Jump to content


Photo

do we need this subforum?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
15 replies to this topic

#1 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 April 2006 - 10:45 AM

Tim I understand the need to catagorise the hype, but until there actually is a red camera is this necessary? We haven't got a subforum for Genesis and that actually exists. When the initial hype dies down will this end up as used as kinetta's?

Keith
  • 0

#2 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 April 2006 - 11:40 AM

I think with over 300 reservations taken in 4 days at NAB there might be some justification for this subforum. RED is not Kinetta. I wouldn't assume that because one project hasn't been completed, no project can be completed. Our project is already better having listened to "forum suggestions" over the last 4 months. It would be a shame to cut off input here when they actually matter. Just a thought.

Jim Jannard- RED
  • 0

#3 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2006 - 05:07 PM

I'll start the feedback with this:

The camera seems to be finished in a shiney chrome. This would end up affecting the lighting on the actors. On theatrical sets, the controlling of errant reflections is an every day issue. Even at a sacrifice of the cool look - I think a black or dark gray matte might be necessary.


And the questions with this:

One of the rumors that most delineates this camera was the expanded dynamic range. I didn't see much commented on that from the NAB news. Is this still part of the plan?
  • 0

#4 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 April 2006 - 05:37 PM

The camera will NOT be "shiny" aluminum as the prototype we showed at NAB. We said over and over that the production model would be a coated magnesium alloy, but that didn't seem to get picked up by the press. My fault. We made matters worse by showing a silver prototype on our website. That will be changed in a couple of days to matte black. One of the strengths of our sensor is dynamic range. We quote >66db and think we can do a bit better with some tweaking. The sensor really is amazing. 4k at 60 fps. It is also very light sensitive with 5.4 micron pixels. The only way to get all of these advantages is with an innovative and LARGE sensor.
  • 0

#5 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 29 April 2006 - 07:43 PM

Does the chip use dual or quad readout (I understand if you wont confirm in public) but one thing that wont fly is what the JVC did, useing 2 readouts and setups which for some reason, under the wrong conditions makes the response of each side up to 2% off, presenting with a visible line on screen that can only be corrected by reframing/compromising elements of the shots etc.

I also understand that the problem they faced was pulling HD off a 1/3" chip without overheating. Perhaps with a full 35mm gate, the heat would be disapated and not cause this problem.

I also like the idea of being modular. I dont like the should mount/gun stock thing. It doesnt seem ergonomical. I dont know, maybe I will be proven wrong, but I have gotten so used to an ENG type setup that I would rather see something ballanced like that. Dont get me wrong, I like the styeling, but it seems like you are supporting the weight on your arms, and the stock just stabalizes the camera. I would like to see a cage that holds a high speed RAID system and Anton Bauer power system behind your shoulder to counterbalance the front-end. And if its possible to adjust the position of the raid and batery to adjust to different lens weights, that would be cool too. I like the cage with the three handles. Integrate that into an ENG type cage, I would buy it.

One accessory I would like to see as soon as possible is a monitor set up to show Waveform and vetroscope. Given that every pixel is essentially a light sensor, I would love to see what they say. Maybe you could even set up a waveform monitor that is more Cine-like rather than NTSC engeneer tool. Supose you have a line that indicates 18% greycard exposure, then have a logarythmic scale showing 1 stop overexposed, 2stops etc (presumably up to 6stop over I hope?) and then have the same scale below the line showing underexposure. (stops seem more useable than IRE to me)



just a few thoughts.
  • 0

#6 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2006 - 11:56 PM

We haven't got a subforum for Genesis and that actually exists. Keith

Hear, hear! Whaever other unkind things people may have to say about the Genesis, they do actually work, and probably produce a better picture than any other HD camera I've seen. No way do I think they're a real substitute for film, but Sony/PV have actually produced the goods!
  • 0

#7 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 April 2006 - 01:38 PM

Hear, hear! Whaever other unkind things people may have to say about the Genesis, they do actually work, and probably produce a better picture than any other HD camera I've seen. No way do I think they're a real substitute for film, but Sony/PV have actually produced the goods!

