What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.103 Comments
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36If I had $17,500 that somebody told me I had to spend on a camera or they'd shoot me, I'd totally buy this one.
- skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29soon to be offered at PriceRitePhoto.com
- tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25I hereby nominate this product for the 2006 Vaporware awards. Already they have cool concept illlustrations, vague details, no ship dates, and a demo booth with no product.
- sparty1969, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Sniffff Snifffff...... I smell something Rotten in Lake Forest CA.
$1000.00 Deposit you say????
Their word: "Red makes no promises or representations as to the delivery date of the camera or final specifications."
Its not out.......its no Digg - ferggo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I like how they have almost exactly the same front page as http://www.turnofftheinternet.com/ which has been around for quite some time.
- DAC1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yeah, I've been watching that countdown timer. They've reset it at least 4 times now.
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Refund or not it's still vaporware.
Let's do a little math. They claim 12megapixels at 60fps. Assuming 24-bit color, that's 2,264,924,160 bytes per second. About 120GB per minute. For $17K, I'm calling *****. You'll spend more than that on a RAID array that can handle that sustained data rate.
Specifications subject to change indeed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14This could do wonders for internet porn. WOOHOO!
- retawd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20$50,000AUD. Isn't that like $10 US or 5 Euros? heh..
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It does look like something that rampaging Terminators would use to wipe out the remaining humans. But still, if it doesn't suck they might have something cool.
P.S. By Terminators of course I mean the "old school" Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. Not the newer liquid metal versions with their fancy offices and high overhead. ;) - tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11But they also say you can get your deposit back at any time.
- valkyries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7lets see, other cameras that have the same performance cost 100k? lets go with red
oh this is made by oakleys :-D
I'll take two - planckstudios, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Jim Jannard has a little cash to throw around: http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=S37W&datatype=Person
And considering they had a test model around 1 year ago:
via: http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/CurrentNewsletter.php
"It’s been over a year since I first shot tests with the Red Digital Cinema camera, and while I have long been in the habit of referring to my camera as “The Box,” this early prototype didn’t even have an enclosure, or box. It was little more than a circuit board with a place to mount a lens. Yet I was excited to be part of this effort with such amazing goals, an affordable new camera system promising 4K Super 35 image sensor, 60P, variable frame rate, and 4:4:4 with 4520x2540 resolution. I have been biting my tongue for all these months, bound by a nondisclosure agreement from discussing it, but now the cat is out of the bag. Ted Schilowitz, (formerly of AJA), has announced he is the mystery man who is leading the design team for Jim Jannard, (also owner of Oakley, the company famous for Hi Tech sunglasses.) In fact, when asked to describe his role to Mike Curtis, of HD for Indies, Ted simply replied “Leader of the Rebellion.” He is the point man for the entire development process, everything from marketing to engineering. This is not to say that Jim Jannard is not intimately involved. According to Ted, “Jim and I are driving this thing to the finish line...we work hand in hand together every day, calls and emails all hours of the day and night.”
I'd say it's worth watching... - pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Australians have no sense of humour.
- bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5TWIT talked about this in the podcast from last Sunday. If I remember correctly, Alex Lindsey was very interested in this product and he gave some pretty good reasons as to why this possibly isn't vaporware despite it's price and amazing tech specs.
- bshankle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Show us some actual footage from the camera please, then maybe I'll get excited.
- dreman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm just surprised that they snagged www.red.com. I wonder how much they paid to get that. I mean, c'mon, red!
- scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"that's 2,264,924,160 bytes per second"
Panique, ever heard of compression? There's almost nothing dealing with uncompressed video these days, especially in the HD realm. I would imagine it would come out to at most 10% of what you're talking about , and even what you're talking seems high for 12MP even at 60FPS, as 1080P/60 is ~2MP and is .325GByte/s, I think 12MP would be more like 1.95Gbyte/s.
"True HD is 1 GB every few seconds - if that does what it claims - that is accurate in file size."
ThinkBox, I think you missed the point of the article. This is claiming 12 megapixel. I'm not sure what "True HD" you're talking about, but 12 megapixel is 6x the resolution of 1080P. - vernsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They talked about this camera in the "This week in media" podcast and it should be a top of the line camera which can be bought by middle or lower end movie makers. I say if they can put awesome quality and specs into something cheaper than what usually is bought for a high quality film than I'm all for it.
- FelixdaaHack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Talk is cheap...so is their website and autocad rendering of their "RED ONE"...I smell a big number two
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Lets just say if it is indeed real, it will kick ass....
- olegk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3scstraus, you forget that there's no processor in this world that can compress video at that quality in real time and work off a camera battery. You need something like a cluster to do that. It would be a miracle if they can make 1080/60fps work, let alone 12 megapixels.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4is it just me or does the tile say "it's out"? out it is not...
- egbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The lenses it has right now are very limiting. Unless I can mount Panavision PRIMO Primes and and Zooms on it I'm not interested. There are already digital cameras in production that offer simular specs. Take a look at the Panavision Genesis camera for example.
- theprez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, obviously everyone who's stating that this is a fake of some sort or is vaporware had never heard of the project before seeing it on digg.
The project to make this camera isn't something that appeared overnight and is far from being a fake. In fact it's one of the major announcements/updates everybody was waiting to hear about at NAB, but apparently the project is far from complete.
The title of the story is inaccurate at best, but I think you shouldn't descredit the website or the project that many film makers, and probably the whole film industry is looking forward to. Even it costed twice the estimated price, it would be a major leap forward into higher quality video and film. - ghettron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm here at NAB. I went into the RED booth and saw their presentation. I can tell you this. If this camera is everything they say it is, it will change filmmaking -- 4k resoultion with 35mm depth of field in a mini dv formfactor. Its insane. However, the only thing they actually have is empty shell camera bodies -- NONE of the technical pieces are on display. It could very well be vapor. The only thing that gives the camera any credit is the fact that it has a big name behind it -- that being jim jannard from oakley. We are just going to have to wait and see.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Umm... Apart from misspelling cheap, he's right. I know many sinar professional cameras that cost $50,000AUD plus. They're usually 20megapixels.
- TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hah... yeah. It probably comes from the fact their country was originally founded as a penal colony for the British! ;-) Of course, I don't expect him to get the humor in these comments either. I'm expecting him to give some dissertation about how Australians really *do* have senses of humor, blah blah blah. :-)
- tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3...but wait, you also have to order the extended battery pack which costs $11000 plus the extended warranty plus extended memory card, accessory pack, dust cover, strap, special lens cleaning fluid, bonus CD, UV lens filter ... you're looking at $58000, but that's before rebate so it's a good deal!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Don't get me wrong, I like Flash, but have trouble taking a site made in Flash seriously. I think of it more for "artist" and webdesigner "portfolio" websites. When your target is the general public though, it's not the best choice. They did an ok job though, it's clean. I guess handicapped blind people don't really need cameras.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@pjh
You're kidding, right? Our entire country is a freaking joke. I mean, just look at Queensland. Most of the flora, fauna, bugs, fish and wildlife are out to kill you, and as a consequence, the few million people who live there are _all_ insane. It's the worlds' funny farm. - flap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3why does it look like something the terminator would carry around?
- mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3better have the glass to back it up or a giant cmos sensor will mean nothing.
oakleys are cool and all, but i hope they can make a great lens. - InvisionUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There's no excuse for not having Flash installed these days.
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Dude, think about it. That is asinine. And look at the rest of that "story."
If you find yourself posting something containing "might" and "Apple", STOP. - bowiestyle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3http://www.thinksecret.com/news/finalcut6.html
apple might release final cut 6 with specs made specifically to cater to this camera - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So lets get this straight... They have this supposedly awesome camera, but they cant even manage to muster up a real photo of their own product, just solidworks renders?
Sniff, sniff... whats that I smell... VAPOR maybe??? - egbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How would it be "a major leap forward into higher quality video and film." Devices already exists that have the same or better specs with better lenses. Take a look at the Panavision Genesis or the Dalsa Digital Cinema Origin camera.
- mikedaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here is a thread at dvxuser that has some pics of the red camera from the NAB show:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=54633&page=9 - tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3One of the project founders owns Oakley, so there is money involved, but still this is following the familiar pattern of big announcement, slick concept art, and a shipping date that never seems to arrive. I would like this product to exist but the odds aren't looking good.
- SystemError, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone got pictures from the booth at NAB?
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@ Panique
True HD is 1 GB every few seconds - if that does what it claims - that is accurate in file size.
Also - of all te things they F up - the date rate they post won't be one of them - thegsa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It Looks Like A Bomb, Seriously.
- bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ahahahahahah.......okay. Let me grab my checkbook.
- iamsam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, that Digital Cinema Society sure seems credible... I mean, that web site is so 90s...
- MackBolan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think the reason many people's first reaction is that this is a fake is due to the crap-all quality of the website. I know very little about the camera technology but my first thought in visiting the site was "Geez, these guys are designing this camera and boasting about the specs, quality etc and they're not creative enough to design a website." If it is legit then great but I think that the site design is what doesn't sit right with most.
- SystemError, on 10/12/2007, -5/+617,500 is cheep for a camera
- xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4For only 2500 bucks!
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I would hope that in the next few generations of cameras, all of the cameras in the $20,000 range will be able to shoot alpha channel"
Man, I'm embarrassed for you. You obviously don't know what an alpha channel is.
Or are you joking? For your sake, I hope so. - TheSolomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3theone3- Good point. It's funny a place like that was named after the Queen. I would think if you loved your Queen, you'd slap her title on someplace a little less... hostile. :-)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is