RED's New Digital Stills and Motion Camera Pushing the Limits 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.
Actual Red URL (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think digital will ever "surpass" film, as with any analog->digital transformation you loose data. Not that it will practically matter soon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
doesn't beat it for what? unless you're shooting a movie that's going to be displayed in an IMAX theater why would you need more than 8 Megapixel? pixel resolution means nothing unless you have something capable of displaying the pixel data. and there are few applications in which you would observe any noticeable benefit by going beyond 1080p.
here [wikipedia.org] is a comparison of digital video formats. even if you have a 150" plasma screen TV capable of displaying 4096x2160 resolution, you're not going to notice any diff
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
doesn't beat it for what? unless you're shooting a movie that's going to be displayed in an IMAX theater why would you need more than 8 Megapixel?
It's quite common for scenes to be zoomed in after they're cropped, especially with FX shots.
sure, there are people out there that need a 36 Megapixel camera, but for 99.9% of the consumer market it'd be a monumental waste of money
You should click the link and look at the NOT consumer camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actual Red URL (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. That's ... wrong.
The RED has a CMOS sensor, as do a number of other fancy-pants video cameras these days.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jeez mods. There was a discussion the other day about why the new Nikon D90 was (and the 40D) were NOT a replacement for the RED. I was misinformed about the sensor in the RED, but the 40d and the D90 are STILL not replacements for it. My comment still stands, it was NOT a troll.
The sensor in a digital still camera serves a different purpose than the one in a video camera. Using a digital still camera for video results in something called "jello-cam". Watch this [youtube.com] video (or any video with fast motion in
Re: (Score:2)
That is interesting about the CMOS in the Red cameras. How are they combating the "jello" and why aren't Nikon/Canon(havn't seen any MkII vids yet) doing the same thing?
Re:Actual Red URL (Score:4, Informative)
RED sensors are very, very fast, being designed for moving images. That means any skew is reduced to very low levels, and hence no jellocam. Stills cameras use physical shutters, and hence didn't worry about the rolling shutter speed - it just wasn't an issue for them until now.
Of course, film using a spinning shutter that also suffers from skew, but like the RED, it's hardly visible most of the time.
The Upper Limits. (Score:2)
Looks like they're pushing the financial limits too. Anyway that picture reminded me of Lego.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's a difference in use of vocabulary. You are correct in that there is no digital film. Film cameras refer to either a type of camera which you are using or a grade of camera which I am using. Something they use to film a blockbuster movie with would not be stored on film if it's in HD or higher resolution.
The term is still called filming though. When you shoot a scene you usually say I am filming this 67 Shelby at sunrise even if you aren't using film in your camera. There's no real reason to change the
Re: (Score:2)
All film cameras must be converted to digital if you want digital. On account of.. you know.. the film: a plastic substrate (historically manufactured from plant tissue) impregnated with photosensitive chemical dyes. Which is inherently rather analog (grain-boundaries and such notwithstanding)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I could be misinformed about this, but from a little googling, it looks like the red will lenses that were intended for use on DSLR cameras.
$1000 bucks and you've bought yourself some nice glass. Keep in mind that nikon has been making lenses with the same mount for the last ~50 years. Some of them can be had for CHEAP on ebay.
Could someone tell me... (Score:3, Interesting)
...what would be the printed size of a 261 megapixels image, using current printers?
The mind boggles
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point... (Score:3, Interesting)
What handheld device can write 19 gigabytes/sec.?
(25 x 261000000 x 3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but who would print something like that at 200dpi? You want at least 600dpi.
So, at 600dpi, about 4 feet by 1.3 feet. Still pretty damn big.
28K what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Shoot up to 28K whats at 25fps? 28 kilobytes? 28 kilopixels? Units, please!
Re:28K what? (Score:5, Informative)
28,000 x 9,334 or 261mp.
28k is the horizontal resolution, which is typically how frame sizes are measured in digital cinema.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
28k furlongs (Score:2)
It's a pretty good lens system. Hope they have good anti-shake processing.
28k! 261mp (Score:2)
Incredible. Imagine the possibilities.
Puny! (Score:2)
Only 261Mpixel? That's not particularly impressive, compared to GAIA [newscientist.com] (1.5 Gpixel!)...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningless numbers (Score:2)
28K what? Does it mean 28000 somethings, or is K itself a unit?
Re:Meaningless numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers or Marketing people hopefully.
Anything that can shoot 28k of them at any rate is good enough for me.
Re:Meaningless numbers (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Vapor codewords... (Score:2)
"Specifications subject to drastic change"
They've been promising this thing for what, 4 years now?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is now no waiting queue for the cameras.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have seen these rigs, and they're quite impressive. Soderberg shot "Che" with it, and though they've got some integration and workflow problems, it seems that they're on their way to demolishing the film industry as it is-- my GF is a DP and she and all her friends have been storming rental houses to get some time practicing with the gear so they can at least tell people they know how to use it. When everyone else is charging $70-$100K for something Red is selling for $15K, the writing is sorta on the w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've had my hands in two feature-length projects shot on the Red, and I can attest that not only is the camera real, but it can produce fantastic picture. :)
-b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed -- I also shot a small film project with the Red One. All things considered, it's a user-friendly package (as far as professional-level cameras are concerned) with superb performance and a virtually unbeatable price.