Tim

I think someone ahs hacked into Jim's account and is posting under his name now. We all know the real Jim Murdoch would never make a statement as the above!
  • 0

#8 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11942 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 April 2006 - 01:45 PM

Hi,

Go look at the movie trailer for Click, which was shot on Genesis. About two thirds of the way through there's a lens flare with a huge vertical smear running through it - it looks like a cheap security camera! And this is what Sony showed at their press conference. Horrible.

I mention it here because poor vertical smear rejection is the sort of sucking I was thinking of in the other thread when you push sensor specs hard. It's almost impossible to completely avoid without FT CCDs and a rotating shutter, and in truth it's a characteristic of the imaging system that you may simply have to take into account when lighting like anything else. That said, it's one of many parameters of sensor design that need attention.

Phil
  • 0

#9 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 April 2006 - 01:53 PM

Phil

What exactly produces this smear, which I also noticed in Scary Movie 4. Is it a characteristic of the type of sensor used (CCD, CMOS) or is it the design (electronic shutter)?
  • 0

#10 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2006 - 02:47 AM

What exactly produces this smear, which I also noticed in Scary Movie 4. Is it a characteristic of the type of sensor used (CCD, CMOS) or is it the design (electronic shutter)?

To do a frame readout in an FIT (Frame Interline Transfer) CCD, in the first step, the contents of all the millions of tiny photocells are transferred into a matching set of "dummy" photocells mounted in the silicon directly underneath.

The dummy cells actually form the CCD (Charged Coupled Device) delay lines. In the Genesis there are 5,460 of these (3 x 1,920) arranged in vertical columns of 2,160 (2 x 1080) each. During the frame readout, all 5,460 columns are simultaneously shunted vertically toward the bottom of the chip to the readout area. (You could visualize this at 5,460 parallel freight trains, each pulling 2,160 wagons)

If you could imagine that each of the "Cars" has a large "bucket" on its back that could be pushed off sideways onto the corresponding car of the adjacent train by some sort of bulldozer-like contraption, that is more or less how the electrical charges are shunted off the chip in the readout area . Most standard definition chips use three "bullodzers" working in parallel, how many the Genesis uses is anybody's guess.

Basically, three rows are "bulldozed" out, then another three rows are "dropped down" to be shunted out and so on and so on until all the rows have been read out.

The buried "freight cars" are still light sensitive and if there are any "hot spots" on the optical image, it is possible for photons to leak through the top layers of silicon and contaminate the samples stored underneath. Because they're being effectively dragged past the hot spots, the result is a "scratch" down the entire column of pixels.

The only non-mechanical way to minimize this problem is to bury the "freight trains" under a thick layer of Silicon, but this makes the chips harder to fabricate. So most FIT designs are a tradeoff between smearing and manufacturing cost.

The simplest way to eliminate this problem is to use a rotating "bow-tie" shutter in front of the sensor to block the light off during the readout period, which is what Dalsa do with the origin. Actually, this completely eliminates the need for the "buried" cells and so makes the chips much simpler to fabricate, and generally inproves their low-light sensitivity.

Ironically, while the D-20 also uses a mechanical shutter, its purpose is purely to provide an optical viewfinder, as CMOS chips operate on completley different principles that aren't subject to smearing.
  • 0

#11 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 May 2006 - 09:40 AM

I think with over 300 reservations taken in 4 days at NAB there might be some justification for this subforum. RED is not Kinetta. I wouldn't assume that because one project hasn't been completed, no project can be completed. Our project is already better having listened to "forum suggestions" over the last 4 months. It would be a shame to cut off input here when they actually matter. Just a thought.

