Description image

RED Dragon Indeed: First 6K 2000 ISO Images from New Sensor Unveiled

[UPDATE]: We now have the first footage from the new sensor, check it out here.

Jannard and Co. have been quiet for a while now except for the occasional firmware update. When the guys at RED aren’t talking with users on their forum into the wee hours of the morning, there is a sure bet that something is brewing. We got our first image of the spectacular dynamic range of the sensor (which looks to be well over 14 stops), and now Jarred Land has posted some of the first still images taken from 6K (6000 x 3000 pixels) 86fps footage.

First, here is a little bit of what CEO Jim Jannard has been saying:

1. 6K (new Dragon sensor) is 2.2x 4K in number of pixels. 2. 6K has 45% more pixels than 5K. 3. 6K has over 10x the number of pixels than 1080P. 4. 6k (6144 x 3160) has more resolution than a Canon 5D MK III. 5. Pixels are good. Down-rezzing is good. Dynamic range is good. 6. The cleaner the sensor the more you can compress in REDCODE RAW. Dragon has less than half the noise of Mysterium-X. 7. Obsolescence Obsolete is good. Just a few facts to chew on.

And this:

Everything gets better, including color science. OLPF gets better. Color gets better. Resolution is up. Dynamic range is off the chart. Obsolescence obsolete. RED. And we still have no idea what we are doing…. just wait until we figure it out.

I have tremendous guilt because we are late. That is the main reason for going silent. Having said that… we are finally about to unleashed a bevy of stuff to blow away everyone’s expectations.

Here are the first two Dragon images RED has made public. These were shot on a Canon 100mm Macro at f/11, 86fps, 6000 x 3000 (2:1), at 2000 ISO, 180 degree shutter. Dead pixel calibration had not yet been done on this prototype Dragon (click for the full 6K image):

Now to put all of this into perspective for a moment., here is a 1080p outline on the 6K image:

6K is no joke. That much is clear. Shooting the full height and width of the RED Dragon, which is 6144 x 3160, is equivalent to taking a 19.4 megapixel still image at full motion continuously. The Dragon can do this at 86fps at 6000 x 3000. While this camera and sensor combination will certainly be over $30,000 for a full package, Dragon is really living up to the Digital Stills and Motion Camera (DSMC) designation. 5K on the EPIC right now can give you amazing still images, but 6K is just that much bigger, and will allow for even more manipulation.

Combine that ridiculous resolution with the fact that the sensor could potentially deliver more dynamic range than any current digital cinema camera (Alexa and Sony F65 top out around 14 stops), and you’re really looking at the cutting edge. Let’s also not forget that this was shot at 2000 ISO. That means boosting a stop to 4000 ISO will likely still be pretty clean, and this is all at 6K! Downscaling to 4K will remove a decent amount of that noise, so you could be shooting some tremendously high-resolution images in practically no light.

Something that has been talked about a lot, is the fact that 4K isn’t really 4K. While it’s true that a Bayer pattern has to interpolate pixels, 4K material looks pretty good to my eyes on a huge screen (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). While the sensor is physically a little bigger than Super 35mm — 5K on Dragon is actually closer to 4K compared to the MX sensor — shooting at 6K will mean an even more highly resolved 4K image. Whether it’s a “real 4K” yet will probably still be up for debate, but it should resolve a 4K image as well as, if not better, than the 20 megapixel Sony F65 (note: even though Sony claims the sensor in that camera is 8K, it has a non-standard aspect ratio as well as a rotated pixel array, so the real final resolution at a correct aspect ratio is actually somewhere around 5K-6K — which Sony says you’ll be able to record in a future firmware update).

Dragon Footage Playing in 4K on a Sony 84″ screen with the REDRAY Player

With all of that out of the way, let’s come down to earth for a moment. Color science is extremely important. All of the resolution and dynamic range in the world won’t make up for things that just don’t quite look right, and right now we’re only looking at images of a reptile, not of a human being (get it, RED Dragon?). The Arri Alexa has dominated the industry for two reasons: it shoots easily digestible ProRes to 2K or 1080p, and it looks fantastic without any manipulation in post. Is that a big deal when RAW gives you the most flexibility? To many productions, the answer is yes. RED has come a long way with their color science, but Dragon is now a completely different sensor. I don’t know how much code they will be able to carry over from the MX sensor, but getting the image to look “pleasing” with one click should be a priority (at least in my mind).

If you’re worried about the ND filter situation, Jannard has said that the Dragon should operate comfortably between 400 and 2000 ISO, so it shouldn’t actually be any more difficult than MX when shooting in daylight. The available light possibilities with this camera, though, could be pretty remarkable. While these advancements aren’t making better movies, they do push us forward and introduce more possibilities for all sorts of applications.

