Red announces new delay...

[Duke]

Red camera company has announce a bug in their development that is going to cause further delay after Jim Jannard has returned. Also, they are having problems with their manufacturing partner. :(

http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=4604

[Ian-T]

Yeah...I heard about this a few days ago. I feel bad for the dude...really. I wan't it to work out for them and think it will. But when it rains it pours. I hope he's ok.

In reality what this means is Scarlet will be pushed out much further especially since the Epic camera is supposed to debut first. They'll get past this....I'm sure. And when the cameras finally comes out....they'll be bangin!!!

[Duke]

I don't doubt they'll ship a good to great camera eventually. I did get tired of the fanbois telling us that since they finally got the Red One straightened out that the Scarlet wouldn't be any problem.

However, its a new design in almost every way. Add in new manufacturing and I thought delays would be inevitable.

On the flip side every delay gives Canon and Panny more opportunities with their latest products. What will count is what they are both releasing at the same time.

[1]

"But we aren't going to release anything until the cameras are done and bug free."

Bug free? That's not even possible!

But I'm sure they'll figure it out, and sell a great Scarlet eventually.

[AJUK]

That's a tough blow for Red. I don't see how they can really compete in the prosumer market, they are up against every established manufacturer, they need to spend millions to advertise an slr beater, and they'd also need to release at a price that matches or compares to the sub 1k of the latest DSLR cameras.
I just don't see how they can possibly succeed. Unfortunately.

[1]

If they'd released the Scarlet BEFORE they decided to make it "even better" and for $3500, they'd be a MAJOR player in the prosumer market already, and without advertising more than they already are, they'd have carved out a major market share.

Now, it will only ever be niche, if it ever gets to market.

[Lawrence189]

Ughh I can't wait any longer. I have the money in a bucket taped up with a label over it saying "for red."

[AJUK]

My guess is that they will drop the planned lower budget cameras and concentrate on their pro camera range, competing against the smaller group of professional manufacturers. The low-volume / high-price market is probably going to be an easier nut to crack than the high-volume / low-price prosumer one.

It seems like every consumer manufacturer is jumping on the interchangeable lens / hdslr wagon, so the Red is going to be fighting a losing battle there. They would need to be available on the high street, in ordinary camera stores, advertsing on TV and in magazines, it's a huge gamble.

Plus, if they haven't got a manufacturer in place, then the product is easily months from launch, and in the meantime there are new offerings from Sony, Canon and all the others. By the time Red is ready, their intended market could be saturated to the point where they can't sell even if they do have a marketing budget that will get them noticed.

I really think that Red will end up being a fond memory of what might have been, rather than a major player in the mass market.

[1]

The fact is, RED ONE was simply ahead of its time.
The problem with that is that there were VERY few people that needed it,
but many that wanted it. This created a big buzz and many fanbois.
To put a cam (Scarlet) in all the hands that didn't need RED ONE or couldn't afford it was a clever move. Unfortunately its execution failed miserably...so far.

[Halsu]

The fact is, RED ONE was simply ahead of its time.
The problem with that is that there were VERY few people that needed it,
but many that wanted it.

Define very few - i think they've sold more units in the last two years (i recall about 6000-7000) than all the other high end camera manufacturers combined. That may be "few" but not "very few" ;-)

At least here in Finland, Red One has essentially replaced all other high end HD formats and 35mm film in professional productions, be it movies, commercials or TV drama. It's had a huge impact here.

On the lower end, XDCAM EX, HDV and DVCPro HD are still used quite a lot, but the DSLR's are making an entry in this section of professional jobs.


This created a big buzz and many fanbois.

Yep. But i think it has worked for them quite well - as far as i know, they do not advertise much, if at all. It's all word of mouth / web.


To put a cam (Scarlet) in all the hands that didn't need RED ONE or couldn't afford it was a clever move. Unfortunately its execution failed miserably...so far.

Well, i admit that they're a little late :hv20-smilie87:

[Halsu]

My guess is that they will drop the planned lower budget cameras and concentrate on their pro camera range, competing against the smaller group of professional manufacturers. The low-volume / high-price market is probably going to be an easier nut to crack than the high-volume / low-price prosumer one.

I don't think they've aimed there. All red cameras, including the 2/3" Scarlets are aimed at the professional market, not prosumer. The price point for the cheapest base package borderlines prosumer, but the camera itself is a full on professional tool, aimed primarily at professionals.

[Duke]

I don't think they are aimed at dropping the Scarlet... yet. However, if the AF100, and some of the similar offerings, are out before the scarlet with a big sensor, interchangeable lenses, great resolution at a similar price point there may be so little market left that the scarlet will be dropped.

I'm sort of considering the HDSLR wave as just a craze at this point based on my own experience. While I can produce beautiful video with my 7D, usually its not worth it to me to go to the extra trouble avoiding stair stepping, capturing sound separately, etc, unless its a specialty shot. I mostly use it for more than photos these days.

So while I do think there have been inroads in the prosumer market, I don't think the HDSLR images or sound come even close to approaching an EX1/3 with a nanoflash in any area except DOF. And DOF isn't the be all and end all of a movie.

The fixed Scarlet may be at a good price point, but to get beyond its limitations is going to cost a lot more and move into a new price point.

We'll see if the AF100 has EX1 type resolution to go with the XLR plugs and DOF control. :) If it does the Scarlet won't be very revolutionary.

[Dust'n the Callipygous]

I'll buy a fixed-lens for run-and-gun work, as well as specialty stuff like slow-motion and green screen. If I need the shallow depth of field I'll stick with my 7D and a nice set of primes. There will definitely be a market for it. The form factor alone makes it worth far more than a DSLR. I love my 7D, but it has it's image issues and is an ergonomic nightmare. Every day I shoot with it I wish I was using a real video camera, but then I see the image in the end and forget all about it.

I'd actually be fine with them releasing the camera is the same manor as the RED ONE. Try to work out the kinks for the major features before shipping, then allow firmware updates down the road to implement the rest of the features or fix any bugs.

[zephyrnoid]

"But we aren't going to release anything until the cameras are done and bug free."

Bug free? That's not even possible!

But I'm sure they'll figure it out, and sell a great Scarlet eventually.

Bugfree is possible, but with no definite delivery date. Maybe RED will be the first company to do that. SIX SIGMA black belt is hard to achieve but always worth the wait :)

[zephyrnoid]

I don't think they are aimed at dropping the Scarlet... yet. However, if the AF100, and some of the similar offerings, are out before the scarlet with a big sensor, interchangeable lenses, great resolution at a similar price point there may be so little market left that the scarlet will be dropped.

I'm sort of considering the HDSLR wave as just a craze at this point based on my own experience. While I can produce beautiful video with my 7D, usually its not worth it to me to go to the extra trouble avoiding stair stepping, capturing sound separately, etc, unless its a specialty shot. I mostly use it for more than photos these days.

So while I do think there have been inroads in the prosumer market, I don't think the HDSLR images or sound come even close to approaching an EX1/3 with a nanoflash in any area except DOF. And DOF isn't the be all and end all of a movie.

