Slashdot Mirror

It's uses the RED Brick for one week of continuous use and six months talk time.

Not sure what to make of it. They appear to be a maker of obnoxiously expensive camera bodies and related for Hollywood. I'm still waiting to see why billionaire fools are dumping the huge sums they are into Magic Leap.

Not really. For 20/20 vision ("good" eyesight), the limit is closer to 5K, so most everyone will notice the difference from 4K to 8K because it will surpass the 5K barrier. But, that's not the limit of human eyesight. There are those of us with 20/10 vision and better that can discern up to 11K or better. Lots of pilots have "eagle eye" vision in the 20/10 or better range. One can also get better than 20/10 with laser eye surgery.

You can read up on a decent article about it here:
http://www.red.com/learn/red-1...

My bet is it'll hit a barrier at 16K where no one will be able to appreciate anything higher, but we aren't there yet.

You might want to tell the movies that were scanned to 8k from film (search for 8K) that they don't exist, as well as this mainstream movie that's being filmed in 8K. Or this company that the videos they record on their cameras don't exist. Hell, Youtube has an 8K video already.

8K video availability is very limited, but not no-existant. 8K displays have been shown at CES since 2012. 8K broadcasts were tested during the 2012 Olympics. But even without commonly available video for mortals, 8K video isn't the only thing that you can display with a video card that can display 8K. You can drive four 4K displays, which is an amazing coincidence that these cards have 4 ports for output!

Yeah I really wish RED would add a complete set of framerate demos for:

* 24 Hz
* 30 Hz
* 60 Hz
* 120 Hz
* 144 Hz

The nice thing about using about 120 Hz and 144 Hz refresh is that it is an exact multiple of 24 Hz (5x and 6x, respectively).

I might have to get a HERO4 or some other cheap 240 fps camera and record this demo 120 vs 60 vs 30 fps, but then again we already have 60 Hz vs 120 Hz comparisons.

Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K. In theory a person with 20/10 vision (yes, they do exist) sitting in the middle of a large screen cinema should be able to see 7K, but that's only when trying to read one of those eye charts at maximum contrast.

Most of the comparisons you see are not apples-to-apples comparison, they show you one 4K screen and one not-4K screen and surprise surprise the one they want to sell looks much better. I look forward to 4K BluRay though, in addition to resolution with HDR, Rec. 2020 and 10 bit color it will improve contrast, colors and banding All three of those are probably just as noticeable as the change in resolution, though I suspect it'll take a while before we have TVs that can take full advantage of it.

Sorry, even $2300 isn't enough for a device of this complexity. And anyway, they don't have that money - the backers paid only $500, so they have to fund the work from that, not from the $2300 that they may hope to get at the end.

Also check out how much a commercially produced (including all economy of scale discounts!) camera components costs: http://www.red.com/store/camer... Believe me, that isn't 100-200%+ of margin there.

And the team lacking any engineers or anyone with a verifiable experience in building projects of similar size?

What PCIe cards are you plugging in again? Graphics cards? You still have yet to demonstrate that it is not a novelty. I have never seen a CAD setup like that. Nor have I heard of a gaming rig that uses a laptop CPU but has an external graphics box. Maybe you're right and it will be all the rage in CAD houses.

What devices are these? Still graphics cards?

http://www.red.com/store/produ...
http://www.blackmagicdesign.co...
http://www.nvidia.com/object/q...
http://eshop.macsales.com/item...
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Du...

I could go on but really the answer is "Every single PCI-E card that exists." Or "Every single PCI-E card that is important to professional users that just because you don't know about doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

I think some are hoping good codec plus 'time' via local storage will out pace and bandwidth limits of rotting telco copper, HFC until optical is ready.
http://www.red.com/store/products/redray-player

A physical box or small physical rental media?
As we see with ideas around 4k http://www.red.com/products/redray users can have quality and content producers are happy.
Broadband bandwidth is the only part missing.