We’ll keep you posted on more developments with the sensor, but in the meantime, you can head on over to REDUser to join the conversation.

[UPDATE]: We have the very first footage from the DRAGON sensor, check it out here.



We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 139 COMMENTS

  • 6k (6144 x 3160) has more resolution than a Canon 5D MK III, wow that’s a bold statement…I’ll need independent verification on that statement….LOL!!

    • Joe Marine on 02.8.13 @ 3:18PM

      He means the still images at the same aspect ratio. RED Dragon is 19.4 megapixels at a 1.94 aspect ratio. The Mark III is 22 megapixels (5760 x 3840) at full resolution (3:2 or 1.5 aspect ratio), so if you cropped to get the same 1.94 aspect ratio, you would have 5760 x 2969, which is 17 megapixels.

    • 5D Mk III has 22.1 MP. 6k is somwhere around 19 MP. So technically is not true.

    • I think they mean the stills from the Canon…

  • Fresno Bob on 02.8.13 @ 3:20PM

    I think RED are going to start working on new eyes for us all so we can appreciate 6k

    • Joe Marine on 02.8.13 @ 3:23PM

      6K on its own is really more for post and still images. Shooting 6K for a 4K finish is really what Dragon is for. It’s a much better 4K image because you’re making up for pixel information lost to debayering.

  • The fact that this is well overdue, and well over the original 6000.00 dollars has certainly cooled any passion I had towards upgrading. The fact that JJ’s language has been laying the groundwork for a redefinition of the original “6K for 6K” which brought so many of us originally to the epic, seems to indicate this thing could be 10K. Yes, cheaper than an Alexa? Sure.

    But an upgrade that’s almost 50 percent of the cost of the Epic Brain is still a tough pill.

  • Very beautiful picture but something’s wrong here. First of all this is not a live ‘dragon’ it’s a taxidermic specimen (check out the mouth in general, the transition from teeth to gums and the fake plastic ground it’s standing on). Second, the front left foot’s claws are bent sideways, as they would be when standing on a solid flat surface such as a tabletop even though they are actually in mid air. At the same time, the back right foot’s claws are in a more natural position. However, the quality of the specimen in general makes me think that it was created by a very good taxidermic, who wouldn’t arrange the claws in such an odd way. Taken all together I am wondering if the ‘dragon’ was photoshopped into the background, and if this is the case: why???

  • Very interested in the color science of this thing. If it’s as good as they say, I want to see some people!!!

    Also excited to see the inevitable shootouts between RED/Alexa/Sony in the coming months.

  • So its not real, nothing on any posts stated this was a full motion shot.
    Did you want to use a color chart instead?

  • Suppose you shoot an interview with a dragon… wait…. How in the world could this camera ever be practical in the next few years besides in scenarios where you have a ton of time or a lot of money to get this stuff transcoded?

    Red’s whole line is bad enough as it is in this regard (not to mention reliability and ease-of-use for AC’s), and if I want to shoot a lower resolution so my data rates aren’t ridiculous, I have to crop the sensor. Red has a lot of fundamental flaws that it hopes to cover up solely with the power of a sensor.

    • Joe Marine on 02.8.13 @ 4:21PM

      RED will be introducing a 2K/1080p proxy module at some point, besides the one already in the Meizler Module (capable of 2K and 1080p in ProRes and DNxHD).

      Also, since Jannard is so stubborn about always shooting RAW and 4K or higher, RED very rarely mentions that the HD-SDI/HDMI can send out a clean 1080p image that’s as good as, if not better, than pretty much any 1080p camera out there. This will likely be no different once Dragon gets inside the cameras.

      Plenty of interviews have been shot with RED cameras, and if RAW is too much for your workflow, then shooting 1080p to an external recorder is going to be better quality than any 8-bit 4:2:0 camera. They can also reliably shoot for long periods (hours) without fan noise becoming a problem.

      • Are you saying RED’s fan noise is not a problem? Because we sent our back partly because the fan noise was like a hairdryer in between takes, which bothered me and the actors, and because sometimes after a time kicks in like a freakin’ hairdryer during long takes. RED’s a great camera, but it’s probably the world’s WORST interview camera.

        Ask any sound professional what they think of RED’s “awesome” idea of not making the bodies big enough to act as decent heatsinks, and about their engineering dept. thinking it’s OK to put a fan facing the talent, and a fan facing the operator, too.

        Again, love RED. Use ‘em all the time. But never, ever, ever for interviews or when I need a semi-quiet set.

