Jump to content


Photo

Epic and Scarlet release in 2010


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:24 AM

Interesting

http://reduser.net/f...ead.php?t=47139
  • 0

#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:42 AM

Not actually noticing a date, I guess they'll out when they're ready.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:57 AM

The delays may work to Red's advantage except perhaps for sales to the rental houses if they spend a lot on acquiring Alexa packages. But for the private owner crowd, there always seems to be new customers and Red's products are going to be newer, have more features, and be more affordable than the competition's. The wild card is whether Canon gets serious about a decent digital camera that uses a DSLR sensor as the base but provides a high-quality HD recording for a decent cost (i.e. under $10,000) -- that would directly compete against Scarlet. But I suspect Canon will do something half-satisfactory, like still only offer h.264 recording.
  • 0

#4 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:58 AM

Yes, Jim has been very cautelous with dates right now. Does this mean anything? ;)

You need to go down along the thread in order to find where it is explicit the release date. A few would call it viral marketing, the believers will say 2010.
  • 0

#5 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:16 PM

"When one of the most respected companies in the industry is just releasing their brightest new star that does 1/5 of the resolution, half the maximum frame rate, in a box three times the size and for 3 times the price… that should tell you how tough a trick EPIC is."

"1/5 of the resolution?" So I take it Jim is referring to the Alexa here? If so, Jim undoubtedly is now gone beyond the pale, even for a marketing-man, and officially lost his mind: That is right, Jim, thanks to your god-given right to design amazing camera circuitry, your cameras have the ONLY technology capable of high resolution data motion pictures the world will ever know, and everything else out there is just, well, crap . . . :rolleyes:
  • 0

#6 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:23 PM

The delays may work to Red's advantage except perhaps for sales to the rental houses if they spend a lot on acquiring Alexa packages. But for the private owner crowd, there always seems to be new customers and Red's products are going to be newer, have more features, and be more affordable than the competition's. The wild card is whether Canon gets serious about a decent digital camera that uses a DSLR sensor as the base but provides a high-quality HD recording for a decent cost (i.e. under $10,000) -- that would directly compete against Scarlet. But I suspect Canon will do something half-satisfactory, like still only offer h.264 recording.



i was saying this back in 2003 when I bought my first DSLR. I also noted that how slow Canon was to take advantage of market positions they have had over the years. They are always playing catch up to whomever or whatever the latest is. At the end of it all, Canon is a lens company that has always given the back seat to the cameras themselves. h.264 is good, but not that good. It is barely adequate for the prosumer market.
  • 0

#7 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:31 PM

The delays may work to Red's advantage except perhaps for sales to the rental houses if they spend a lot on acquiring Alexa packages. But for the private owner crowd, there always seems to be new customers and Red's products are going to be newer, have more features, and be more affordable than the competition's. The wild card is whether Canon gets serious about a decent digital camera that uses a DSLR sensor as the base but provides a high-quality HD recording for a decent cost (i.e. under $10,000) -- that would directly compete against Scarlet. But I suspect Canon will do something half-satisfactory, like still only offer h.264 recording.

To disregard Canon would actually be a full mistake, IMHO too. I think it has been a full surprise even for Canon. That's why they're still in the h.264 side, despite the power they have.

Apart the usual talk about the pros and cons as far as big screen concerns, without mention for online purposes (an important market to not neglect), I am in touch with people working for TV practically in a daily basis where the 5D Mark II has surpassed the most conservative expectations indeed.
  • 0

#8 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:47 PM

"1/5 of the resolution"

What about spending a little bit less money and effort into marketing and invest into craftmanship, production, social/environmental/eductional standards instead? Yes, that would actually mean to risk something, making long-term investments that don't pay off within 3 or 4 years. Or simply accept the side-effects of 21th-century slave-labour and outsourcing policy.
But whining about being behind schedule (it's not just the mysterious "bug") while not willing to move production out of a sweatshop and at the same time claiming to offer similar (or superior) quality standards than companys that actually pay their (yes, they actually PRODUCE things - these 19th century basterds) production staff well, that care about complex processes and well-trained technicians and have to endure a lot in comparison to much cheaper competition but still stick to their standards? I seriously hope that for once, at least in this market, cheap, stylish sweatshop-stuff won't win over craftmanship, please!

Edited by georg lamshöft, 06 July 2010 - 12:50 PM.

  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2010 - 01:46 PM

If you compare 5K RAW recording on the Epic (probably 5120 x 2700) to 2.8K RAW on the Alexa (2880 x 1620), that's about a 3X difference, 13,824,000 pixels per frame versus 4,665,600. I'm not talking about measurable resolution, just recorded pixel dimensions.

If comparing a 2K RGB finish to a 4K RGB finish, that's a 4X difference in file size (if comparing a 2K finish to a 5K finish, I guess that would be a 5X difference but I think it makes more sense to compared recorded dimensions until one knows more about the resolving power of each camera).

Epic is being manufactured in the U.S. by the way.
  • 0

#10 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 July 2010 - 02:08 PM

Unless they are re-writing their RAW code, let's not forget RED "RAW" is heavily compressed. So RED's got massive sensors whose output is put to through the wringer to keep the data in manageable file size. Last I heard, Alexa's RAW wasn't nowhere near as compressed as RED's, if at all. So while RED's camera may have a much bigger sensor and pixels on the frame, there is no telling what one is actually missing due to RED RAW's compression. The smaller Alexa frame without RED RAW compression could theoretically push Epic's bigger frame with far more compression out of the perceived resolution game.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 06 July 2010 - 02:09 PM.

  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2010 - 02:14 PM

Why don't we just say that a 2.8K RAW recording is going to make an excellent 2K RGB D.I. and a 5K RAW recording is going to make an excellent 4K RGB D.I. -- and that's a 4X difference. Sure, Red compresses RAW but the resulting resolution after conversion to RGB is well-documented by now. You can figure on getting approx. 75% of the recorded RAW Bayer resolution back as measurable line resolution.
  • 0

#12 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 06 July 2010 - 03:40 PM

Converting 5K to 4K introduces scaling artifacts which damage picture quality.
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:42 PM

Converting 5K to 4K introduces scaling artifacts which damage picture quality.


It's not exactly a simple rescaling since you are talking about a Bayer pattern being converted to RGB, there aren't equal red, green, and blue photosites in the original anyway so it may not be a simple scaling from 5K to 4K, it may be a conversion from 5K RAW to 4K RGB. Besides, there is a lot of resizing and rescaling all the time in D.I. work. I also think that as the resolutions get higher in general, you probably have more leeway for rescaling than you do with low pixel-count images.

Certainly ARRI believes in using a 2.8K sensor to get a 2K image rather than build a 2K sensor. If you only get 75% of your original resolution from a bayer sensor RAW image when converting to RGB, it makes sense to start out with more resolution.
  • 0

#14 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11945 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:47 PM

"When one of the most respected companies in the industry is just releasing their brightest new star that does 1/5 of the resolution, half the maximum frame rate, in a box three times the size and for 3 times the price… that should tell you how tough a trick EPIC is."




Yes Jim, it's amazing what you can do when you don't really give a shit.
  • 0

#15 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:55 PM

Interesting

No, not really.
Actually, we were hoping that if we left the lights off and didn't post in this folder, everyone at RED would think weren't home, but that blasted Brian Drysdale had to go and answer the door :lol:

"There's noting to see here. Move along..."

Posted Image
  • 0

#16 David Williams

David Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:09 PM

1/5 the resolution is another of Reds efforts to redefine common terms to suit themselves. There's a whole thread at reduser with Jim justifying it. Resolution at reduser now means total pixels, not resolved lines as the rest of the world understands it.

5 times sounds far better than the 1.5 or so you might be able to resolve on a resolution chart.
  • 0

#17 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 08 July 2010 - 02:51 PM

Actually what Jim says is correct when you double the spatial resolution from 2K to 4K you actually get a second power exponential increase in resolution which is four fold. When you double the resolution in the third dimension you get a third power exponential increase which is an 8 fold increase in resolution. Doubling the temporal resolution gives a fourth power exponential increase in resolution resulting in a 16 fold increase. And doubling the color resolution of the system results in a fifth power exponential increase which is a whopping 32 fold increase in resolution.
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:49 PM

Actually Jim was comparing actual line resolution measured on a chart between a 1080P frame from the ARRI to a 5K frame from the EPIC when he came up with that 1/5th figure.

Now you can say that it is a bit unfair since the ARRI has the potential of recording 2.8K RAW once that feature is activated, but on the other hand, a lot of people are going to shoot in 1080P on the ARRI, though I hope once ARRIRAW is available, it will be 1080P for TV work and 2.8K RAW for feature work, probably finished to 2K. But then, how likely is it that all 5K RAW projects will be finished to 5K RGB? You could say that 5K RAW is more likely to be finished to 4K RGB and 2.8K RAW is likely to be finished to 2K RGB.

I think if numbers are going to be thrown around, there has to be more background given to the nature of the tests, that's all.

But while the 1/5th figure seems high, remember that 4K is 4X the information of 2K, so the 5X figure is actually not hard to believe when comparing a 1080P recording to a debayered 5K RAW recording. But comparing HD out of the Alexa to 5K out of the Epic is a bit like comparing the worst option out of one camera to the best option out of the second, even if that's a likely scenario.

But if you are comparing 1080P to 5K RAW, and you figure that 1080P (1.9K) measures out to below 1.9K, more like 1.6K, and 5K RAW would measure out to something close to 4K, then that is a 5X difference in information.
  • 0

#19 David Williams

David Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 08 July 2010 - 09:20 PM

Actually what Jim says is correct when you double the spatial resolution from 2K to 4K you actually get a second power exponential increase in resolution which is four fold. When you double the resolution in the third dimension you get a third power exponential increase which is an 8 fold increase in resolution. Doubling the temporal resolution gives a fourth power exponential increase in resolution resulting in a 16 fold increase. And doubling the color resolution of the system results in a fifth power exponential increase which is a whopping 32 fold increase in resolution.


In the context of film and video cameras, resolution has always meant resolved lines. With video, removing variables like lens resolution, debayering, etc, you need four times the pixels to gain two times the resolution.

You can't redefine common terms just to suit a better marketing line. This in my mind is one of the major causes of antipathy with Red amongst many cinematographers I know. Changing the rules to suit yourself doesn't come across very well in any context.
  • 0

#20 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 08 July 2010 - 10:35 PM

David (W) I do believe changing rules as such is called cheating ;)
  • 0


Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

The Slider

CineLab