The fixed Scarlet may be at a good price point, but to get beyond its limitations is going to cost a lot more and move into a new price point.

We'll see if the AF100 has EX1 type resolution to go with the XLR plugs and DOF control. :) If it does the Scarlet won't be very revolutionary.

Plus 1. Nicely put Duke

[Halsu]

We'll see if the AF100 has EX1 type resolution to go with the XLR plugs and DOF control. :) If it does the Scarlet won't be very revolutionary.

While AF100 probably will be a very cool camera and sell like cheese if the price is right... it's a different beast.

The key points of the 2/3" Scarlets are still unmatched by anyone else's current or in-the-known-future offerings, especially in the under 20K price range:

- 3K resolution
- 120 fps
- RAW

[TiE_Shepherd]

Ughh I can't wait any longer. I have the money in a bucket taped up with a label over it saying "for red."

You should put it in the bank and earn some interest. By the time the scarlet comes out, you'll probably be able to afford 2.

[Lawrence189]

You should put it in the bank and earn some interest. By the time the scarlet comes out, you'll probably be able to afford 2.

All the wasted months...:hv20-smilie15:.

[Duke]

While AF100 probably will be a very cool camera and sell like cheese if the price is right... it's a different beast.

The key points of the 2/3" Scarlets are still unmatched by anyone else's current or in-the-known-future offerings, especially in the under 20K price range:

- 3K resolution
- 120 fps
- RAW

a) its a 3k sensor, not 3k resolution. Slap a debayer filter on 3k and you are at 2.2k. So its a 2k image and full raster 1920 isn't that different.

b) 2/3" DOF is only 2/3 of a stop off of that from a 1/2" sensor. On a fixed scarlet, because its only 8x, and EX1 will actually give you more DOF control.

In other words the image won't be significantly different than an EX1.

c) As far as RAW goes, the scarlet version is more heavily compressed. A nanoflash on the EX1 and you can go up to 220 Mbps Interframe, but even 100Mbps MXF seems like uncompressed at 4.2.2. You can grade either of them with few limitations.

d) I'll grant you 120fps, but how much of your movie is going to be slow-mo if you're not Sam Peckinpah? Ten seconds? Twenty?

Best of all, I can shoot on them now, not next year or the year after that (if then.) I wouldn't say the Scarlet is unmatched now, much less say in a year or two.

[Halsu]

a) its a 3k sensor, not 3k resolution. Slap a debayer filter on 3k and you are at 2.2k. So its a 2k image and full raster 1920 isn't that different.

Debayer is not a filter, it's an algorithm. I think you're talking about an OLPF (Optical Low Pass Filter). OLPF filters are used in all sensor types, to remove aliasing and moiré. Thus a camera that has 1920*1080 sensors can not produce true full raster 1920, be it a 3 -chipper or a single bayer sensor one.

But you're right, debayering does play a role too. A good debayering algorithm like the one Red uses can resolve around 70-80% of the nominal resolution.

So you're kind of right, Scarlet 2/3" should be able to resolve around 2.2K of actual detail.

But you're wrong to think EX1 would resolve 1920 lines, or 1.92K of actual detail because it has 3 1920*1080 sensors - the real number is something less. It's 1920 sensor, not 1920 resolution.

It IS still a great camera though.


b) 2/3" DOF is only 2/3 of a stop off of that from a 1/2" sensor. On a fixed scarlet, because its only 8x, and EX1 will actually give you more DOF control.

Zoom factor number like 8x has nothing to do with DOF control really.

Anyway, EX1 has a very fast lens (i recall f1.8), possibly a tiny bit faster than the Fixed Scarlet lens (which is rumored to be T2.4, which in turn should equal something like f2.0).

Scarlet should still have a slight edge on the DOF control. But i don't think the people who are obsessed with shallow DOF will buy either EX1 or Scarlet...

When it comes to EX3 vs. the interchangeable lens Scarlet model, the lens properties become a non-issue, as they can both use more or less the same 3rd party lenses.


In other words the image won't be significantly different than an EX1.

Significant is a relative term...


c) As far as RAW goes, the scarlet version is more heavily compressed. A nanoflash on the EX1 and you can go up to 220 Mbps Interframe, but even 100Mbps MXF seems like uncompressed at 4.2.2. You can grade either of them with few limitations.

I think you're mixing up bits and bytes. EX1 is 35Mbps, According to specs, Scarlet will be able to record Redcode 100, or in other words, 100 MBps. That equals 800 Mbps.

As far as color space goes, you can get more or less full 1080p 4:4:4 out of Scarlet, so it's much better than 4:2:2, or the native 4:2:0 of EX1.

Also, EX uses 8 bit colors, Scarlet will have (at least) 12 bit color.

If you have ever shot stills with modern DSLR's, you should know the difference between RAW and jpeg when it comes to color correcting the images. The compression ratio isn't the only thing to consider...


d) I'll grant you 120fps, but how much of your movie is going to be slow-mo if you're not Sam Peckinpah? Ten seconds? Twenty?

That depends on how Peckinpahish you are ;-)

Anyway, it's a nice feature to have, and i'm sure it will be used a LOT. Maybe not by me or you though.


Best of all, I can shoot on them now, not next year or the year after that (if then.) I wouldn't say the Scarlet is unmatched now, much less say in a year or two.

I agree on the "shoot now" point, of course. For now, for most pro gigs, EX1 is my tool of choice too. It's an excellent camera, with a great price-performance ratio. I can get it with all the necessary support gear (tripods etc.) for € 150 / day, which means all my clients can easily afford the rent without hesitation.

However, i must repeat that there's NOTHING from any of the other manufacturers out there today, or currently announced, that matches Scarlet specs, in the under 20K price range.

[1]

However, i must repeat that there's NOTHING from any of the other manufacturers out there today, or currently announced, that matches Scarlet specs, in the under 20K price range.

LOL, that's exactly the meaningless thing Duke and I have been talking about.
Just because it's announced now, doesn't mean it will be better or worse than anything actually available at the time of shipment.
Announcements mean diddly-squat. (In fact, I was a little surprised at the AF100 announcement, it was so REDesque!)

I could announce a roll-up 100" screen that you can stick on any wall, that has a 4k resolution, with specs better than anything out there.
Doesn't mean I'd actually sell it though before anyone else, does it?

Canon/Sony/Pana et al have road-maps, and I bet they know pretty much where they'll be in 5 or even 10 years, technology/specs-wise. Not sure how long it takes from drawing-board to sell a cam like the 5D MKII, or EX1, but I bet it's quite a feat, and takes quite some time.
My guess is, they're not only have the next versions for us being tested now, but the one after that is likely being developed also.
SDXC with 300 megabytes per second, who knows. It's all being developed, just not announced.

You really are our resident RED/Scarlet fan! :hv20-smilie77:

[Halsu]

LOL, that's exactly the meaningless thing Duke and I have been talking about.
Just because it's announced now, doesn't mean it will be better or worse than anything actually available at the time of shipment.
Announcements mean diddly-squat. (In fact, I was a little surprised at the AF100 announcement, it was so REDesque!)