I just struggle to see a situation that wouldn't be better served by a laptop in the field or a workstation back at the studio.

Really? Because it's kind of in the summary:

The Black Betty gets around one issue with the massive data processing and storage needs inherent to high-capacity, high-resolution video cameras by attacking it head-on

This covers the data storage, the camera, and in a pinch or out of necessity you can do the editing on the device itself.

It's likely not going to be your primary place to do processing on the video, but it will cover your storage needs and give you some editing as well.

Yes but why is this needed?? According to the website for the camera they are using,

With it's low-noise, high-dynamic range sensor, over 10 f-stops of dynamic range are freely manipulatable with user generated Iridas look files, and IT-friendly connectivity through open PC platforms, battery-powered operation, and up to 4-hours of continuous shooting on a 160GB notebook hard drive round out an impressive array of digital cinema firsts in the industry.

. This looks like a very serious camera, maybe on par or somewhat in the same segment as the Red cameras (I am not an expert on high-end videocameras however). Most cameras in this segment have some system of high-capacity SSD or spinning drive storage, usually with replaceable storage cartridges. I don't understand why they felt the need to build the camera in the article. In fact, the SI-2k (not mini) looks an awful lot like what they have built, and seems to use the same sensor as the SI-2K mini.

That's true of standard compression but we're using MPEG2 compression which is generally terrible. Compare that to RedRay http://www.red.com/products/redray which compresses 4k down to 15mbps and you're almost within within broadcast specs and less than bluray bitrates.

RedRay looks really really good. I've seen it projected in 4k.

Does anyone else remember 2009, when Red supposedly demoed their RedRay codec, promising 4K video in an 10Mbps stream? http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/

I haven't been following it much since then, but it looks like the RedRay is actually finally available. Anyone have any hands on experience with it?

Capitalization use to mean something. OF course he could have linked.

http://www.red.com/

Why are they yelling in the website's title?

His camera: http://www.red.com/. Your camera: http://www.black.com/. A tree possessing both properties: http://www.redblacktree.com/

RED not red.
Capitalization use to mean something. OF course he could have linked.

http://www.red.com/

The implication is that he is going through a lot of data. A reasonable assumption, or else he is an idiot with too much money.

For those wondering what RED cameras are, does 4096x2304 pixels and up, at 48fps, make you drool?

It's not just the reels on top. The mechanical film path through the camera is also gone, which involves a lot of big metal parts.

Seriously, look at these things: http://www.red.com/products/epic ... The body is 5 pounds. Another 5 pounds for a lens, and you have a cinematography camera in about 10 pounds.

Picked up a Panavision lately? The body alone weighs more than that. By the time you've strapped on a lens and a loaded reel, it's quite a load to lug.

Picked up a fully loaded RED1 recently? It doesn't weigh 5 pounds anymore. Between the monitor, the stand, the recorder box, and half a dozen other little gizmos they can bulk up pretty fast. Actually getting a 4K system that is light and small and useful is a problem that a number of people actively are addressing.

People get around this by using smaller cameras like the Sony EX3 and changing their shooting style to match the camera (like the 'documentary' scenes in District 9) (which was mostly shot on RED 1's).

(more parenthesis for (extra) effect.)

So, does this account for why some people say digital looks different than film? Can it corrected? Do people care? I worked in compression not color but I guess I should have learned this. :(

I don't think so. I think some people say it looks different when they are talking about low budget, quick turn around digital like like soap operas and low budget independent shot on consumer grade equipment.
When the digital pipeline is professional grade, shot, comped, edited and finished at 4k, then I think most people won't spot the difference (that is, if the director is going for a "film" look, which many do)
As for color, some pro digital cameras sport up to 18 stops of dynamic range, which is greater than film.

Take a look at this list of movies shot with the Red camera and have someone honestly say if they could tell it was shot digital.

I think most would be surprised.