      • Augusto Alves da SIlva on 02.14.13 @ 8:32PM

        Instead of developing Dragons I think RED should fpcus on having a reliable 2K camera for a change…I simply can´t trust a RED since RED One…
        P.S. – I would rather travel on a Aston Martin than on a fast F1 prototype….hey…but this is just me… ;-)

    • You can transcode on a 325 recorder instantly while recording or realtime from playback. Not a ton of time or money.

    • Would you complain about what you’d have to do to shoot interviews on film?

    • But i’m sure you’re happy with your T2i :)

      • ^^

        “I cant afford it so I’mma whine like I could buy it then rip it to shreds because I’m ‘rich’ and I think I’ll stay with my T2i thanks very much red you have really ruined yourself this time”

  • Just a quick note, 86fps at 180 degree shutter is 1/172 shutter speed…hence the need for 2000 ISO.

  • How much more clear can we get an image? Where does this road take us? 23k 4857k? At what point does all this tech plateau and we just perform with what we’ve got?

    • It will never end and it shouldn’t. IQ is going to keep getting better but that doesn’t mean what you shoot is. Thats up to us.

    • Film fanboys still scream that 35mm is 8K, no less and by that logic IMAX 70mm is what, 30K? Bwahahaha.

      • Nah, there’s no way average S35 resolves that much. Because film is more variable, I’ve heard figures ranging between 2 and 4K. Keep in mind, most digital cameras that shoot 4K don’t resolve an equal level of detail, so 4K resolution is still impressive.
        As large as IMAX is, I have trouble imagining it resolving more than 8K.

          • Yeah, I’ve heard conflicting numbers from different sources, so it’s quite possible it’s less than 4K. I’ve heard most say that S35 is around 4K when treated optimally, but I distinctly remember reading somewhere (I’ve been trying to find the article recently, but to no avail) that it was much less — around 2K — and that IMAX was just about 4K optimally.
            Just thinking about this now, perhaps with the pervasiveness of digital scanning of film, the scanning process could take the place universally of generational prints made off of the original negatives, thus preserving more of the original resolving power of the film’s image. So, the irony could be that the digital process could improve consumer image quality from film.

    • Allow me to speculate, if you will:
      I see 8K as a sort of plateau in terms of a finishing/distribution resolution. At 8K resolution, in order to discern individual pixels you’d a screen the size of a theater’s, and would need to sit so close to that screen as to no longer be able to see the entire image. At some point, it’ll just become unreasonable for any normal consumer to need any higher resolution on their televisions (or equivalent media display). In terms of the consumer space, I see 8K televisions as the stopping point, if the market even gets beyond 4K.

      If 8K becomes the standard maximum (oxymoron?) consumer video resolution, then digital cinema cameras will need at least that much in terms of recording resolution. Now, as an example, the Sony F35 uses a 12.4 MP 5760 x 2160 image sensor to resolve a virtually perfect 1920 x 1080 image in terms of measured resolving power. (This is because of standard Bayer pattern resolution issues.) Assuming a similar sensor resolution-to-output resolution would apply to an 8K image, I’d put the needed sensor resolution at around the equivalent of 19.5K (though some might just jump to 20K at that point…) or over 226 MP at a 16:9 aspect ratio. So, if one were to record RAW out of the camera, they’d most likely receive an image of that pixel resolution. Though compression and down-sampling of the image, they’d get about a perfect 8K of measured resolution. Of course, people shooting at 4K resolutions and higher right now aren’t getting a perfect 4K image, so I doubt the same for 8K would be a necessity either. I just figured I’d look at what might be the maximum one could reasonably attain.

      Obviously, the rest of the world of technology will not stand still to let this happen. New sensor and recording innovations will most likely lead to some form of advancement that may completely change display and recording standards (like this: ); my prediction only makes sense with current camera systems and announced plans for broadcasting.

      Nonetheless, you have an answer, albeit one from a random internet commenter.

      • “Assuming a similar sensor resolution-to-output resolution would apply to an 8K image.” It’s generally accepted that debayering loses about 20% of “real” resolution, so your numbers are way high. For example RED’s 4K image yields 3.2K of measurable resolution, 5K equals 4K, and so on. So I’m not sure where 19K is coming from!

        • Yeah, I know I went a way above what would probably be necessary or practical, but that was the point: to try to give a number to the approximate maximum ceiling of needed sensor resolution. If Red gets 3.2K from their 4K sensor, then, using that as a metric, one would definitely need less than 19K to resolve an 8K image (probably just under 9K).