It looks like some of the traditional manufacturers are taking baby steps towards Red style openness - i recall Canon announcing new 5D MKII firmware being in development well in advance of the release and so on.

I personally like the Red style - i can cope with uncertainty and changes pretty well, it's not a life and death thing for me, and i'm in no real hurry... It will be ready for real when it's ready, but i still like knowing what's the status as the manufacturer sees it. And i love speculating with the stuff ;-)


You really are our resident RED/Scarlet fan! :hv20-smilie77:

Yep ;-)

[Duke]

Debayer is not a filter, it's an algorithm.

Yes, its not a physical filter, but it is commonly called a debayer filter.

From Red:
"The DeBayer filter is used to convert raw image data into an RGB image. In a raw color image, every pixel represents a value for one basic color, instead of three as is the case for an RGB image. In order to get a real color image, the two missing colors have to be interpolated. This is exactly what this filter does."



Thus a camera that has 1920*1080 sensors can not produce true full raster 1920, be it a 3 -chipper or a single bayer sensor one.

An OLPF does reduce resolution, but the EX1 has three bigger than 1920x1080 sensors. Net result, full raster 1920.


But you're right, debayering does play a role too. A good debayering algorithm like the one Red uses can resolve around 70-80% of the nominal resolution.

So you're kind of right, Scarlet 2/3" should be able to resolve around 2.2K of actual detail.

Mein Got! We agreed on something :)


But you're wrong to think EX1 would resolve 1920 lines, or 1.92K of actual detail because it has 3 1920*1080 sensors - the real number is something less. It's 1920 sensor, not 1920 resolution.

The EX1 tests out at 1000 lps, the full Nyuist limits for full 1920 resolution. As I said the sensor is slightly higher resolution.


Zoom factor number like 8x has nothing to do with DOF control really.

We've had this discussion before on the technical reasons, but... for practical purposes its the interaction of apurture, sensor size and length of glass in front of the sensor. I will grant you that it does change the field of view, which if you put the disclaimer for the specific FOV you are right. But if you want the DOF rather than FOV, the zoom trick works.


Anyway, EX1 has a very fast lens (i recall f1.8), possibly a tiny bit faster than the Fixed Scarlet lens (which is rumored to be T2.4, which in turn should equal something like f2.0).

EX1 is F1.9, and the rumored T2.4 is F2.2. So they'll be very close on the wide open end, and EX1 will have a shallower DOF when zoomed in more than half way.


I think you're mixing up bits and bytes. EX1 is 35Mbps, According to specs,

I was citing the Nanoflash.


Scarlet will be able to record Redcode 100, or in other words, 100 MBps. That equals 800 Mbps.

Last time I looked, and its been awhile, the Scarlet was scheduled to be given a more compressed form of Red Code.


As far as color space goes, you can get more or less full 1080p 4:4:4 out of Scarlet, so it's much better than 4:2:2, or the native 4:2:0 of EX1.

Also, EX uses 8 bit colors, Scarlet will have (at least) 12 bit color.

Well, with RAW it technically won't have color or 4.4.4, but... I understand what you're saying. However, the reason 4.2.0 or 4.1.1 color schemes work is that the human eye is much less sensitive to color. Whit a 4.2.2 pattern you'd only be a pixel off. You won't really see a difference, even with green screen or heavy CC. RAW is technically better, but most of the time will it be worth it?


However, i must repeat that there's NOTHING from any of the other manufacturers out there today, or currently announced, that matches Scarlet specs, in the under 20K price range.

We can agree to disagree. I believe the EX1 with Nanoflash is close enough (considering its entirely different companies and systems) to not make a practical difference.

[um3k]

The advantage of raw isn't spatial color resolution. It's the malleability of the colors. Every 4:2:2, 4:2:0, and 4:1:1 camera already has some degree of color processing baked into the image, which limits your options in post. With raw, you have everything the sensor captured, free to do whatever you please with.

[Halsu]

An OLPF does reduce resolution, but the EX1 has three bigger than 1920x1080 sensors. Net result, full raster 1920.

That's not what Sony says: (http://www.pro.sony.eu/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=PMW-EX1&site=biz_en_EU&pageType=TechnicalSpecs&category=XDCAMCamcorders)
--Camera--
Pickup device: 3-chip 1/2-inch type Exmor CMOS
Effective picture elements: 1920 (H) x 1080 (V)


EX1 is F1.9, and the rumored T2.4 is F2.2. So they'll be very close on the wide open end, and EX1 will have a shallower DOF when zoomed in more than half way.

Nope. Scarlet will have shallower DOF at all FOV angles that are available. Only when you zoom EX1 beyond the maximum level available in Scarlet, it will appear to have a shallower DOF.

Not that it matters much - as said, the DOF -obsesseed are not the target audience for these cameras.


I was citing the Nanoflash.

So? You still have less compression with Scarlet.


Last time I looked, and its been awhile, the Scarlet was scheduled to be given a more compressed form of Red Code.

You're wrong.


RAW is technically better, but most of the time will it be worth it?

Every time you color correct, it's better. Every time you do green- or bluescreen, it's better.


We can agree to disagree. I believe the EX1 with Nanoflash is close enough (considering its entirely different companies and systems) to not make a practical difference.

In most cases, EX1 (with or without the $3000 nanoflash unit) is plenty good enough, i agree. For many outputs (web, standard def TV, etc.), HV20 is plenty good enough image wise. So we agree on that point, the quality difference isn't THAT big for many outputs.

But my point is, Scarlet is competing with cameras like this (http://www.pro.sony.eu/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=F23&site=biz_en_EU&pageType=Overview&category=HDCAMSRCamcorders) head to head (talking about the interchangeable lens Scarlet in this case, naturally):

[Ian-T]

The advantage of raw isn't spatial color resolution. It's the malleability of the colors. Every 4:2:2, 4:2:0, and 4:1:1 camera already has some degree of color processing baked into the image, which limits your options in post. With raw, you have everything the sensor captured, free to do whatever you please with.

Sometimes I wonder though why we want these digital cameras to act like fim. What I mean is why cause more heartache for ourselves in post when we can "get it right" in camera? RAW I guess would be nice....but who wants to spend that kind of time in post? 4:2:2 might be all we need (with a much more robust codec etc). If we can do that with no major hit in the true sensor quality then I'm all for that. SHooting RAW just means I'll have to spend more money to upgrade my hardware... Oh well.

[1]

...why cause more heartache for ourselves in post when we can "get it right" in camera?...

TOTALLY agree!
Also think it's where we'll be heading eventually.

We will have DSLRs or Scarlets, or AF100s that will have MAGIC BULLET type CC built in, and selectable. Maybe even have it like the current SLRs that can record both JPGs and RAW, i.e. record the color corrected video in 1080P, and also a max. resolution RAW version at the same time for future CC if needed.
There will definitely ALWAYS be a need for in cam CC, at least in the prosumer world.

[Duke]

That's not what Sony says:
Pickup device: 3-chip 1/2-inch type Exmor CMOS
Effective picture elements: 1920 (H) x 1080 (V)

That's effective picture elements (after filtering.)


