8 ms·
RED Epic camera - six times the resolution of HD video
- elliottcarlson 16y agoDid the stolen RED EPIC ever turn up? Last I heard there was a $100k reward on it.
- mashmac2 16y agoNope. It's still missing. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?53549-ALERT!-Please-read./page39 http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?53549-ALERT!-Please-...
- nitrogen 16y agoI think it would be awesome if the stolen camera were recovered a century from now and displayed in the Smithsonian.
- npalli 16y agoWerner Herzog was apparently not impressed http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAInterviewWernerHerzog.aspx http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAIntervi... Q: What about shooting digitally? A: We used the RED camera for My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done. It's an immature camera created by computer people who do not have a sensibility or understanding for the value of high-precision mechanics, which has a 200-year history. It's terrible: Whenever you have to reboot the camera, it takes 4½ minutes or so. It drove me insane, because sometimes something is happening and you can't just push the button and record it. An assistant cameraman said this camera would be ideal if we were filming the National Library in Paris, which has been sitting there for centuries. But everything that moves faster than a library is a problem for the RED. Super 35 mm celluloid is still better
- ModelCitizen 16y agoTo be fair, that was the RED One, the Epic's predecessor. Startup time on the Epic is about 10 seconds. I've shot with the red one, and yes, a few quirks were frustrating. But they're definitely improving.
- randall 16y agoAlso, no mention of how much it sucks to do the canister-in-a-bag thing, or telecine-ing the film so it can be edited. Or the free cost of bits. (ok I'll stop.)
- mey 16y agoI am a little surprised that digital filming isn't hitting it's stride when photographers have taken to the digital transition. Not sure if the celluloid comment is only in reference RED or in reference to digital film in general. I see parallels to audiophile type comments regarding analog v digital.
- pokjhnboi 16y agoFilm cameras + lenses are expensive, $100k expensive. They are typically leased for each production from rental houses that have many $M of stock on their shelves - and are often also manufacturers (panaflex didn't used to sell cameras at all - you had to rent) Then you need a camera operator that is trained on that camera. Imagine if a pro-photographer had 6 different camera brands that they didn't own and didn't know which one they would be presented with on their next job. Then there is a whole industry of labs, dailies, neg cutters that work with film. Replacing all these with data wranglers, DBAs and sysadmins is expensive - especially with no market leader means you need to hire a team that all know the model you are using. A recent BBC documentary shot on regular HD cameras had 2people who spent all night copying all the memory cards to hard drives and making backups. Digital cameras will catch on, probably in independant first - but it's not because of any artistic reason, it's just a cost/time/benefit calculation
- alexqgb 16y agoGiven the exponentially lower amount of data handled by still cameras, it was much easier for them to eclipse 35mm film in terms of quality. Keep in mind that even 'burst mode' on a high-end DSLR only runs at 3-5 frames per second (not 30), and still requires a few seconds between bursts to process and write to disk. Film not only shoots at 24 frames per second (or more), but the final picture has to play on a screen that is literally two stories high. The scale is unforgiving. Things that would fly on television get suddenly ugly - especially if you're only starting with 1080 lines of resolution. And that's before your picture has gone through layers and layers of heavy post production - every one of which constitutes a round of transcoding, and thus, a source of degradation and artifacting. In other words, not only are you shooting far more frames in far less time (and needing hardware that can do sustained encoding for each one in real time) but, you're doing so at exceptionally high bit-rates, oversampling like hell so that you'll still have a clean picture even after running it through the wringer of post-production. Encoding for broadcast, DVD and the web (which is par for the course with any professional shoot) only adds an extra layer of abuse. When Michael Mann was shooting Collateral (which made heavy use of HD), there were a number of scenes where they had to shoot film, just because the HD rigs capable of supporting adequate bitrates came with umbilical cords that were simply too cumbersome for handheld setups where agility was essential. There's also been an optical issue, in that sensors for digital motion cameras have typically been much smaller than those used for digital still or motion film cameras. Even if the resolution is commensurate (which is hasn't been), the fact that the same number of scan lines are packed into a smaller area has consequences in terms of the optical effects that the camera can achieve. Specifically, a larger imagine surface allows for a shallower depth of field. Given that really good cinematographers can make masterful use of DOF, it's understandable that they don't like the constricted range that comes with smaller, digital sensors. For guys like Lucas, Fincher, and Jackson - who all do a huge amount of pre-visualization and heavy CG in post - this isn't such a big deal. They can plan around it, or deal with it after the fact. But in a more traditional setting - and for filmmakers who don't have the same hardcore ILM/WETA ethos and skill - the trade-off isn't so favorable. All that said, my sense is that this RED camera marks a tipping point, where a lot of the advantages that film has held will start to erode in earnest. The thing that's really going to drive this is the exceptionally high dynamic range (that is to say, the range of light levels the camera can handle before the picture either drops into black, or blows out in a haze of pure white). Higher performance in this area really was the trump card for film. But now that RED is not just meeting, but exceeding the long-established benchmarks, a lot of people who have stuck with film are going to ditch it in favor of a much higher ceiling. I mean, wow, 18 stops - that's hot.