Jim Jannard- RED


Jim,

I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss this camera, I'm just saying that it should not have it's own subforum. The subforums on this site are for people to discuss working practices with the actual camera, not theoretical practices. I also fail to see how three hundred deposits mean anything apart from peoples faith in your marketing. Personally I am very interested in the suggested capabilites of your camera and i am equally impressed with your dedication to discussing the camera on both this site and CML. I think a thread to discuss this camera is entirely valid and we have had various threads already scattered across this site- but a subforum for a camera which is not at prototype stage is just adding to your marketing (and is possibly detrimental to the credibility of this site).

Again I'd like to reiterate that I wish you all the best with the product and will be happy to champion your product should it, or when it, warrants it- as I have with the D20. Finally make it comfortable for shooting on your shoulder, add an optical viewfinder and an option for useing scope lenses (you talk about using a portion of the chip for 2K shooting with 16mm lenses so this must be possible right?) and I'll put down a deposit myself!

Keith
  • 0

#12 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 21 May 2006 - 01:24 AM

I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss this camera, I'm just saying that it should not have it's own subforum. The subforums on this site are for people to discuss working practices with the actual camera, not theoretical practices.



I think it's a valid point but then again it's all about what the owners of this website want to do. The only thing the forum guidelines here say regarding free advertising , marketing and research is "You may not advertise or promote other companies or their programs which may compete with Cinematography.com". So no one has broken any rules here. The internet has become a wonderful place to do free focus groups for many companies. Before the internet companies had to pay lots of money to other companies to find the right demographic and then to find out what they liked and what they did not like about a product or potential product or service. They still do it. I am involved with focus groups all the time with everything from pharmaceuticals to consumer products testing everything from two near exact shades of blue for a pill to the smell of a shampoo. As long as the folks who run this site don't mind that RED is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of focus group info from their site free, what does it matter? And sometimes it spurs some interesting talk and discussions.
  • 0

#13 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 21 May 2006 - 02:15 AM

Tim I understand the need to catagorise the hype, but until there actually is a red camera is this necessary? We haven't got a subforum for Genesis and that actually exists. When the initial hype dies down will this end up as used as kinetta's?

Keith



I think it's great that cinematographers can add input before the camera is finished.

If anyone has prepaid for this in development camera, I would find that odd, unless they've been promised a substantial discount that won't be available to those who wait until the camera is completed.
  • 0

#14 Robert Glenn

Robert Glenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 May 2006 - 10:41 PM

I think it's a valid point but then again it's all about what the owners of this website want to do. The only thing the forum guidelines here say regarding free advertising , marketing and research is "You may not advertise or promote other companies or their programs which may compete with Cinematography.com". So no one has broken any rules here. The internet has become a wonderful place to do free focus groups for many companies. Before the internet companies had to pay lots of money to other companies to find the right demographic and then to find out what they liked and what they did not like about a product or potential product or service. They still do it. I am involved with focus groups all the time with everything from pharmaceuticals to consumer products testing everything from two near exact shades of blue for a pill to the smell of a shampoo. As long as the folks who run this site don't mind that RED is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of focus group info from their site free, what does it matter? And sometimes it spurs some interesting talk and discussions.

Red isn't real yet. It might turn out like RAMBUS and just be a company with little or no product that sues other countries with its phantom patents. I don't think it deserves a subforum, and the hype's dyed down anyway
  • 0

#15 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 May 2006 - 11:32 PM

Forum leaders... take a stand. Either this is a sub-forum (then stop complaining about it) or take it down. The banter whether or not we are real is getting old. We'll move forward either way. We have finally received some useful info from this site, it is a shame that some can't recognize the importance of us including the community during the process rather than just presenting something we think is right and then hearing the group complain that we "just don't listen". If you think we are wasting your time, just turn the channel.

Jim
  • 0

#16 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 24 May 2006 - 05:44 PM

Forum leaders... take a stand.


Don't worry. The RED subforum will remain.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

CineTape

Glidecam

Opal

The Slider

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Opal

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks