a large format back which will use custom large format lenses, not plain 35MM SLR lenses. It's also 186mm x 56mm, RED has a nice comparison shot of the various sensor sizes at http://red.cachefly.net/13/page12.jpg [cachefly.net]

Any tests/reviews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25748647)

I was looking at the photographers favourite: www.dpreview.com No reviews.. I know its not really a mainstream model, but how come there are basically no reviews of the older models?

Great (1)

Johnny_Longtorso (90816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748899)

Yet another camera mere mortals can't afford. Next.

Shoulder-mount? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25748921)

With all that resolution, you're going to need either a tripod, Steadicam gyros, or stabilization processing. Stabilization processing won't help if the "shutter time" (really integration time) is more than a millisecond or two; the individual frames will be blurred.

High resolution with big enough collecting optics to get the shutter time down to 1ms or so, plus rate gyros to get info about camera movement, would be a useful option for news gathering. Just point in the direction of the action, take a bigger frame than you're going to use, and fix it up in post.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?