Nope. Scarlet will have shallower DOF at all FOV angles that are available. Only when you zoom EX1 beyond the maximum level available in Scarlet, it will appear to have a shallower DOF.

Except the EX1 goes wider partially off setting the slightly larger sensor.


Every time you color correct, it's better. Every time you do green- or bluescreen, it's better.

Yep, one pixel better.


But my point is, Scarlet is competing with F23 head to head (talking about the interchangeable lens Scarlet in this case, naturally):

What Red used to say is that the Red One was designed to compete with the F23 (an $80,000 camera) and the Scarlet was designed to compete with the F35 (a $25,000 camera.) The EX1 with Nanoflash is purported to match F35 image quality, but requires an extra stop of light.

[Duke]

This quote from Jim Jannard on Reduser on 6/12/10:

"Sorry man.. All focus is on Epic right now. We need to get Epic buttoned up and out the door, or there will be no Scarlet. "

It sounds like they aren't working on the Scarlet.

[Halsu]

Maybe even have it like the current SLRs that can record both JPGs and RAW, i.e. record the color corrected video in 1080P, and also a max. resolution RAW version at the same time for future CC if needed.

I think that's what they're doing with Scarlet: it has an 1080p RGB mode too, hopefully it can be used simultaneously with RAW.


There will definitely ALWAYS be a need for in cam CC, at least in the prosumer world.

Yep. Both have their places.

[1]

All focus is on Epic right now.

Someone remind me again why anyone needs an Epic?
Better resolution? Better form-factor? What does the thing do, Red One doesn't? I forget.


I think that's what they're doing with Scarlet...

Sweet! very cool.

[Halsu]

That's effective picture elements (after filtering.)

Nope dude, i don't think so. OLPF is a physical filter, it doesn't affect the number of picture elements (= photosites).


Except the EX1 goes wider partially off setting the slightly larger sensor.

In those wider angles, it obviously won't have shallower looking DOF than Scarlet, now will it?

The only place where there might be a difference in EX1's "favor" is (almost) fully zoomed in. Possibly not even there (this will require either actual tests, or proper calculations with the real numbers - the ballpark estimates i come up with are too close to each other to be conclusive).


Yep, one pixel better.

Make that 1036800 pixels better - 4:4:4 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:2, just like 4:2:2 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:0. In other words:

4:4:4 = 1920*1080
4:2:2 = 960*1080
4:2:0 = 960*540

When keying, 4:2:2 has stairstepping in the edges, unless the chroma / matte is blurred.


What Red used to say is that the Red One was designed to compete with the F23 (an $80,000 camera) and the Scarlet was designed to compete with the F35 (a $25,000 camera.)

You missed a zero in the F35 price - it's roughly $250,000, not $25,000.

F23 isn't $80,000, it's more than that - i did find an used one (http://www.kpprovideo.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=&product_id=563&category_id=106&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=53) at that price though...

Red one (and Scarlet s35) are comparable to F35, with s35 sized sensor etc. Scarlet 2/3" interchangeable version is comparable to F23.


The EX1 with Nanoflash is purported to match F35 image quality, but requires an extra stop of light.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Might be close enough in practice for many purposes though.

[Halsu]

Someone remind me again why anyone needs an Epic?
Better resolution? Better form-factor? What does the thing do, Red One doesn't? I forget.

Higher frame rates, higher resolution, higher dynamic range (possibly up to HDRI -style), modular design (smallest usable config is about DSLR size)...

...and of course the cool factor ;-)

[1]

higher resolution

because 4k is just not enough! LOL

[AJUK]

You know, there is a lot of conjecture and some slightly disturbing obsessive behaviour surfacing in this thread! :)
Can't we just agree that the Red is a pretty good camera, that the Ex1 is a pretty good camera, and that we'd all like to be able to afford to rent or buy them.
Otherwise this is just going to go on and on and on...

[Halsu]

because 4k is just not enough! LOL

Yep - in a few years, the theaters are supposed to have 4K projection. 5-6K cameras are designed to be a flexible source for pristine 4K output. Also, the cameras can double as still cameras -

...i do agree though that it's a bit of overkill ;-)

[1]

in a few years

"A few" being a relative term of course.
4k cinema saturation will take decades!

[Duke]

Make that 1036800 pixels better - 4:4:4 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:2, just like 4:2:2 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:0. In other words:

4:4:4 = 1920*1080
4:2:2 = 960*1080
4:2:0 = 960*540

When keying, 4:2:2 has stairstepping in the edges, unless the chroma / matte is blurred.


I agree that 4.4.4 has twice the color resolution of 4.2.2. Also, 4.2.0 has two pixels with color data on one line, skips the next line and interpolates all the rest.

OTOH, 4.2.2 has two pixels out of 4 in each line with color data in a a square pattern. Because its a two by two square pattern you can't go more than one pixel in any direction without running into another pixel with full color data. It makes 4.2.2 much more effective by conveying more pixels with true color (which is what you're pointing out), and makes the inbetween colors more accurate by less interpolation.

There's a nice article here:
Understanding Color Space (http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/)

So yes, 4.2.2 stair steps by one pixel, but no you don't need to blur chroma and Lumina anywhere near the way you do 4.2.0. Plus real life objects blur around the edges and the human eye just isn't that sensative to color as we have many more black and white sensors than color sensors in the eye.

I'm not arguing that 4.4.4 isn't technically better. I'm saying that if the audience can't tell the difference and the work flow is easy, who cares. That's my take on 5k-6k compared to 4k too. If the audience can't tell the difference, who cares.

Same with special effects, if the audience can't tell if its a physical effect or CGI, who care how you do it. I suppose you'd say I'm pragmatic rather than an artistic purist.

[Duke]

You know, there is a lot of conjecture and some slightly disturbing obsessive behaviour surfacing in this thread! :)
Can't we just agree that the Red is a pretty good camera, that the Ex1 is a pretty good camera, and that we'd all like to be able to afford to rent or buy them.
Otherwise this is just going to go on and on and on...

Don't worry about it too much. I respect Halsu and his opinions. I think everyone agrees the Red One is an excellent camera now that they have most of the bugs worked out. I think everyone agrees the EX1 is a very good camera too within its price point.

Its all smoke and conjecture until we have a scarlet to test, and the latest offerings to test them against.

What's interesting is that they are entirely different systems approaches to the same problems. This creates inherently different strengths and weaknesses in each system. This is true whether its CCD/CMOS, HDV, AVCHD, MPG, MXF or RAW.

I think discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each system helps to understand how to use your camera better to take advantage of its strengths and minimize its weaknesses from showing up.

[Halsu]

I agree that 4.4.4 has twice the color resolution of 4.2.2. Also, 4.2.0 has two pixels with color data on one line, skips the next line and interpolates all the rest.

No. 4:2:0 (True progressive, like EX1's) has two samples out of each block of 4 pixels on a line, then skips one line. Rinse and repeat. There's one sample for each 2x2 pixel block, 4:2:2 has two samples for 2x2 block. Lemme ASCII it for you. X is a sample, O is interpolated.

