Slashdot Mirror
RED's New Digital Stills and Motion Camera Pushing the Limits
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.
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.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
28,000 x 9,334 or 261mp.
28k is the horizontal resolution, which is typically how frame sizes are measured in digital cinema.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
In the brochure it stated that the dynamic range would be approximately 13+ stops on the the 28k sensor.
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.
Actually cinema film cameras go for $65,000 and up. Add film and film editing to get that analog film into digital ($100K), Red looks pretty cheap.
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).
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.
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.
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.
c++;
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
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.
--
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
1. It's not a high speed camera
2. The 28k refers to the horizontal resolution of the image, so you're Raptor-4 would be referred to as a 2.3k. The RED captures a 261 Megapixel image vs the 4 Megapixel image the Raptor-4 captures. Or nearly 65 times as much spacial resolution. The Raptor-4 does have a higher temporal resolution, though.
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 wall. All RED has to do now is fill orders.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"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.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
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
myselfmusic
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.