RED shows off 5K EPIC camera

RED is really going all out at NAB this year. In addition to that Scarlet 3K "pocket" camera, the RED ONE is getting seriously one-upped by the new top-of-the-line RED EPIC. This 5K camera has a full-frame S35mm Mysterium X sensor, and pretty much matches 35mm film resolution -- RED ONE topped out at 4K. FPS is limited to 100, which is to be expected with all those pixels to handle, but other features match that of other RED cams. Of course, the promise of the RED ONE "rendering obsolescence obsolete" has been slightly trampled by EPIC, but the good news is that RED will allow ONE customers to trade in their cameras for a full $17,500 credit towards the EPIC when it ships in 2009. Price? About $30,000.

[Mel @ Apr 14th 2008 1:18PM]

That's an epic price tag.

[Evan @ Apr 14th 2008 1:22PM]

Ya, tell me about it. If Red is offering 17.5k for the One.... wow must have a new price tag. I'm pumped to see some footage from it. The Red One was badass. This thing must be epic.

[Ethan @ Apr 14th 2008 1:35PM]

Still cheaper than film.

[alexmueller @ Apr 14th 2008 1:37PM]

well considering the trade up cost how can i not be in ;)

[Jason @ Apr 14th 2008 1:44PM]

$30K for 5K@100fps is an amazing price.

18 months ago the closest you could have gotten was 2K for $1 Million per camera.

[Nutsy @ Apr 14th 2008 2:29PM]

Erm Jason where did you get that from? Sonys Veri Cam does 4k at a high range of FPS and was only 100k And thats been the case for a few years...

[Shane @ Apr 14th 2008 4:58PM]

EPIC WIN! :-)

That's an absolutely amazing camera...Even if it is well out of my price range...

[Flashpoint @ Apr 14th 2008 1:21PM]

In the future pr0n movies will be so detailed, you'll be able to identify the chromosomes of individual sperm cells.

[Cunthor @ Apr 14th 2008 7:52PM]

In future, the chromosomes will identify you!

wait...that makes no sense...

[Henry @ Apr 14th 2008 1:21PM]

5k. I guess that is pretty epic. As in, epic terabyte array required!

[Todd @ Apr 14th 2008 1:23PM]

*drools*...then...*head explodes from want*

[img eL @ Apr 14th 2008 1:26PM]

RED has been putting in some serious work! What displays do 5k? Is this a dream

[Jesse S @ Apr 14th 2008 6:50PM]

You obviously don't understand what this is for.

[Videas @ Apr 14th 2008 1:31PM]

This is THE END OF FILM.

After this, it would be very difficult to justify using 35mm film in any production. Epic has better resolution (5k) for a fraction of the cost. Amazing stuff.

[Tom @ Apr 14th 2008 1:44PM]

Have you ever seen film? Looked at it? It has a COMPLETELY different aesthetic than digital, and thus the analog process will never die. Some films are still shown in galleries in VHS because of the aesthetic qualities of the format - although that's an extreme example.

A more extreme example is the going price of the Fisher-Price PixelVision cameras, which recorded digital video onto audio cassettes. That has it's own aesthetic quality as well.

Film has a beautiful quality to it that will not go obsolete. So, no - this is not the end of film. Most studios still shoot 100% of their work in film today, and will continue to do so in considerable (although declining) ratios in the future.

[Kerio @ Apr 14th 2008 1:50PM]

yeah, that's like vinyl superior to digital audio



yes, bullshit

[Michael @ Apr 14th 2008 1:55PM]

It's just a matter of time. Digital is cheaper and easier and looks great if shot well. Film will stick around, true, but it will be a niche market for artists who prefer it's qualities. A very rich niche market. :)

[Tom @ Apr 14th 2008 2:02PM]

I'm guessing you've never heard a truly great turntable and record then, either...

Digital audio comes DAMN close though, but film has qualities a digital sensor can never reproduce. You can't even relate film and digital stills/video together, because film doesn't HAVE a resolution. Film has grains of silver which react to light in different ways as the grain gets thicker and thinner. Digital sensors have strictly defined pixels which in the recording and storing processes are prone to artifacting.

I'm not saying one is better than the other - film and digital video are different, and thus have different uses. My original post used no such word indicating any kind of superiority, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

[Johan S @ Apr 14th 2008 3:01PM]

@Tom

Right now film might, arguably, have an edge as far as dynamic range on commercial digital cameras. But those are solvable issues. The storage issue for one, is sovable. Second, digital is improving in its ability to capture all the details of the light hitting the sensor (color, intensity). If you look under a microscope you will see that film grains are not as tiny as you think. Second there is a physical limit (a blurring) on the resolution placed by the lens and light that both film and digital have to deal with. It's true there are certain qualities of the grain that give film its "look", but ultimately that too can be simulated by studying what exactly happens, and how the grains get color given a specific frequency of light (since the digital sensor is recording teh same attributes .. within software it can be turned inton the exact color film would have taken).