          I got to 19.5K by basing my scale off of the Sony F35 which uses roughly six times as many photosites (5760 x 2160) as its output resolution of 1080p. I chose the F35 specifically because it stood out to me as a camera that oversampled more than I had ever heard of before. It was one of only three cameras in the 2011 Zacuto Shootout that resolved more line pairs per sensor height than the camera actually output in physical resolution, and the only camera to do so with a difference of over one hundred (140, actually). Since I was pushing to find the highest resolution sensor that would ever feasibly be made to resolve an 8K image (without just throwing in a random high number, at least), I it made sense to base my photosite-to-output-resolution ratio off of the largest ratio from an actual existing camera.

          • It was also mentioned elsewhere that the Zacuto results are kind of an anomaly for resolved detail over the final output. You can’t resolve more detail than your recording output, which is still only 1080 on the F35.

        • Bayer sensors have different resolution for different colors (photosites at 2:1:1 ratio). Black targets on test charts are best case scenario for Bayer sensors. If the targets were red, green or blue, resolution would vary and be lower than black target reolution. So in real world Bayer sensor resolution varies depending on the subjects, but it will usually be lower than recorded on black test targets.

  • ARRI did the smart thing by going after color first rather than resolution.

  • J: You’re right. Like when we went from U-Matic 3/4″ to Beta – I mean how much resolution do you really NEED? Whose eyes are that good anyway?

  • BTW I’ve been watching Downton Abbey – shot on Alexa seasons 2 & 3 – and it really is gorgeous.

  • This whole ‘k’ race is ridiculous. Firstly, there are hardly any theatres and systems, that are equipped to play 4k, right now, and, then, there is the issue of the handling of the workload.
    In another 20 years, RED would want us to move to 20k Cameras, which will store so much detail. that, you would hate to look at the world, naturally. Meaning, that, all humans would wear glasses, which will up-res nature,as it looks, to the human eye.
    Its a nightmare. Hopefully, this whole shit should end, quickly.
    We need better films, and cheaper, and more affordable film equipment., whose sole purpose, is to end the monopoly, of studios. Period. Everything else, is just nonsense.

    • Ben Prater on 02.8.13 @ 6:24PM

      And we only will ever need 512kb of RAM, too, right? Sorry, but the market will march on. Look at how much camera you can buy for $3k today. Two years ago, you would have paid $20k+. It’s good for all of us who love this game.

    • It’s not a race. S35 film is roughly 4K. IMAX is even bigger. No one has ever complained that the resolution of film is too high. Film, however, is being phased out. So, why would you want its replacement to be any less than what we started with? Why wouldn’t you want your ACQUISITION FORMAT to be as high a quality as possible?

      • However all theatres could show S35, but very few can show 4K.

        That’s the one discrepancy with all of this is the massive upgrade that theatres can get because of the price. Hollywood is forcing this onto them and still asking for a fair amount of their profit from films. It’s rather hypocritical because small theatres (more than you would think that there is) are going to go bankrupt and Hollywood will wonder why.

        Change is good, but you need change only when it works which it isn’t. It’s like the whole 4K TV thing but backwards. Instead of not being able to supply 4K content to a 4K screen, they can’t supply a 4K screen for the 4K content.

    • john jeffreys on 02.8.13 @ 7:05PM

      You do know that film can scan to like 8-12k, right?

      • You can scan film at any resolution you want. But the point of diminishing returns dictates certain resolutions for a reason. 4-5k is about the MAXIMUM amount of detail you’ll get w/ 35mm and around 12k for 65mm/IMAX (or a bit more).

        • What KahL said, too.

        • Not this again :-/ Have you guys any links that put some facts behind your claims? I would love to see some article that proves 12K IMAX resolution. It’s one thing to scan something at 12K, another to actually capture real 12K detail.

          Moving from acquisition to projection, John Galt of Panavision says that IMAX projection was not even 4K. In short the whole system through which the image went including projecting/viewing environment, was not able to “display” artificial black and white high contrast 4K image in such a way, that the audience woul be able to percieve it. Real world image would fare even worse..

          But even pretending true 4K IMAX projection was possible, audience would have to sit much closer to the screen, than most people are willing, to see the benefit from 4K resolution. They would have to sit in the first rows where no one really wants to sit. Funny that it’s so similar to the 4K TV problem..

          So if the highest quality cinema system in general (and still very limited) use is not delivering 4K to the audience, why this silly MARKETING megapixel race for digital cameras with even more limited 4K digital projection? Cinema goers don’t care about 4K. They care about good movies. And so should you nofilmschoolers ;-)

      • Are you claiming 8-12K from S35? If so, do you mean there’s 8-12K worth of discrete, resolvable pixel information in the film stock OR merely that 8-12K scans can be done. Maybe I’ve been misinformed but it was my understanding that S35 film negatives resolve around 4K worth of discrete pixel information, even when scanned at higher resolutions.