4:4:4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4:2:2

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

4:2:0 (Progressive)

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO

4:2:0 (Interlaced)


XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO

All have full sampling on the luma, of course.

As far as stairstepping and blurring go, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 need to be blurred exactly the same amount horizontally - in addition to this, 4:2:0 needs to be blurred the same amount also vertically.

Edit: it's also noteworthy that instead of simple blurring, the missing chroma data can be interpolated, with a proper algorithm - i've actually written a plugin for After Effects that does this pretty well for 4:2:2, 4:1:1, 4:2:0(i) 4:2:0 (progressive wrapped in i, like HV20 Film mode) and 4:2:0(p)...

[Ian-T]

"A few" being a relative term of course.
4k cinema saturation will take decades!...maybe a decade and a half...but still no time soon. :hv20-smilie87:

[Ian-T]

Edit: it's also noteworthy that instead of simple blurring, the missing chroma data can be interpolated, with a proper algorithm - i've actually written a plugin for After Effects that does this pretty well for 4:2:2, 4:1:1, 4:2:0(i) 4:2:0 (progressive wrapped in i, like HV20 Film mode) and 4:2:0(p)...
How can we get this? And can we see a sample of how it affects these images?

[Gillvane]

I don't need any better IQ than the 5d mark II.

I would watch a good movie filmed with that camera on the big screen.

If Red releases something nice that's in the prosumer budget range, cool, if not there are reasonably priced tools available now to make great images, and get good DoF.

The audience can't see raw or if they are looking for "4K" instead of wondering what's around the corner, you're not doing it right.

[Halsu]

How can we get this? And can we see a sample of how it affects these images?

I'm actually kind of contemplating selling these plugins for a reasonable fee vs. just giving them away... so i don't wanna put up a public link just yet. But those who are interested, send me a PM and i'll send you an "evaluation" copy.

Oh, BTW, the plugins are written with pixel bender, and they require AE CS4 or better.

Anyway, here's a screen grab of EX1 greenscreen footage with and without my chroma interpolation plugin.

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/TopCom_EX1_420_interpolate.jpg

Double size to show the effect better:

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/TopCom_EX1_420_interpolate_doublesize.jpg



I'll try to dig up a similar comparison shot from HV20 soon. Here's the interface (i wrote the keyer too...):

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/Halsu_plugs_interface.jpg

[Halsu]

I'll try to dig up a similar comparison shot from HV20 soon.

As promised: HV20 greenscreen footage with and without my chroma interpolation plugin.

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/TopCom_HV20_420_interpolate.jpg

Double size to show the effect better:

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/TopCom_HV20_420_interpolate_doublesize.jpg

[Duke]

No. 4:2:0 (True progressive, like EX1's) has two samples out of each block of 4 pixels on a line, then skips one line. Rinse and repeat.

Exactly, that's what I said, although I didn't say out of four, all these are out of 4 maximum as in 4.4.4.

Its the Nanoflash that's 4.2.2 in true progressive (pull down from HD-SDI is removed automatically) and as you can see in your excellent diagram the color data is a maximum of one pixel off in any direction. However, in 4.2.0, the EX1 and HV20 recorded format, the distance to a color pixel can be more than one pixel off. We aren't really disagreeing here.



4:2:2
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

4:2:0 (Progressive)
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO


I must say your interpolation plugin looks excellent! You've done a great job on that. I'm quite impressed. :hv20-smilie77:

[Halsu]

I don't need any better IQ than the 5d mark II.

5D MKII is plenty good enough, as long as the image doesn't have small detail, like venetian blinds or a brick wall, and as long as you don't need to do extensive color correction in post, and you can live with slightly soft image.


The audience can't see raw or if they are looking for "4K" instead of wondering what's around the corner, you're not doing it right.

You're of course right, kind of. I'd watch a good movie shot with MiniDV on the big screen... but still, if i have the option for better IQ, why not go for it.

If image quality wasn't necessary, you'd be happy with a 20 year old VHS camera - i guess that's not the case ;-)

[Halsu]

I must say your interpolation plugin looks excellent! You've done a great job on that. I'm quite impressed. :hv20-smilie77:

Thanks - it did take quite a while to figure the stuff out, so i'm kinda proud it works as well as it does ;-)

[Ian-T]

I'll echo what Duke said...that is quite impressive.

[simulacro]

very cool explanations. this thread is a good reason for us the beginners to open everyday the forum. thank you guys:hv20-smilie77:

[Gillvane]

5D MKII is plenty good enough, as long as the image doesn't have small detail, like venetian blinds or a brick wall, and as long as you don't need to do extensive color correction in post, and you can live with slightly soft image.



You're of course right, kind of. I'd watch a good movie shot with MiniDV on the big screen... but still, if i have the option for better IQ, why not go for it.

If image quality wasn't necessary, you'd be happy with a 20 year old VHS camera - i guess that's not the case ;-)

20 year old VHS looks so horrible it's actually distracts you from getting wrapped up in the story.

yes, good IQ is important, and better IQ is even nicer.

But we've gotten to "good enough" now. Everything else is gravy.

Now, we've got IQ that looks so nice that it doesn't distract you from the story.

Sure, if Red releases something that knocks everyone's socks off in the prosumer range, that's great.

But you don't need RAW and 4:2:2 to make good stories that suck the audience in. You have the IQ that will do that right now.

It used to be a monumental struggle to get the IQ. Now it isn't. Now everyone can shoot pretty footage. A little bit prettier won't make that much difference to the average person that isn't a videophile, and just likes to watch movies.

The real problem isn't a few jaggies in some venetian blinds. The real problem is if you give 9 out of 10 people a good camera, they can't make a good story with it that's interesting enough to make you not pay attention to the venetian blinds, or watch the film long enough to get to the shot with the venetian blinds.

One of my favorite movies is Forbidden Planet. It was released in 1956. I rarely see a sci fi flick that good, even with all the new CGI special effects that didn't exist back then.

[Halsu]

It used to be a monumental struggle to get the IQ. Now it isn't.

In my opinion, it hasn't been a struggle in years - HDV was the final barrier (or, arguably MiniDV already was). Other than shallower DOF, DSLR's don't add much to that. And no, in my opinion shallow DOF doesn't equal good IQ ;-)


The real problem isn't a few jaggies in some venetian blinds. The real problem is if you give 9 out of 10 people a good camera, they can't make a good story with it that's interesting enough to make you not pay attention to the venetian blinds, or watch the film long enough to get to the shot with the venetian blinds.

Exactly.

But the moiré is a real problem that regular video cameras do not have - it restricts one to skip a lot of shots (wide deep DOF shot of the city? - be very wary, or the buildings will look psychedelic!)...

This is a pretty good article about the phenomena:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20


One of my favorite movies is Forbidden Planet. It was released in 1956. I rarely see a sci fi flick that good, even with all the new CGI special effects that didn't exist back then.

I'm pretty sure that Forbidden Planet has rather deep DOF, and they used a lot of light. You could get very similar results with plain vanilla HV20 + some ND filters.

[cgbier]

Aren't you guys a bit too much in love with technology? How big is the amount of folks sitting in the cinema who really would see a difference between the footage of an HVxx and a Red? Popcorn, soda and action counts more for - I assume - 95% of movie goers than the technology behind it all.

