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.

Comments

Could someone tell me...

[Abreu]

...what would be the printed size of a 261 megapixels image, using current printers?

The mind boggles

Re:Could someone tell me...

[zigziggityzoo]

93.33x31.11 Inches at 300DPI.

What about the "traditional" camera companies?

[wandazulu]

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:What about the "traditional" camera companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

They stack up and very well, why rent a panavision when you can buy a RED one for less than a week worth of rental? You can do color correction on the fly with their software correct aperture exposer and balance with out refilming.

Also no need to digitalize as it already is digital, only one transfer has to be done to have the finished product. The company who I see is at more of a loss is SONY with there cine alta which costs 10x and is a lot less competetive.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies?

[Zerth]

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?

[Patchw0rk F0g]

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 affordable price to smaller studios, there would be a lot of creative visions that wouldn't be realized. As another post above said, not everyone can afford to rent a Panavision for a day... especially when that day could be a few... or a few weeks.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies?

[Sicily1918]

I've talked to a DP (director of photography) or two -- Red is more hype than product. It has a lot of problems but the company's marketing is brilliant -- everyone talks about Red and, on paper, it's fantastic, but the post-processing involved is tremendous because of the uneven output (massive graininess, bad sound, improper white-balancing, dynamic range issues, lost footage, etc. -- all depending on which firmware rev. is on the camera).

While it's considerably cheaper, you get what you pay for, although it may be ready for prime-time in the next 3 - 5 years.

Re:What about the "traditional" camera companies?

[Franklin Brauner]

Steven Soderbergh's latest film, Ché, was shot on RED cameras. They regularly overheated on set, and the solution was to keep two cameras so that when one overheated they would pull the other one out. Issues like this will get ironed out, but for conditions of extreme heat and extreme cold these cameras simply don't cut it alongside robust 100 year old technology like celluloid. Which brings us to the second part of your question, why doesn't everyone switch to digital, and the answer is bandwidth. The pipeline for all of this deep-bit goodness simply ramps up the cost of posting a production to astronomical levels. Film is cheap, and you can run film in any cinema in the world. Digital still has a way to go. Don't get me started on the proprietary codecs involved. Film is the ultimate open source medium -- free as in free. Digital isn't. Period.

partial debunking here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://rcjohnso.com/REDFACTS.html

Re:28k! 261mp

[niiler]

Am I missing something here? In my current lab, we're using 8 of MAC's Eagle cameras at the relatively low frame rate of 200 fps.

The Eagle Digital Camera, with a resolution of 1.3 million pixels at 1280 x 1024 full resolution at up to 500 frames per second, 1280 x 512 at 1000 frames per second, 1280 x 256 at 2000 frames per second, and a processing rate of 600 million pixels per second, revolutionizes the motion capture industry with its extreme resolution, unprecedented high frame rate, upgradeable functionality, and ease of use.

MAC has just put out their Raptor camera:

The Raptor-4 uses the Micron Corporation MI-MV40 sensor and operates up to 200 fps at a full resolution of 2352 x 1728 pixels, and up to 10,000 fps at reduced resolutions. The Raptor-4 Digital Cameras provide today's motion capture technicians with a tool that assures reliable and accurate data. With digital technology there is no degradation of the signal over distance, less noise, and no resampling of data on another piece of electronics.

These have onboard tracking technology which allows for auto identification of shapes (usually circular markers) in 2/500 of a second.

It seems like this RED camera under-performs in all categories.

Re:dynamic range

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The A/D converters full potential is never reached by most image sensors. They are limited by noise levels and such stuff. This just tells the maximum possible dynamic range, and it is not too different from the cameras already in the market.

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.

What about lenses resolution?

[Yag]

Ok 261 megapixel, yeah, cool, but, since RED cameras use canon/nikon photo lenses how they suppose to obtain such a resolution? I mean, currently with new cameras (like 5dMkII) coming out we are allready speaking about lens limits (also for "top" lenses like L marked ones). So, how can they push this camera to that resolution without enlarging sensor size? For 261 megapixel you will need AT LEAST 6x6 sensor rather than normal 35mm. And 6x6 sensor requires really big lenses (like hasselblad) and probably won't keep up either. So, i think there is too much "megapixel" marketing here rather than "real" resolution.

More to the point...

[Joce640k]

What handheld device can write 19 gigabytes/sec.?

(25 x 261000000 x 3)

Re:The Upper Limits.

[blhack]

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.

Re:Actual Red URL

[X0563511]

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:Actual Red URL

[lysergic.acid]

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 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 difference in video quality above Digital Cinema 2K (2048x1080) or HDTV 1080p unless you're sitting less than 2' away from the TV.

saying that it's only 4096x2160 is like dick-sizing about having a still-camera capable of more than 10 Megapixel resolution. 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. even if you were creating a billboard you could just upscale a 6 Megapixel image at, at most, 72 dpi (and often as low as 9 dpi).

Re:Actual Red URL

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.