        If I’m wrong and S35 does yield even higher resolutions than 4K, it further illustrates my point and the backlash against higher resolution sensors is nonsensical. 1) No one ever complains that film’s resolution is too high. 2) Why wouldn’t you want to capture images that at least match the medium you’re replacing?

      • john jeffreys on 02.9.13 @ 2:18AM

        I think i got that quote from a source that mentioned 8-12k from 65/70mm or something. Yeah, sorry lol

    • But…. We are getting that. Loads of cheap tools with wonderful images and $1000 PC’s with inexpensive gtx cards for amazing real time performance.

    • Zack, i agree regarding being content centric, but I think you and some others are a bit misinformed regarding the “K race”.

      It’s not about having huge K’s and resolution for resolutions sake. Or complicating workflows. Or making life harder for interviews. Or even just driving sales as (understandably) motivates most camera companies…

      RED’s holy grail has always been to surpass the beauty of film. It’s a great goal. I’m down with it. RED one was a good first step. Epic MX was closer. Dragon… well still awaits to be seen, but we may just have got over the line. That’s awesome. Why do people get so bent out of shape about this stuff?

      RED “makes” Digital “Cinema” and “Still” camera’s. Surely everyone can see that the higher K’s make total sense in this regard. Otherwise, we would all rightfully still be saying till the end of time, film is better… and “what’s the point of pulling stills from motion if a DSLR is so much better?”

      If RED said this was a camera targeted at the weekend enthusiast or shooting interviews. Sure, they’d be well off the mark. But let’s be clear, you can’t really call them out on something they don’t say or going after what are obvious benefits to a “Digital Cinema Still Camera” Well you can but…

      There seems to be a lot of phobia about technology developments in this industry.

      And yes 4k deliverables are not really yet upon us, but they are certainly coming fast. And more’s the point, currently, if I want to deliver for 2K, I’d still rather originate with film, or 4k, or at the least the best 2k camera in an Alexa. Resolution really does count. And that doesn’t have to piss you off.

  • It’s safe to assume no makeup is safe from this!

    Crazy image resolution will need the highest end editing workflow – to which I’m curious how this will be handled. 4k is still a daunting task to this day (as well as few formats and tools that have support for it for the time being) so what exactly can support this?

    • I edit 4K (red-) raw footage on my laptop. Why do people keep spreading that nonsense about it being so tough to handle?

      • People would rather repeat what they’ve heard than find out for themselves. As you point out, R3Ds are manageable on a laptop. Anyone who’s actually used them knows this. Therefore, it’s probably safe to assume this person has no real experience with them.

        • You’d be mostly right in that regard, but mistaken in my point. Until 4k workflow (as well as the respective cameras) goes to the general videographers’ use, it’s still in the minority.

          • thadon calico on 02.9.13 @ 1:41AM

            Not the case at all dude, u have no pro experience….its hobbyists like you that keep tooting the lower end cams as being good…some of us are working professionals. I hope others that read the comments online – where anyone can claim to be knowledgeable – see how misinformation quickly spreads

      • May I know the specs, assuming it’s not a Macbook Pro model or specialized Laptop? How about HDDs/SSDs for storage, backup and archiving? I’m not trying to incite anything, I’m genuinely curious how it all stacks up if anything. Surely, this can’t represent most videographers’ and indie flimmakers’ workflow or be it a moderately smooth one.

        • It is a bit of an old wives tale that you need a beast to edit .r3d files. One that I bought into for a long time. I did a workflow tutorial showing just how well Premiere Pro CS6 handles the files.

        • Marti, I’m cutting a 4k feature and other projects natively on a suped up Imac. A fricking Imac.

  • I’m not so interested the DSMC concept. There are DSLRs which are amazing tools for reasonable prices like 5d Mark III, D600, D800, Leica or Maimya and Hasselblad medium format cameras if you have a higher budget. From a DSLR you get a uncompressed raw file and that’s the great thing about DSLRs. There’s nothing like CR2 or NEF and Adobe RGB color space. And a photographer uses different shutters for different photographs – it’s part of the job. I never photograph anything at 1/50 or 1/24 for exemple.

    But the fact you can grab a frame at reasonable quality is of course great. And for post production purposes it sure looks like an good solution if you actually need 6K resolution. But that’s the question? Do you actually need it?

  • “These were shot on a Canon 100mm Macro at f/11, 86fps, 6000 x 3000 (2:1), at 2000 ISO, 1/48 shutter.”

    Wait, how were they able to get a 1/48s shutter speed at 86 FPS? Wouldn’t the shutter have a minimum speed of 1/172s before causing some weird motion effects?