[1]

Popcorn, soda and action counts more...

Aye!
Have you been to the movies lately? In the USA?
It's all Abercrombie&Finch show-offs with some sprinkles of: "...well, Josh was like, you know, come on already, and I was like, seriously, like he totally dumped Kailynn last week...."
The movie means [almost] nada...

:eek:

[Ian-T]

In my opinion, it hasn't been a struggle in years - HDV was the final barrier (or, arguably MiniDV already was). Other than shallower DOF, DSLR's don't add much to that. And no, in my opinion shallow DOF doesn't equal good IQ ;-) Well that’s just it. It’s not just about IQ….it’s about creativity. The DSLRs offer a lot more in terms of shallow DOF and light sensitivity. This means an individual does not have to bogged down with not having “enough” light to light a scene with a DSLR vs a traditional camcorder and DOF adapter. The DSLRs are also lighter in weight giving the DP more freedom to move around more. And then there is the infinite choice of lenses that have their own character. To technophiles like you the DSLR might not mean higher IQ but to the average Joe/Susie they can’t tell the difference.




But the moiré is a real problem that regular video cameras do not have - it restricts one to skip a lot of shots (wide deep DOF shot of the city? - be very wary, or the buildings will look psychedelic!)... Have you shot with a DSLR? The moiré can be avoided most of the time. You just have to know its (the camera) weaknesses and work around them. How many times over the years have we heard that HDV wasn’t “good enough” or it can’t do this or that…or “not professional?” Yet blockbuster movies are/were made with HDV. Every format, including film, has their hiccups. But who cares really. Work around them (which I understand you do already with HDV). I guess my point is I don’t see moiré or aliasing as any different.

By the way....I see moire and aliasing all the time in professional broadcasts.

[Halsu]

Have you shot with a DSLR?

Well, i own D90. Haven't shot much more than some random shots with it though, i use it as a still camera.

I've done post on maybe a dozen or so MKII jobs, including greenscreen shoots. In all cases, the results have been pretty nice so far, and the clients have been happy with what they've got.

One MKII project is on post right now - and this time, i'm a bit worried that we may have seriously hit the limits on some shots... time will tell. This may be one reason why i feel a bit grumpy towards DSLR's right now ;-)


Work around them (which I understand you do already with HDV). I guess my point is I don’t see moiré or aliasing as any different.

Neither do i - it's simply one hurdle that needs to be taken into account - just like i.e. interlaced 4:2:0 color sampling or whatever. But the way to manage stuff like this is to actually know and acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each system, not wishful thinking and makebelieve.

This said, i try to always use the most affordable system that's adequate for any given job - quite often, that's HV20 (including today's full day green screen shoot...).

[Gillvane]

But the moiré is a real problem that regular video cameras do not have - it restricts one to skip a lot of shots (wide deep DOF shot of the city? - be very wary, or the buildings will look psychedelic!)...

This is a pretty good article about the phenomena:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20



I'm pretty sure that Forbidden Planet has rather deep DOF, and they used a lot of light. You could get very similar results with plain vanilla HV20 + some ND filters.

I agree that moire can be distracting. It's funny, but different people are sensitive to different things, and moire tends to bother me quite a bit actually.

i was shooting some test footage the other day and actually got some bad moire with the Hv30 on a window screen. The scene was somebody scratching on teh screen from the outside. I was like, omg! this looks horrible, and my friend said don't worry about it, we'll get rid of the screen when we shoot, and just use the window, what do you think about the rest of the shot? but honestly it was hard for me to look at anything else, lighting, composition, etc., with all that moire.

So yes, better tools are good if they get rid of things that are actually distracting, like moire.


Forbidden Planet is almost all deep Depth of Field shots, no real shallow DoF that I can remember, so yea, DoF isn't always important depending on what you're shooting, but a nice tool to have in the tool box.

What I love about some of the Hammer films from the 1970's are the cool sets they shot on. Great castles, mansions, filled with crazy furniture and wild set dec. It's not often you get to shoot on sets like that with no budget.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Graphics/AltarEgos/Hammer2.jpg

[zephyrnoid]

Aren't you guys a bit too much in love with technology? How big is the amount of folks sitting in the cinema who really would see a difference between the footage of an HVxx and a Red? Popcorn, soda and action counts more for - I assume - 95% of movie goers than the technology behind it all.

Depends on how much 'post ' the raw captured files have to go through before they reach the Silver Screen.

Some noticeable factors that do matter:

1) Image degradation from center to corner. This matters a lot on a HUGE screen.
2) finesse of details where the point of attention is crucial to the shot.
3) Color grading
4) dynamic range/low light sensitivity ( I hear that Canon D7 beats RED?). Sometimes it's nice to shoot available light.
5) Not noticeable on screen but impacts the overall risk management of a project .... How likely is the camera to fail on a shoot. Albeit, you can truck a couple of dozen HVXX's for what one RED costs, but still.

[cgbier]

Zephyr, I understand all of that, but your reasons are what 95% of movie goers would give a lalala about.

Sure, I'm drooling also over the EX-1....

[Ian-T]

lol

[Duke]

Jim Jannard announced today that he will be doing a question and answer session tonight from 10pm to midnight PST. It posted on Scarletuser in the reconn section so I assume that means he'll be doing it on Reduser.
:hv20-smilie72:
Since the Red boards have been so quiet lately the fanbois will be salivating. Anyone want to see a server crash, like when he posted the Scarlet program updates?

Just for the fun of it, here are my wild a$$ predictions:
1) The bug will be fixed soon.
2) They are negotiating with a new manufacturer.
3) They have no new updates on the production schedule yet.
4) The new improvements make the images look even better (even though we're not seeing them.)
5) They aren't ready to announce any new features yet.
:hv20-smilie31:
Okay, maybe I'm a bit cynical about announcements of announcements.:hv20-smilie02:

[1]

Announcement; Duke, I will respond to your post tomorrow.

[Ian-T]

lol..

[Duke]

No guts, no glory. :hv20-smilie79:

[Halsu]

Okay, maybe I'm a bit cynical about announcements of announcements.:hv20-smilie02:

You are, but this time i agree you might be right ;-)

[Duke]

I'd say its pretty much what I predicted:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=623107&postcount=1

I wish them all the best, but this didn't help much.

[Halsu]

I'd say its pretty much what I predicted:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=623107&postcount=1

I wish them all the best, but this didn't help much.

Huh? Did you read the questions and answers that followed? Here's all 92 of them, collected for your convenience.

http://scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=4673

They may have missed some - i.e. my own Q/A was omitted from the list, it's later in the thread (Yes, they will reveal the technical details required for making 3rd party modules, some time after the release):




Just for the fun of it, here are my wild a$$ predictions:
1) The bug will be fixed soon.
2) They are negotiating with a new manufacturer.
3) They have no new updates on the production schedule yet.
4) The new improvements make the images look even better (even though we're not seeing them.)
5) They aren't ready to announce any new features yet.