It's not just the reels on top. The mechanical film path through the camera is also gone, which involves a lot of big metal parts.

Seriously, look at these things: http://www.red.com/products/epic ... The body is 5 pounds. Another 5 pounds for a lens, and you have a cinematography camera in about 10 pounds.

Picked up a Panavision lately? The body alone weighs more than that. By the time you've strapped on a lens and a loaded reel, it's quite a load to lug.

I would like to correct a mistake prevalent here and in the news summary: common camera's do NOT get 1 (or 2) stops of light information (the difference between black and white). In fact, camera's like the Canon 7D have about 11 stops of dynamic range [source] and professional video camera's like the Red One have about 13 1/2 stops of difference between black and white [source]. Still, as X stops means 2^X times the light difference, going from 13 1/2 to 20 stops is a pretty huge deal.

Another misconception: the amount of bits per channel only indicates precision, not dynamic range. Of course, when the researchers in the article created a 20 stops camera, they needed much better precision to get similar quality in the same range as the current camera's, which leads to the quoted 42 GB per minute uncompressed video stream.

(Please note: DSLR camera's like the Canon 7D can detect and save more dynamic range than is apparent from the JPG's they create and the extra information is saved in the RAW file, which allows you to change exposure settings at least 1 stop in post processing without (noticeable) drop in quality.)

Rent a Red Camera http://www.red.com/cameras/

According to this guy, 35mm gets you approximately 6K lines. Throw in two analog transfers (raw to intermediate, edited intermediate to actual projection material) and you're down to the equivalent of maybe 4K.

Then again, you could get one of these for slightly more than you planned to spend on actual film and enjoy perfectly lossless digital (re-)production in 4K from shoot through projection. At a measly $20k this pretty much kills the argument for 35mm film if you ask me.

70mm remains untouchable until 16K becomes popular; which I'm guessing will be around the time high-end home cinemas switch to 2K. Some time after that, somebody will have an affordable 16K cam with a 70mm or so sensor. After that, analog filming will be fair game.

From the camera manufacturers' site:

What resolution are the outputs on a RED ONE?

The EVF video output is 1280 x 720 Progressive, the LCD video output is 1024 x 600. 720P can be tapped from the HDMI and HD-SDI ports, while HD-SDI Dual Port and HDMI will provide 1080P output in playback only.

In other words, if you hok up a RED ONE camera to a laprascope, the very best you'll see in real time is 1280x720p, which is pretty crappy - even consumer-grade camcorders can do that.

Call us back in a decade when they really can do 4k surgery.

This story got it so wrong (so what else is new) ...

The problem isn't processing power, it's sensor readout speed. Most CCD or CMOS chips don't have a huge bandwidth, so even high-end cameras like the EOS 5D II are forced to use only a small portion of its millions of pixels (this leads to nasty artefacts like aliasing and increased noise). Also, on CMOS sensors you want to avoid using all the bandwidth for transferring video, because otherwise you get a significant rolling shutter ("jell-o") effect. Even good cameras like EOS 5D II have a huge jell-o effect at 30 fps, so this is really a big problem. This means you have to choose between a high-pixel count sensor geared towards still pictures, or a lower-pixel count sensor gear towards video. Given the "more megapixels is better" mentality, manufacturers will tend to go for the first route.

Some new sensors are designed for very high bandwidth, but they're still expensive and reserved for professional video shooting.

Gotcha covered. mind, this isn't cheap or easy to cart around.

What about the Red Epic 617 that will deliver 261.4 megapixels at 30fps, that's supposed to be available for $53k next spring?

I had thought that Japan's 4320p HDTV (33 megapixels) cameras were nuts, but Red's sensors are pushing far far past that.

Cameras and displays are getting to the point that they push more data than any network we've built (and so are obviously many orders of magnitude faster than the human optic nerve).

HDV doesn't push FW400 any more than DV does. Why? HDV1080i is 25mbit MPEG2 -- the exact same bitrate as DV.