    • Joe Marine on 02.8.13 @ 6:45PM

      Someone else pointed out that the subject was not alive and thus would not be moving.

      • It was taken with the shutter at 180, so Blah is correct.

        • Joe Marine on 02.8.13 @ 8:13PM

          If you wanted to maintain “normal” looking motion, yes 1/172 would be the correct shutter speed. I was answering his question saying that nothing in the shot was moving, so maintaining natural motion was a non-issue. Plus, 86fps would probably be used for slow motion anyway, and to my eyes slow motion looks better with a shorter shutter speed – so that is a whole other conversation.

          • Not my intention to argue but in your article it states the picture was taken with a shutter of 1/48s, and since the first post of the reduser thread states a 180 shutter, that automatically assumes a shutter speed of 1/86s at very least. 1/48th would imply the shutter was open for almost two frames.

            • Joe Marine on 02.8.13 @ 8:52PM

              Yes, you are right, I adjusted above. RED can be set to relative or fixed shutter degrees, so the camera could have automatically set the shutter to 1/172 to maintain normal motion blur. I was blindly assuming 180 degrees = 1/48, which it does until you get into higher frame rates. Though 1/48 is still technically possible, but it’s probably better to assume 180 degrees means 1/172.

  • Desmond Williams on 02.8.13 @ 6:47PM

    It always fascinates me that “EVERYONE” must take shots at the Canon DSLRs, (#4) statement from RED CEO. It’s almost like giving Canon FREE promotion when you think about it. Does a $3,000 camera really threaten people that much when compared to a nearly $40k monster?

    • That statement was not a slam at Canon. He was referring to getting more resolution out of MOTION pictures than you get out of the equivalently cropped image from the stills only side of the 5DMK3.

      • I beg to differ. I think it was a slight slam at canon because it’s not the first time they’ve went directly at canon/dslr’s and talked about how much better the epic/scarlet is. I’ve always thought that Reds SHOULD be better(technically) than dslr’s so much that he shouldn’t have to even mention it so much. If he was speaking about the still resolution then he would’ve said “it has more resolution than a 5D MKIII still photo. The cameras are not even close to the same price. It’s like me going around saying “hey everyone, I’m so much stronger than this 12 year old kid and I can beat him in a fight” or “hey this Bentley GT is better than the Ford focus so buy this instead”. To me it just always felt like they’ve pick on someone who’s not in their category.

        • RED does take shots at Canon DSLRs – as far as motion goes. Their stance has always been you can buy a fantastic stills camera that shoots crippled video to make movies or you can buy a true cinema camera that shoots resolutions high enough to pull print-worthy stills from the motion stream.

          Jim’s comment was more along the lines of saying Dragon is now encroaching upon what the 5DMKIII does really well, accept in motion. It’s a compliment to the 5D in that regard as well as using it as a measuring stick for the new sensor’s capabilities.

          I think part of the reason he is defensive about it so often is because of countless comments in the past, especially by certain people who frequent NFS, about how their 5D produces an equivalent moving image to RED cameras and other such nonsense. The comments on this page alone are full of misinformation about RED products by people who’ve never used them. The problem is that so many people actually believe the misinformation and then repeat it elsewhere. I imagine that would be frustrating for anyone.

          • I meant “except in motion”. Damned typo.

          • Yeah well, the sad thing is, that some people convince them selves, that they need top cinema cameras to make moving pictures, when actually truly passionate filmmakers have always used whatever technology they could get their hands on. Crappy little Canons are so much better in some regards, than technology available to poor filmmakers decades ago. To make indie movies, documentaries and music videos you can use DV no problem. In the end most of the audiences are gonna remember the story, emotions, information, not pretty bokeh or the absence of jello. Obsessing about technical aspects of image quality is only going to get in the way of the filmmaking.

    • john jeffreys on 02.8.13 @ 7:06PM

      Yes. If it wasn’t for the 5D none of this would be happening.

      • None of what? Technology will inevitably progress. I would agree with the point that the 5D created a great deal of momentum, but your statement is impossible to make so confidently.

        • john jeffreys on 02.9.13 @ 2:20AM

          We would all still be using shitty 6,000 dollar 2/3″ 1080p camcorders and renting film cameras. RED shook it up, but Canon’s DSLR mistake actually democratized equipment, imo

          • Someone would have it done sooner or later. Compats made videos for ages. It was only a question of time before someone did it for the DSLRs.

          • I love how the Canon 5DmkII gets all the credit, when the Nikon D90 was the first to introduce video to the DSLR world.

            Progress would have have happened without the 5DmkII? Progress was already happening without it.

  • jordan carr on 02.8.13 @ 8:41PM

    You forget about the cheap rental market for red.

  • Jannard repeatedly stated the color science improved.