- marcusestes 16y agoI get the feeling that Werner enjoys taking this rebellious attitude towards a technology that so many of his art-film peers have been lauding since the release of the One. Soderberg has been shooting Red for years now. The Social Network was shot on a Red One. The Epic is taking the technology mainstream. Peter Jackson bought 30 Epics to shoot The Hobbit with.
- revdinosaur 16y agoMy on-set experience with the One, as a student, was remarkably similar. I do not, however, assume that the camera hasn't been improved greatly in the last few years. There is some credence to the complaint of the design's orientation, however. The inability to look through the lens is something that really bothered me, as the operator. It's just one reason I appreciate the careful design of film cameras.
- baddox 16y agoI would have thought that film cameras would have pretty slow and tedious start up and maintenance times too. Is that not the case? Either way, documentary work is a lot different than scripted film making. It sounds like the RED camera would have obviously been a poor choice for his documentary.
- anigbrowl 16y agoNot really. A film camera needs a lot of setup but once you've got it built each morning then switching in a new battery or film magazine takes about a minute, startup is a couple of seconds. In some contexts, a mechanical setup can be more robust and efficient. For that particular film, using a RED would have been like using a Ferrari to do the job of a pickup truck.
- alexlawford 16y agoOther directors are big enthusiasts. The makers of RED have been pretty upfront about some of the drawbacks of the RED ONE from the beginning. Everyone was pretty much using a beta product at least for the first couple of years. They've said that EPIC wont be the same way; it will be a complete product from day one. Perhaps that's why it's taking so long to release. RE: price, compare it with its direct competitors and it's something of a steal. Lots of people that bought the RED ONE made a killing from their investment.
- khafra 16y agoIf they're an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition, as is claimed elsewhere, couldn't you just buy two or three and switch when they're rebooting?
- gallerytungsten 16y agoThe Red camera is often used with a large number of accessories. In most cases, switching from one camera to another would take longer than rebooting.
- alexqgb 16y agoThis is doubly true of you're using complex rigs (e.g. steadicams, cranes, helicopters, etc.) Also, film-outs (the moment a reel runs out) are 100% predictable. Crashes are not. That means you're not only having to factor in the time to swap cameras, you're also potentially having to deal with resetting and reshooting the take the camera crashed on. Also, cameras bodies are actually relatively cheap (even film). The really expensive parts are the lenses, which can easily run from 2-10 times the price of the camera itself. And that's before you consider the extra labor required to check each lens out of the rental house, or the cost of insuring them while they're on the job. So unless you also want to double your supply of glass (which triggers a slew of additional charges), constantly swapping bodies means a lens change every time as well. If you're working in an even slightly dusty or moist environment, this is even more undesirable.
- protomyth 16y agoThe older Red One had a much longer report time than the new Epic.
- protomyth 16y agos/report/reboot/ err
- daimyoyo 16y agoMeh. The pricetag on this makes it really unappealing to anyone except multimillionaires and professional cinematographers. When Red can produce a 4K camera for under $1,000 I'll be the first in line to get one. Until then it's little more than a curiosity. An awesome curiosity but a curiosity nonetheless.
- mashmac2 16y agoWell, in reality this price is fantastic for a cinematography camera. When you consider the prices for everything else on a shoot, and how a camera is typically rented instead of bought for a feature film, this camera (and the RED ONE) is revolutionary. Sony's recent release of the F3 has them playing catchup, and they've announced plans for a 4K cinematography camera, but this camera is ahead of its time, and a huge step forward over the RED ONE. And this camera isn't for anyone who doesn't know their way around a video camera in full manual mode (shutter speed, iris, focus, zoom, white balance, gamma, knee, etc...). This is not a camera for anyone except for filmmakers.
- hop 16y agoLooking forward to seeing what the next Canon 5D will do. Could very well have 2k resolution and do 120+ fps at lower resolutions with it's big full frame sensor.
- pokjhnboi 16y agoThe sensor is the easy bit - it's getting the data out that is clever. The 5D can only store heavily compressed H264 even at 1080p30. 2k lines @ 120fps is 1GBytes/s - thats a lot of data to push
- ashconnor 16y agoAt a fraction of the price.
- protomyth 16y agoI don't think that will be accurate with Scarlet showing up. The other big difference from the Red cameras and Canon is RAW versus a heavily compressed h264.
