HD For Indies

UPDATED - see below

OK, so here's the scoop on the RED camera:

It's real. Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley, is the guy behind it, as the web rumors have suspected.

I got a chance to have a long conversation with Jim Jannard and a bunch of his engineers about the RED camera that they're making. After hours of conversation, you can color me a believer in what he's doing, and what he wants this camera to do and be.

UPDATE: this is NOT an interview. I wrote this in a hurry and realized a Q&A between a hypothetical reader (and the questions and tone they typically would have) and myself, knowing what I know about the camera, would be a good format to present the information in. For instance, my comment about "da bomb" was me having fun with some of the reader inquiries I get. In my hurry to get it online, I failed to define that. My bad. Read this more like an FAQ on a website than a sit-down interview with anyone in particular. Answers provided are my answers, based on my opinions and knowledge of Jim and the RED. My apologies if I inadvertently gave the wrong impression.

OK, on to the good stuff:

Q&A on RED the company:

Q: Is this thing for real?

A: Yes, it is. Wholeheartedly.

Q: So who's behind it?

A: Jim Jannard, founder of Oakley. Jim is a HUGE camera nut himself, owns about 1000 cameras himself - digital, film, motion, still, all of it. He shot all of Oakley's ads himself until the early 90s. This guy is hands on about cameras, and has changed his role within Oakley to allow time for the new company, RED.

Q: But they make sunglasses and stuff. What are they doing making a camera? Why?

A: Two reasons:

1.) Jim is a huge camera nut, as I've said, and

2.) Jim has a long history of entering markets that others have dominated and disrupting those markets. Jim's original vision when he started Oakley was to marry art and technology.

2 1/2.) Oh, and probably because he thinks it'd be fun and cool, and Needs To Be Done. The established players are reluctant to come out with disruptive technology, because, frankly, it would disrupt their business models and make their existing client base cranky. RED isn't.

Q: Can they do this? Jim? Oakley? Huh? After all, they make sunglasses and clothes and stuff.

A: They have, time and time again, entered new markets different from where they started and done well with it. At first that was a motorcycle handgrip, then goggles, then sunglasses, etc. etc. etc. I was very impressed with how serious they were about the technology and material science parts of this. Oakley is a big believer in being self contained, they have extensive tooling, testing, and machining capabilities inhouse. They are big believers in best tech for the job, and were the seventh delivery of a rapid prototyping system back in the early 90s for example. They are big on being early tech adopters where it pays off, and aggressive about incorporating latest advances.

Q: Where's the money coming from?

A: Jim and Oakley have tremendous resources, both financial and technical inhouse, and this puts them in a different league from all the other camera wannabes.

Q: Dude! So what about the camera? Is it da bomb, or a bomb?

A: As for the camera itself, there's a lot of information on the RED website itself, go check it out. I wrote about the specs a couple of times already here and here. But it says right there on the website that "This information is preliminary. It could change at any moment."

Q: When's it coming out?

A: Unknown. If you read their contact page on the site, it says they'll be making a presentation at NAB 2006 (that's in April in Vegas for those not keeping track). It doesn't say shipping product, it doesn't say announcement, it says presentation, which is ambiguous. And see above Q&A about preliminary specs - sounds closer to malleable dough than cooked bread. Engineering takes time.

Q: What good is it going to do non full-on Hollywood productions if it is only fiber channel out? Isn't that ultra expensive and big and heavy?

A: You'll notice they state a variety of output options on the camera on the website:

"RAW 4:4:4 through the dual fiber channel outputs, 4:2:2 out of the HD-SDI output, or record to RED codec. Full raster 2540p, 1080i/1080p, or 720p" Lots of choices. Also, RED Flash system is mentioned for recording, this sounds like some kind of solid state recording to me. Hard drives are also mentioned. It sounds like they are trying to offer a variety of options to a variety of users. Uncompressed RAW, as I wrote about the other day, would be a deleriously huge amount of data, and quite expensive as well. The RED codec, described as available at data rates from 100 down to 19 megabits, sounds like it would serve a variety of markets at a variety of price points. How high for the high end users? How low for the low end? Unclear at this time.

Q: So what's up with this Mysterium sensor?

A: I don't know, but the specs are pretty amazing. Mysterium is still just that - a mystery.

Q: What tape format does it record to?

A: I've seen no tape format mentioned on their website. I've seen lots of data storage devices mentioned, but no tape. There is an HD-SDI tap for those who want to go old school to a tape deck. But it sounds like they want to go "New Skool" and skip tape altogether except for legacy support (and live broadcast type situations, if this camera is applicable there?).

Q: What about lenses?

A: PL mount and custom RED mount, with their own Ultra High Def Lenses. So keep in mind, that opens up all kinds of doors to use existing film lenses. One of the reasons HD lenses have been so expensive is because the biggest sensors have been 2/3 inch at best. The smaller the sensor, the better the glass has to be to focus accurately on that smaller target. Costs go up as tighter tolerances are required, etc.

Q: So, can they REALLY pull this off?

A: Time will tell. If they can draw on Oakley's resources, then yes - they have experience in optics and designing products for use in the harshest conditions. Jim has extensive camera experience and interest himself, and clearly has the personal resources and connections to recruit and support some high level talent for what they don't have inhouse. Before my conversation with them, after I knew Jim was involved but before I'd spoken with them, I felt the biggest obstacles were going to be the expertise to manufacture the serious glass involved in the lenses, and the electronics expertise to pull off the guts of the camera. The only electronics product I had been aware of were the THUMP sunglasses with MP3 player embedded.

But I was extremely impressed with what they had to say, and I heard a lot of good answers back when I expressed doubts and had questions about some things.

This looks like they want to make a radically different camera than what is presently on the market. Others have tried, or are in the process of trying, to get a camera out that will be IT centric, small form factor, large imager, etc. But this looks to be the best funded effort out there.

In summary: if there is going to be a seriously disruptive technology, I feel it pretty much has to come from an outsider company, with no entrenched architecture, infrastructure, or client base to protect. To be successful and long lasting, it also helps to be a well backed venture, with strong engineering and brains behind it. And a marketing machine like Oakley can provide surely can't hurt.

Jim and RED fit the bill to take a serious swing at it.

Based on my conversations with them, I think RED is going about it the right way, and will make exactly the kind of camera that I'd LOVE to work with.

-mike

Labels: Red