1) Fixed already. Bug dead.
2) They're not saying what's the status. Which could mean pretty much anything ;-)
3) There were a few answers considering schedule, Scarlet is still on for 2010 release being the most interesting to me personally.
4) + 5) They did give a few interesting new details about the already known features, no big new announcements.

One of the most interesting new tidbits is that they now have working Scarlet prototypes.

[1]

Scarlet is still on for 2010 release being the most interesting to me personally.


I can change the "geeking" to "hallucinating" if you like! :)
If they do "release" the Scarlet in 2010 it will ONLY be in such small numbers so not to lose face. I doubt I, for instance, could buy one in 2010, and would say that's at least one year away.

Let's be realistic, they said IF ALL GOES AS PLANNED...it never goes according to plan.

[Timbit]

I can change the "geeking" to "hallucinating" if you like! :)


Hehe...:hv20-smilie81:


What can I have, Mal? Farmer Dude? :hv20-smilie59:

[Duke]

Huh? Did you read the questions and answers that followed? Here's all 92 of them, collected for your convenience.

Yep, I read them before they compiled them.

> 1) Fixed already. Bug dead.

Bug fixed three days ago or bug fixed soon, tomAtoes, tomahtoes. Same difference. (De minimus non curat lex.)

> 2) They're not saying what's the status. Which could mean pretty much anything ;-)

That's sort of the point of a non-announcement.

> 3) There were a few answers considering schedule, Scarlet is still on for 2010 release being the most interesting to me personally.

If everything goes as planned, but in R&D + Manufacturing nothing goes linear (as has been proven by many companies including Red.) I'll agree with Mal on this one. A few will be released to save face, but you and I won't be able to buy one. How many times do they have to change the release date before you think they won't stick to their release date?

> 4) + 5) They did give a few interesting new details about the already known features, no big new announcements.

Details on features, but no new features, which is what I said.


One of the most interesting new tidbits is that they now have working Scarlet prototypes.

Yep, that was interesting. If they're working why don't we see clips? Jim said they're too busy. If you and I wanted to post a clip, what would it take us to down convert some small clip and post it, 15-30 minutes?

[Halsu]

Bug fixed three days ago or bug fixed soon, tomAtoes, tomahtoes. Same difference. (De minimus non curat lex.)

Well, it was "bug will be fixed soon" for quite a while, assumably months. Now it's "bug has been fixed". Those are two very different things. I'd say your prediction was false.

= 0/1


That's sort of the point of a non-announcement.

Yep - you got this one right, kind of.

= 1/2


How many times do they have to change the release date before you think they won't stick to their release date?

Where did you get that from? I simply replied to your prediction "They have no new updates on the production schedule yet.", which was false. I didn't say i have high confidence in this update being accurate or anything.

= 1/3


Details on features, but no new features, which is what I said.

Yep - you got number four wrong, number five right.

That's 2/5 correct. I actually thought you'd get more than that, so i'm happyish with the Q/A.


Yep, that was interesting. If they're working why don't we see clips? Jim said they're too busy. If you and I wanted to post a clip, what would it take us to down convert some small clip and post it, 15-30 minutes?

I don't think they want to show just any clip. With Red one, the footage they posted before release was well produced scenes: "car commercial" -like scene, "1950´s girls drinking milk on a gas station" scene, "a short film by Peter Jackson" etc.

I'm pretty sure they want the footage to look very, very good because the first impression matters, and that's not something you do in 15 minutes.

[Halsu]

I can change the "geeking" to "hallucinating" if you like! :)
If they do "release" the Scarlet in 2010 it will ONLY be in such small numbers so not to lose face. I doubt I, for instance, could buy one in 2010, and would say that's at least one year away.

Well, that remains to be seen. The question was "so do you think that the scarlett will be available by the end of the year? ", and the reply simply "yes". That would imply full scale release, as in available to the public.

What we don't know is how far are their full scale production plans are, but they've had quite a lot of time to get that right so far. Changing the manufacturer might or might not add a significant delay. We'll see.


Let's be realistic, they said IF ALL GOES AS PLANNED...it never goes according to plan.

Yep ;-)

[Halsu]

I can change the "geeking" to "hallucinating" if you like! :)

Oh, that's already included in my every post: "Halsu" is a Finnish slang abbreviation of "Hallucination". It kind of (badly) rhymes with my middle name "Hannes" and my last name "Halkka", as does the Finnish word for "sauerkraut". A bit weird way to get a nick, but hey, that's what friends (and recreational substances) are for.

And i'm rather "Halsu" than "Hapankaali" ;-)

[1]

Well...

SERIOUSLY??? :eek::eek::eek:

They don't have a manufacturer, and they don't even know in which country they will produce it. End of year for PRODUCTION
units that I could buy is out of the question, given common sense, industrial manufacturing knowledge, the speed at which the Earth rotates, and their track record.

Added:
I predict they may circumvent the above FACT though, with "releasing" maybe 20 to 40 hand-built units to a select few
(with available production units following WELL INTO 2011), and thus declaring they were accurate in their release schedule,
which technicality they were, which is why I qualified my original statement, as I'm egotistical enough to only worry about when "I" can actually buy one!




Very LOL on the halsu/Sauerkraut thing! :hv20-smilie77::hv20-smilie81:

[Halsu]

They don't have a manufacturer, and they don't even know in which country they will produce it. End of year for PRODUCTION
units that I could buy is out of the question, given common sense, industrial manufacturing knowledge, the speed at which the Earth rotates, and their track record.

We don't really know whether they have a manufacturer or not, or if they even really gave boot to the original manufacturer. They've been pretty vague about it, "Scarlet is still undecided.... At least we aren't saying."

We have no idea whatsoever how far their process really is behind the curtain.

[Duke]

Halsu, if I ever get arrested I want you as my attorney. You'll deny everything. :hv20-smilie81:

Found my CS4 disks today. :)

[sayre85]

yes, good IQ is important, and better IQ is even nicer.

But we've gotten to "good enough" now. Everything else is gravy.



Couldn't agree more, with one qualification: the pool of filmgoers who have entered the collective consciousness of the great God TECHNOPHILE is on an exponential rise.

There are millions of people just like us, going to movies with an eye for how they are constructed. If we notice careful craftsmanship in the design of the flick, it tends to improve the quality of the story, as well as the film as a whole (it does for me, anyway).

They can make the sensors as big and as perfect as they want. I'm in no position to afford that kind of filmmaking tool (I'm very happy with my T2i), but I think its fascinating to see them entering the market.

Kind of makes me wonder: if I'm witnessing this now (at age 24), what kind of cinematic opportunities will I be seeing when I'm 34?

[Ian-T]

Halsu, if I ever get arrested I want you as my attorney. You'll deny everything. :hv20-smilie81:

LOL...somehow I think he'll make a very good one.

[Halsu]

Halsu, if I ever get arrested I want you as my attorney. You'll deny everything. :hv20-smilie81:

I only try to keep the facts straight ;-)

[cgbier]

sayre, I (45) am the opposite opinion. Democratization of electronics has NOT lead to a higher appreciation of the arts - au contraire: Humanity is getting dumber by the minute.