  • Brb…gotta finish shooting my short on my Cybershot 3.1 megapixel camera.

  • Hate hate hate, why so much hate towards this company? Arri releases a camera for $80-120K and you all praise it yet you’ve probablynever shot with it.

    W.e you think of RED as a company you can thank them for forcing prices down across the industry.

    • thadon calico on 02.9.13 @ 1:46AM

      especially if you are in america at this daunting economic times. heres a company that made some manufacturing decisions at home at a time where even the cheaply produced american flags sold at stores have the “made in china” sticker. Yet the price isnt crazy high. but like someone once said, Filmmakers make the dumbest of businessmen

      • Agree. Parents now buy “American Girl” dolls for over $100 a pop…and they are made in china!

    • I don’t think its “hate” for the company so much as it is a dislike of the “braggy” attitude they express. They’ve definitely done a great thing for the industry but at this point, I don’t think they have to sell it that hard. The tech speaks for itself. Everyone now knows what Reds can do and what they’ve done. I for one definitely don’t hate them. I’d rather purchase a different camera but I don’t hate’em.

      • Augusto Alves da SIlva on 02.14.13 @ 9:00PM

        I have never seen ARRI doing this kind of marketing anywhere…why? Because they don´t need it….their products are absolute masterpieces…What they sell are reality based equipments designed and manufactured to be reliable stable and state-of-the-art….A flashy Ferrari vs a Classical Porsche…

    • Because they are a bunch of arrogant businessmen.

      Their product is good, their bullshit on their site is great and their marketing is even better. But, when it comes down to it they just come off as a bunch of jerks who can’t handle critisism….Look at what they did to Bloom cause he gave an honest opinion of what he thought about his Epic.

      Alot of people see right through their arragance…alot don’t.

  • Anthony Marino on 02.9.13 @ 12:34AM

    made in the USA. It’s a fantastic camera, small and powerful. What’s not to love?

    • Red quality control, both hardware and software.

      Pure ASSHOLE-attitude of the so called “professional Red users” and the company staff.

      There has never been more unreliable professional camera system than what Red cameras are. Main reasons are inferior engineering talent in company and quality of the components sourced from outside companies (= as cheap as possible, i.e from China).

      If you are really interested in Red camera systems, start by going here and doing some extensive reading:

      For example, do you think it is sign of good, quality product; that latest Red Scarlet / Epic camera system, costing fully loaded easily 20 000 – 80 000 dollards CAN DROP OR CORRUPT FRAMES WHILE SHOOTING NORMALLY !?

      And we are talking about the latest version of the HW / SW !

      Of course, in “RED cult” there is no real quality problem and all the other camera systems / users are inferior.

      If for example new Sony F55 camera would work like this, there would not be end in crap talk around ‘Net how bad their products are. And how EVIL Sony are.

      But somehow same does not apply to the divine God given gift : the Red cameras !

      • You’re absolutely right that RED has its share of engineering woes. But your comparison is unfair and flawed. The very fact that the general public can see or have access to bug reports and glitches experienced by USERS (not people who only read about them) shows a level of transparency that’s NEVER existed in the industry to this degree before RED. It also means that, unless you work at Sony, you have NO IDEA how many of their cinema cameras have problems and have to be repaired. Furthermore, you don’t know the ratio of problem-free cameras to problem ones for either company. Sony’s record is probably better but RED is relatively young and Jim freely acknowledges their mistakes.

        Sure, there are a few RED owners who are assholes but I assure you every owner is tired of uninformed, biased, straw man comments full of false equivalencies like the ones you just made. You’d be surprised just how many fewer assholes you’d encounter if you knew what you were talking about.

        • Anthony Marino on 02.9.13 @ 3:33PM

          No piece of equipment is impervious to a few glitches now and again. My pix 240 before a couple firmware updates had a glitch, it was addressed and is now invaluable to me. Just for the sound alone I can’t settle for anything less. My point being seeing the few who had some problems out of the many who don’t I totally agree with those who bash Red likely never held one. It’s a great camera, I can’t see how anyone can bash it. I mean come on!

          • Unfortunately with RED it’s not so much ‘every now and again’ as it is ‘here we go again’. They do the weirdest things for no logical reason, the first time I 2nd AC’d it was on Epic and at the beginning of the first two setups we got a new, completely different random problem. Luckily it wasn’t enough to slow down the production (although it ruled out the large Director’s monitor for the entire first setup: luckily he wasn’t too bothered and just looked at the onboard) but I’ve seen other crew get quite frustrated when the camera crashes for no reason, then there’s the wait whilst it reboots.

            Don’t get me wrong, the images are lovely to look at, and I’m sure the Dragon sensor images will be even better, but man I wish they’d sort out the operational bugs. You don’t get these issues with prosumer cameras, let alone Alexa’s. It’s like having a really awesome DP who creates beautiful pictures, but he’s always late to set and keeps falling asleep at the eyepiece.

      • Anytime there’s an article about Red here, you show up dissing them. Why would you even waste your time for that?

      • By the way you talk its clear you have never dealt with RED personally. And you probably have never shot with anything other than a DSLR if even that. Alexas go down on sets some times, overheating and other things. F65s have had some quirks too. Maybe I’m lucky but I have never had an issue on shoots with REDs. No corrupt frames, no glitches, nothing. RED support team as always given me awesome service in a timely fashion. I dont know what your agenda is but you’r making a fool of yourself talking like that.

        If you got asked to DP a big job on an epic you wouldnt take it? Only Alexa? Unless you’re an established and highly respected DP who can demands that would be foolish. You’ve probably never shot on either anyway.

  • Wonder if skin tones will still look plastic.

    • Wonder if you have watched albert nobbs. Skin tone is phenominal and will have you eating crow Mark.

      • Interesting. Only really good looking feature I saw shot on RED was Prometheus but I wouldn’t expect any less from Ridley.

        • you realize that Prometheus was completely shot with LEDs right so the color reproduction of skintones was beneath tungsten.

  • I agree, this is a new development and as usual RED will push the others to do better or the same. Nonetheless, I am only able to afford marked-up-price BMCC for now. Just arrived yesterday and can’t wait to make use of it!

  • I’m used to shooting 7.3k still on my Nikon D800, and seeing those shots, I just wonder – is the Canon 100mm really that soft?

    • marklondon on 02.9.13 @ 7:58AM

      That was exactly my thought. Saw these frames over at reduser and you blow them up – that is not that sharp.
      Certainly if you took those on a 5D3 you’d be a bit pissed off. Especially as its a stationary object.
      Nothing against this cam: look forward to working with it, and its footage. Looks very clean for 2000asa.
      But I’m waaaaaay over Jannard’s blowhard epistles.

      • It’s Canon macro lens for crying out loud, you can even see chromatic aberrations. Slap a MP on it and then talk.

      • Yeah, agree, nothing against the sensor or upcoming RED camera, looks good.

        I’m thinking RED chose a softer lens just to show off the ISO and such, just so they are able to save some of the wow-effect for later previews :)

  • Quote: The Arri Alexa has dominated the industry for two reasons: it shoots easily digestible ProRes to 2K or 1080p, and it looks fantastic without any manipulation in post. Is that a big deal when RAW gives you the most flexibility?

    I would add reliability! Not sure if this is a good example.

  • Every time I read something written by Jannard, the word “delusional guru” crosses my mind.

    • john jeffreys on 02.9.13 @ 4:44PM

      Its nice to have a character like him leading a camera company, all the other company leaders are boring robots

      • Totally agreed! Who is the CEO of Sony? Does he care about filmmaking or more about the share performance of their stock last quarter? Maybe he’s a japanese supercomputer.

  • Other then having to buy a separate apt for the storage drives- im in!

  • here it comes..

  • I have said from the beginning the picture should have looked as good as it does now within 6 or so months of the release of the Redone as it was a new company building up knowledge. I also said that cameras needed to nail down the manual/auto image before Red was even started, so you can raw tweak the image after quickly, if needed. Recording the settings for the look on a data track. I also got onto one or so button/step auto everything quick setup then adjust to suit on set. Also suggested and still working towards the film everything without setting up latitude, lighting, framing, focus, shutter, multi cameras, then auto setup (apart from optional recorded onset auto suggestions and adjustments) and then refine in post. Eventually we will not even be needed.. That is revolutionary, that is not the digital cinema camera industry that again is the master class mentor designer.

    Really gou need that before launch but it was a newnc

  • And I still say I have a under $100 hd video cameras that are supposed to do 16 stops. For people who know, it is so 1993. Im glad somebody is bringing reality to the digital cinema market at 6k.

  • Not much better than existing cameras. RED cited their DR being 0.5 stops less than the Alexa when in real life tests it was actually 2-3 stops worse. I doubt the Dragon sensor is going to surpass the Alexa in dynamic range. It will be significantly higher in resolution. So it’s still a resolution vs DR debate. Plus, 35mm film is still about 20 megapixels, so 6K matches that. The claim that it has the same resolution as 65mm (which someone at RED said) is absolutely ridiculous.

  • When some one searches for his essential thing, thus he/she wants to be available that
    in detail, thus that thing is maintained over here.

  • I’m not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic information I was looking for this info for my mission.