On anything using DV tape for storage, yes.

But I'm talking about camera's more along the line of the Red and other higher end disc based cameras.

Nothing that stores uncompressed HDV footage is going to work over FW400, at least not as a live video stream.

More information to read.

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

First of all, it's Blu-ray, not Blue-ray.

Whatever.

Second, it does not offer higher frame rates.

Yes, in fact, it [Blueray] does.

In fact, the reason that it offers "better motion depiction" is due to its lower frame rate. Blu-rays can do 24 frames a second which is the same frame rate as film.

No, Blueray can do 60 FPS at 1080p. It can also do 24 FPS, but that's not a limitation of the format or the players or the displays by any means. That's just a limitation of old film technology. And "in fact", the reason that Blueray can do motion better is because it can present a full, non-interlaced frame in 1/60th of a second so that (a) there's no interline distortion, and (b) the full frame rate is twice as fast and (c) things like panning are less susceptible to blurring the background because the frame rate can be up to twice as fast (see the Red one digital movie camera for an instance of this capability.)

DVDs do 30 frames a second (after being de-interlaced), so the film's 24 fps needs to be converted to 30 fps (actually, 29.97 fps).

Old films are not the only source material available today. Wake up and smell the digital data.

See the wikipedia article on Telecine to learn about the conversion process.

I'm well aware of how it works; My company's software has supported 3:2 pulldown since the early 1990's. I'm an engineer with many video-related hardware and software design credits. Slashdot is full of people like me. :-)

What the hell is an open source video camera? I've heard of open source software, but what the hell is open source hardware??

Um, if I were to guess, this would be a hardware video camera with open source firmware, or a reference platform for building a functional video camera like a PC, where you'd plug together lenses, buttons and sensors in a case. It probably would look like RED.

shoot on this video will NOT get you in the big festivals.

This may be changing...using a RED One 4K Camera, Joshua Weigel took Best Film for "Stained" at the 168 Film Festival.

Also now Joe Carnahan is shooting "Killing Pablo" on a RED as well.

These aren't cheap DV or HDV cameras, but video nonetheless.

The camera in question is oakley's spinoff camera brand, Red Digital Camera.

I think it was an episode of this week in media where someone said something like,

~"People think Hollywood is about creativity and artistic expression. It's not - it's actually a very strange investment system. You put some money in, and hopefully, get more money out. An established franchise is a form of hedging."

However, fear not, movie fans - the tools coming out will allow anyone with talent to produce a film with production values as high as any, and it's getting cheaper all the time. The red camera, increased competition in computer software, more powerful hardware, &c., and not to mention the internet as a distribution mechanism.

The future is bright for creativity and expression through film; the antithesis of Hollywood.

Looks like everyone will need to buy Red cameras to get the resolution needed.

I dislike the earbuds so much that the primary use of my iPod is to play music on my home stereo. I found the earbuds to be extraordinarily uncomfortable and unpleasant to use.

I also realized when I used it on the street that it isolated me too much from reality. And as a typical nerd, I'm too isolated to begin with.

So back to the home stereo for this iPod owner!

I seem to remember Bang & Olufsen makes some pretty darn cool looking earbuds. They're probably $5,000 each if I know that company but they might be worth trying.

Nope, not so bad. Here's a link:
http://playlistmag.com/products/complete/41-detail .php

And there's that cool looking integrated bluetooth earbuds/glasses from Oakley. At $350 (including a Bluetooth transmitter for your iPod), they might be the most expensive set of earbuds on the planet, but it looks like they would get the job done. Here's a pretty appealing review:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ipod/review/oakle y-o-rokr-bluetooth-eyewear/

That nice Oakley fellow:
http://jimjannard.com/life.html
is also making a really cool video camera:
http://www.red.com/
Can't say he doesn't have an interesting life. He seems kinda like a typical Slashdot reader, but with unlimited cash.

D