- alexqgb 16y agoWhich means it's not even remotely comparable for professional work. Keep in mind that it's not just the amount, but the type of compression that's decisive. Spatial codecs (also known as intraframe schemes) deal with each frame independently. That is to say, they don't apply calculations across a set of frames, even when much of the information is repeated. Temporal codecs (also known as interframe, of which H.264 is the most popular example) achieve vastly lower file sizes by applying samples from one image across a set (aka a 'group of pictures, or GOP). This is fantastically useful for broadcast and streaming, since you get high visual quality in an efficient package. But if you try to DO anything with that video (reformatting, enlarging, compositing, etc.) the downside will become very clear very quickly. Typically, professional shows are going to demand a lot of flexibility in post, meaning they're likely to insist on spatial codecs whenever possible.
- 16y ago
- mashmac2 16y agoFor those who want the info from the source: http://www.red.com/products/epic http://www.red.com/products/epic Check out the features tab for HD comparison, and tech specs for the details.
- sandofsky 16y agoI can't speak for this model. However, in the past, the problem with the RED has been the rolling shutter, the same problem you find in DSLR's. Instead of capturing full frames, it's scanning from top to bottom at 24fps. It's fine for static shots, but as you introduce motion, or fast moving subjects, you get a "jelly" effect. I have a friend who does highend visual effects. In his experience, the RED also isn't suited for green screen work. Can't remember off the top of my head if it's for rolling shutter or the dynamic range, but it's another limitation. However, it hits a sweet spot for less demanding productions, like The Social Network.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Entlin 16y agoThe rolling shutter artifacts are present, yes, but it's in the range of a movie camera. Movie cameras also have some slight jelly in fast pans, something not many people are aware of. "measured the mysterium (RED ONE) at 9ms, the X (EPIC) at 5ms, and film at 4ms. All of them substantially faster than other sensors which can be in the 20's." http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?42240 http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?42240 "The mechanical shutter "wipes" across the film in a similar way to how a CMOS sensor is read. The trick to CMOS is getting the read-reset time similar to the mechanical shutter. EPIC does that. (...) there is skew in a film camera with a mechanical shutter, one of the many reasons film has "character"." http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?55397-General-Question-About-CMOS-Rolling-Shutter&p=727520&viewfull=1#post727520 http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?55397-General-Questi...
- Keyframe 16y agoHuh? http://www.red.com/experience http://www.red.com/experience <- From my experience with RED, foundry's rolling shutter gets rid of the errors quite easily http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/rollingshutter/ http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/rollingshutter/ and everything I've ran through flame or smoke that was shot on key with red had no problem (related to camera). REDs are a great tool. And cheap. ARRI Alexa is better, from my experience, but it comes with a premium.. and panavision you can rent only, of course. TBH, camera is the least important factor in shooting a feature/commercials quality look, as long as it's not a DSLR (no matter what popular belief is among prosumers). If you get cooke S4 lenses or other high quality lenses onto RED, Alexa or any other similar camera, you won't notice much of a difference, and each prime lens costs as much as camera alone.
- tintin 16y agoCan anyone explain the use of such high resolutions? I know it could be nice to crop some parts of the movie and still have a nice set of pixels. But in reality you will just shoot the scene again or leave it out. Nowadays everybody is shooting millions of pixels but I never saw someone who used a cropped versions professionally.
- nitrogen 16y agoBetter aliasing performance (things like chain link fences won't look jagged), more sharpness retained after multiple rounds of processing, etc. Try recording a TV show in SD resolution, then record the HD version and resize it to SD. The HD-scaled-to-SD version is much sharper than the SD version.
- tintin 16y agoAh, I'm totally wrong. 5K (14Mpx) is todays cinema format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema "The marketshare of 2K projection in digital cinemas is over 98%."
- bgentry 16y agoRED has been driving some tremendous innovation in this space. Their cameras are an order of magnitude cheaper than anything remotely comparable, and they've built the entire ecosystem around standard video editing software (Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, etc.) making this kind of technology accessible to a whole new market of amateur and non-feature filmmakers for whom it was previously out of reach. They are a fascinating company born out of Jim Jannard's passion. The only reason they exist is because the industry dinosaurs had been happy to eschew innovation in favor of consistent and sustained profit models. Jannard's only goal is to build the camera that the competitors told him he couldn't have.
- Keyframe 16y agoPeter Jackson/WETA bought 30 EPICs... if it's good for them, it's good for everyone.
- protomyth 16y agoIf you want in-depth coverage of the Epic (and other digital cameras) listen to "the rc podcast" at http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/ http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/ Their Canon 5D and 7D stuff was really informative also.
- drinian 16y agoNow that we've got the resolution up to where it should be, can we start shooting at higher framerates, like 60 or 120 fps? I'm sick of flicker.
- alexqgb 16y agoThe highest hurdle is bitrate.