Slashdot Log In
RED's New Digital Stills and Motion Camera Pushing the Limits
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:49 AM
from the paint-it-red dept.
from the paint-it-red dept.
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.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
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: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: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: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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
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: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)
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.
Parent
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"
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.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Vapor codewords... (Score:2)
"Specifications subject to drastic change"
They've been promising this thing for what, 4 years now?
Re:Vapor codewords... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
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.
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.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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:What about the "traditional" camera companies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
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
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.
partial debunking here (Score:5, Interesting)
http://rcjohnso.com/REDFACTS.html
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
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: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.
Parent
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.