[sayre85]

sayre, I (45) am the opposite opinion. Democratization of electronics has NOT lead to a higher appreciation of the arts - au contraire: Humanity is getting dumber by the minute.

Well, we're kind of fighting a losing battle on that front. There are more idiots born everyday than technophiles. So you could say that both pools are growing.

There will always be a bigger audience that sees a film for no other reason than to experience a bunch of big dumb explosions. But we have to appreciate that there are more and more people everyday taking an interest in what sort of equipment was used to create that explosion.

But yeah, idiots will always reign.

[Duke]

With the bell curve there are about the same number of idiots as bright people born every day, but as the overall population increases the overall number of idiots increase.

The problem is the bright people are usually busy doing something and not being heard and the school systems are often failing the vast middle majority, making them seem like idiots.

[cgbier]

Duke, I can't find my data source right now, but in Germany, the IQ of kids has been growing steadily from the 1920-90's. Since then, there is a decline.

Food for thought: 24hr. cable TV was introduced in 1988. Does it have to do with that decline?

[Duke]

Duke, I can't find my data source right now, but in Germany, the IQ of kids has been growing steadily from the 1920-90's. Since then, there is a decline.

Food for thought: 24hr. cable TV was introduced in 1988. Does it have to do with that decline?

While amusing; statistics don't work that way, and this leads to the kind of shoddy 'studies' that try to link cause and effect. Let me give a good example:

Marijuana is often called a gateway drug because about 95% of all drug addicts previously used marijuana.

By that reasoning milk is a gateway drug because nearly 100% of all drug addicts drank milk previously.

Another example is the mothers trying prove that the increase in autism is related to vaccines containing mercury because the increase in autism coincided with vaccine programs in the US.

The problem with that one is that autism increased at the same rate in countries that have never allowed any mercury in their vaccines.

Its a slippery slope and the general public believes studies like that because the media is too uneducated themselves (or is after the headlines.) I'd really like some media companies that weren't gutless, and who'd challange the lazy media outlets. US news companies are awful.
:hv20-smilie68: Rant over. :hv20-smilie01:

[cgbier]

Nah, i just thought it was a funny coincidence. While I don't think that watching TV (especially European cable shows) does add anything to one's intellect, I doubt that a direct correlation exists.
My assumption is that the IQ decline has more to do with all the eduction "overhauls" that have taken place in Germany in the 80's.... see PISA reports since then.

[Halsu]

Nah, i just thought it was a funny coincidence. While I don't think that watching TV (especially European cable shows) does add anything to one's intellect, I doubt that a direct correlation exists.
My assumption is that the IQ decline has more to do with all the eduction "overhauls" that have taken place in Germany in the 80's.... see PISA reports since then.

It's more likely that as the western societies have evolved to the point where everyone gets decent nutrition etc., the steady increase in IQ (called the Flynn effect) has stopped.

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

[zephyrnoid]

Duke, I can't find my data source right now, but in Germany, the IQ of kids has been growing steadily from the 1920-90's. Since then, there is a decline.

Food for thought: 24hr. cable TV was introduced in 1988. Does it have to do with that decline?

YES, YES & YES. TV has been the number one cause of global stupidity since the late 1980's.
Try telling the US Congress that.:hv20-smilie15:

[Ian-T]

According to Jim Jannard the Epic should be in the hands of many within 5 months.

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=625989&postcount=14

That makes it about a December time frame (or maybe even before).

[Duke]

"Subject to change", but that still probably means the scarlet will be out after NAB 2011. I'll just take my usual 'show me' attitude and wait though.

Hey, remember when few people were predicting 2009?

[Halsu]

"Subject to change", but that still probably means the scarlet will be out after NAB 2011. I'll just take my usual 'show me' attitude and wait though.

Hey, remember when few people were predicting 2009?

Wanna make a bet - my money goes to Scarlet being released to the public before NAB 2011 ;-)

[Duke]

Wanna make a bet - my money goes to Scarlet being released to the public before NAB 2011 ;-)

Well, way back when you were saying it would be out in 2009. :hv20-smilie79:

If its before NAB it will only be a month or two, and then why not release it for the publicity at NAB. Now the announcement that they are going to release it will be before NAB to get some press, but for us to actually buy one, I don't think so.

But, you are the eternal optimist, I like to wait and see. Its all good in the end. That new Sony is no competition (no 24p). Cheers! :hv20-smilie70:

[1]

...Scarlet being released to the public before NAB 2011 ;-)


Probably right, it will have been released and can be ordered BEFORE NAB 2011....with a 7 month delivery time! :hv20-smilie81:

[Pshaw!]

Maybe they're trying to get it just on time for the holidays. I HOPE MY PARENTS BUY ME ONE.

[Ian-T]

Well Alrighty then... Fixed Scarlet looking at its Epic sized brother:

http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1281370533.jpg

[Halsu]

Well Alrighty then... Fixed Scarlet looking at its Epic sized brother:

...and what it saw:

http://red.cachefly.net/focus_8.mov

[1]

Well Alrighty then... Fixed Scarlet looking at its Epic sized brother:

Something irks me about this picture being 250kb in file size.

[Dr. Benway]

Lego Technic toys.

[Duke]

I just thought it was funny that it was looking at a Canon lens. :hv20-smilie84:

[Erik Bien]

I think you're kind of missing the point: Scarlet's looking at Epic electronically controlling a third party lens ... in my book, a more impressive trick than if the lens were one of RED's own! :hv20-smilie31:

[Dr. Benway]

I just thought it was funny that it was looking at a Canon lens. :hv20-smilie84:

I'm covetous of the Canon 100mm f2.8L Macro!

[Halsu]

I think you're kind of missing the point: Scarlet's looking at Epic electronically controlling a third party lens ... in my book, a more impressive trick than if the lens were one of RED's own! :hv20-smilie31:

And it's pretty darn fast & accurate at that, it seems. Plus, seeing the first footage of fixed lens scarlet working prototype is pretty kewl.

[Ian-T]

Here's an interesting comparison of the new Arri Alexa vs the Red One:


http://vimeo.com/13940259

I think the Red could do better but i like the Arri more in this example. Plus I'm not sure if this is the old Red or upgraded Red (with MysteriumX sensor)

[Halsu]

I think the Red could do better but i like the Arri more in this example. Plus I'm not sure if this is the old Red or upgraded Red (with MysteriumX sensor)

I don't know why, but for some reason those were color corrected very differently.

There's no reason why Red couldn't have looked more or less exactly like Alexa, or Alexa like Red, other than the adjustments made in color correction. Both have all the necessary data to give both looks.

And yep, the way they corrected Alexa footage looks nicer to me too.

[Duke]

I think you're kind of missing the point: Scarlet's looking at Epic electronically controlling a third party lens ... in my book, a more impressive trick than if the lens were one of RED's own! :hv20-smilie31:

I understood that and noted the speed of the change. I still think its funny though that their one clip released now shows someone else's brand name.

Its like Scarletuser now has 74,642 posts and 99% of them are speculation, and assumption.

Maybe its my sense of humor, but I find it all very funny. :hv20-smilie87: