When RED first announced their new Hydrogen smartphone last April, details were sketchy, and while we've seen some more info and especially response videos since then, we are finally get some finalized specs and refreshed timeline information that should be comforting to those who put down more than $1,000 to pre-order a device last April on only the earliest of pre-renders. The Hydrogen will be a 2560 x 1440 resolution smartphone (at least in 2D mode), running on a Qualcomm Snapdragon 835x processor, which is a powerful unit that drives 4K up to 30fps, in HEVC and H.264, with the plain 835 running both the Pixel 2 and the Samsung S8.
While RED is still promoting the modular system, which will use the external pins to allow for attachments such as a cinema quality camera, the focus of this release is more on how much functionalitity you get out of the base unit. It's described as being thicker and slightly heavier than your average 5.7" phone, though that is fine with us, since they are using that thickness to shove in a 4500mA battery, which should help the phone actually make it through the day, something ultra thing phones have a tendency not to do. In addition, 4V "holographic" capture will be supported natively in the unit without the need for an accessory, and they are working on social sharing features with the major platforms, but they don't have final resolution specs on the format yet though they claim that even on the 2560 display, the way the technology works it appears to have more resolution than 2D, even when it doesn't.
Frankly, one of the key features here is the remaining headphone jack, and while that might seem like a joke, we don't mean it as one. A lot of old school folks were initially reluctant about the initial RED One because it threw everything out the door: it had great innovations (Wavelet! 4K! Windowing for slow-motion), and then it had those crazy mini-SDI connectors and sold lenses in F-stops instead of T-stops. The headphone jack tells us a lot about RED's ambition for the Hydrogen platform: this is meant to be transitional—to both work as the day-to-day phone you always have with you (where most users frankly still prefer a normal headphone jack), and also to show us the future of screen technology. Dropping the headphone jack has slowed adaptation of the iPhone X and the Pixel 2 (it's amazing the number of people I still see with iPhone 6 and original Pixel units dragging their feet on the upgrade), and by giving users a phone with a headphone jack, RED is making sure there is absolutely no reason not to consider the jump.
Delivery date is still estimated, but RED expects to be showing it off to the public in events in April (curiously, NAB is in April), and hopes to start shipping unlocked pre-order units by the summer, with carrier based phones after that. This is later than the Q1 estimated ship time when the unit was originally announced, but RED has never worried too much about deadlines and they admit that dealing with carriers has been more time consuming than originally expected. Considering the fall iPhone upgrade cycle, we suspect fall shipments for the Hydrogen with carrier support is the goal, and we look forward to seeing the competition play out. We're also curious to see if this fall's iPhone might have some competitive technology of its own.
Full-sized headphone jack
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835x
Dual Sim Slots
4500 mA battery
2560 x 1440 2D mode resolution, 4V mode resolution built on that
it's important to realize that as a man, some of the sexism that women experience is invisible to us. either because it occurs when we aren't in the room, or because it flies under our radar. why are script supervisors more often women and DITs more often men? are those career aptitudes coded in our DNA or is there a social element? why is there a correlation between the roles that women tend to occupy and lower pay? read the comments above, look at the reasons offered up for why there are fewer women in film.
"they'd rather be in front of the camera"
"men hire men, women hire women, it's natural"
"women are more likely to accuse someone of sexual abuse."
"i've never even seen sexism, women just seem to prefer to work in admin positions."
and of course
"there probably aren't even that many women who want to be in film."
so your theory is that we don't have women working as crew, because women on the whole would prefer to be actors?
Wait, Not ME, are you honestly contesting the very existence of a patriarchy? Adam, it may be reductive to say that women hiring women is simply a "similarity bias" given the extreme inequality. There are a number of reasons that a woman with hiring power might be more open to giving another woman a shot. I could guess at some of the factors, but that's all it would be. Woman face many double-standards most of these double standards are invisible to men, we don't see how other's are treated. Woman are accused of not getting along with other women (as if men always got along with one another) and then in this case you're implying that women are giving preferential treatment to other women. Suddenly all the white males are calling for an absolute meritocracy, convinced that they're probably the most talented hardworking or creative people in the room. If you believe that most of us were born with about the same capacity for smarts, artistic sensibilities, work ethic etc, then that hypothesis is very unlikely.
Pavel, in many of these cases the men involved have not wanted to go to court. They are not claiming that they were wrongly terminated. In many of the public cases they have issued apologies and have stepped down. Suggesting that hiring women is an extra risk would seem to imply that either men are unable to stop the abuse that is clearly widespread or that women are somehow a liability since they are unwilling to suffer abuse in silence. There is ample evidence to support the fact that having more women in the workplace reduces the number of incidents. So the idea that we should keep women out in case they make "unproven accusations" would appear to be a poor strategy, in addition to being, sexist, illegal and unconstitutional. A comment like that also goes a long way in demonstrating how the environment for women in the workplace can be hostile even when there isn't overt sexual harassment.
Was it a waste of your time to read two paragraphs about a DP who shot a critically acclaimed, Golden Globe nominated feature that was shot on film? Perhaps you're only interested in advice from Haskell Wexler and Vittorio Storaro.