Ostensibly, as of last year, the only competitor to the Red One camera (package cost: around $50K) was an offering from Sony (cost: around $200K).
When Soderbergh said that this camera was going to "revolutionize independent film," he wasn't joking.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Not vapor. Product. (Score:3, Informative)
"Angels and Demons", along with other current & soon movies, was shot using a Red camera.
They're in the process of fulfilling 4000 orders. Not promising to, actually building & shipping them.
Insane is the word (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the brochure it stated that the dynamic range would be approximately 13+ stops on the the 28k sensor.
Re: (Score:2)
dynamic range (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
The sensor that was designed with a "fast" and "slow" pixel, analogous to film designs (by FujiFilm, Kodak, Konica, Agfa, etc) is exclusively FujiFilm. They've recently updated the design:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmexr.asp [dpreview.com]
The concept works, but leads to very large raw files. The wedding market likes this technology (white dresses, black tuxes, unpredictable light), but often shoots in-camera JPEG for file size reasons.
The FujiFilm concept in the link above is to take two photos simu
Re: (Score:2)
It's not possible. To read it out, you have to march the charges to the edge of the chip and then down the side (or onto a bank of A/D.)
You might could march them back in on the other side but you're definitely going to lose some detail there. And you can't do it in the O(significantly less than 1/500s) that you'd need to for it to work.
What you can do, though, is something astronomers have been doing for ages: take a series of pictures and combine them after-the-fact. Of course, in astronomy, the read-o
CID detectors (Score:4, Informative)
Turns out you can't read the charge without erasing it.
That's true for CCD and CMOS type detectors, but not true for CID detectors. CID detectors were designed for repeated reading without destroying the charge. In fact, the signal in any pixel can be read out repeatedly while accumulating photoelectrons without interrupting the exposure.
Alas, although silicon-based and employing the same photovoltaic principles as CCD or CMOS, CID requires more complicated chip construction and remains expensive. Indeed, it has been "tomorrow's technology" for a couple of decades already. However, they are used in some scientific and forensic imaging devices, where extremely high dynamic range must be recorded.
What about the "traditional" camera companies? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 wi
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand - the captured images are already in a ready-to-edit format. With traditional film, it first needs to be sent out to be developed, then it needs to be run through a film scanner. Both are time-consuming operations; and both need experienced operators, especially if you are doing any form of color correction during the film scan.
So that adds a day, if not more, between shooting and being able to see the raw footage. (Hence the tradition of "dailies", where you see what was shot yesterday).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Film has a rolling shutter also though.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thought you all might like the opinion of a working 1st Assistant Cameraman (known as a Focus Puller in Britain) in Hollywood, which means I am effectively the guy in charge of the camera and its operation and maintenance on a film set. I work with all of the cameras out there today, from the top-tier film c
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 affo
Re: (Score:2)
"The big thing about Red is that they make this technology affordable to smaller companies."
It is also a disruptive technology. Finally, at an affordable price, the consumer can get a RED ONE camera that has wanted features without purchasing the outrageous professional versions offered by the main manufactures who's marketing departments continues to decided what features you get at a price point. I, for one, am really looking forward to this video camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: I meant a RED SCARLET
Openness would have been nice (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I value liberty?
It also makes sense because it makes the system more useful and, potentially, cheaper, for the user.
So what? The images are mine, I want them in an open format where I
Re: (Score:2)
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 extr
Re: (Score:2)
And mine of not buying eir products, and criticising em. Granted ere is is ißue of price too.
Misinformation. TIFF/EP and, specially, Adobe DNG do all at.
It is locked down. (Score:2)
Not free software tools [fsf.org.].
Not on any other platform [debian.org.].
What about the format which counts in digital still photography, namely Adobe DNG?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously DNG applies only to digital still photography, not to moving pictures.
Now you got me ðinking about extending DNG into moving pictures...
Re: (Score:2)
For a modular system, I would have expected support of open or, at least, industry standards ... Instead they went for a proprietary raw file format and popular but proprietary lens mounts.
Proprietary is the standard for the motion picture industry I'm afraid. Hell, Panavision invented their own lens mounts, and you can't even OWN a Panavision camera, they're rental only. Avid and Final Cut Pro continue their Kashmir-style range war over OMF/AAF/MXF with no end in sight, and don't even get me started on Pro Tools...
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Unfortunately, I have to agree here.
partial debunking here (Score:5, Interesting)
http://rcjohnso.com/REDFACTS.html
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but the only bunk there is coming from Rian, who seems to swallow the Sony cool-aid quite happily.
Convergence of Video and Still Cameras (Score:2)
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 sens
actual videos shot on a RED (Score:2)
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? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're completely right, you do need a bigger sensor size.
That's why the sensor is over 7 inches wide.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a big 617 sensor. Look at the picture. It's large format photography with a standard mount for existing large format lenses.
Shoulder-mount? (Score:2)
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
No sample photos? (Score:2)
Sweet looking camera but I don't see any photos. Anyone have a link to the photos that show off the benefits of this camera?
Nice 3D renderings of a camera :) (Score:2)
I hope they make a real version of it soon ;) All of those shots are 3D rendered product shots.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way. You can't put more info into the thing than was there originally.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely, the sensor is over 7 inches wide. You could probably use it without a lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re:Beyond limits (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)