[Josh Warner @ Apr 14th 2008 3:33PM]

Couple of clarifications: Johan, the lens-imposed lower limit is either diffraction or aberration; diffraction if the aperture is small and aberration if the aperture is large and the lens is not designed fantastically well. Aberration can be fixed with lots of $$$, diffraction cannot be fixed by anything other than opening up the aperture.

Tom - yes, film (with its associated grain, etc) has some desirable qualities. However, you're wrong when you say that digital has yet to threaten the detail possible to obtain from film. We are there at the 35mm sensor size - DSLRs with 12 megapixels draw even and in some ways exceed their film counterparts in amount of detail (and there are 22-25 Mpxl sensors in the pipeline). Go look at Ken Rockwell's comparisons - you have to go to medium or large format negatives to beat the current digital sensors.

I think this IS the beginning of the death of film, because even those people that hang on for 'aesthetic' reasons will start creating with the new 'digital aesthetic' once they see how much cheaper, more versatile, and powerful it is. Money talks, and it talks even louder in Hollywood budgets. The industry will transition to these once people realize they save money without sacrificing quality (note I am invoking quality, not aesthetics).

[Jesse S @ Apr 14th 2008 6:56PM]

Tom, while vinyl may hold more data than digital audio (which is changing), no one can tell the difference between 16/44.1, and anything higher. There was a very lengthy and broad DBT in JAES. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=57406

CD-audio is the best humans can get for audio.

Digital doesn't hit film yet, though.

Our eyes are much better and less easily fooled than our ears.

Either way, it's stupid to keep a turntable around instead of ripping your vinyl. You can reach its limits, you know.

SACD is better than Redbook because of the new mastering, not the higher bandwidth and shit.

[DiscoCat5 @ Apr 19th 2008 2:12AM]

this is in no way the end of film. film will never die like hd-dvd (lol)instead be like some vinyls nowadays that you can buy a current cd in vinyl and on cd. film wont "die" for quite some time. you have tyo look at the other end of the process. cinema. how many cineams have digital projectors? not many (at least in australia) i live in a country town in australia, and we looked at getting a digital projector and they are just too expensive. sure prices will drop in time, and all that, but f"this" is definatley not "the death" of film.

[Mark @ Apr 14th 2008 1:32PM]

black.

[Speeddemon2008 @ Apr 14th 2008 1:35PM]

Oh I see what you did! Very very clever.

[Jesse S @ Apr 14th 2008 6:59PM]

I don't get it. :(

[Esat Dedezade @ Apr 14th 2008 2:13PM]

"Price? About $30,000."

Daayyym.

[Michael @ Apr 14th 2008 2:19PM]

So are they still planning on selling the RED ONE along side this EPIC?

$12.5k is a big enough difference in price.
Makes me wonder if they were losing their ass on the RED ONE and needed to bring out something marginally better at nearly twice the price.

[Darnell @ Apr 14th 2008 2:26PM]

No I think you've got it wrong. If the initial offering wasn't successful, then there wouldn't be sufficient backing/funding to develop and produce not only a successor but a smaller "consumer" grade camera.

[Dirk Belligerent @ Apr 14th 2008 2:51PM]

As snazzy as this is, if they can pull off the Scarlett at the prices they're hinting at, RED will totally own the indie filmmaker contingent, provided they can make them in sufficient quantities to meet the demand. Who will want an XL2?

[Lazerface @ Apr 14th 2008 3:09PM]

I think I just creamed my pants....
Thanks RED!

[jitty @ Apr 14th 2008 3:21PM]

what exactly is 5k resolution?

[jds580s @ Apr 14th 2008 4:36PM]

5k isn't a defined standard spec as far as I know, but it would be: 5k = 5120x2700

[Chris @ Apr 14th 2008 3:34PM]

Why would someone buy this, no theaters support this, no tvs support this, no studios support this.....wait that 150in plasma supports 5k but thats it. Call me in 10-15 years (or when you can think of a more original name)

[jds580s @ Apr 14th 2008 4:42PM]

This is the acquisition format not necessarily the finished product's format. If the output was 4k, shooting a 5k plate for VFX work would allow for cropping, stabilization, re-framing or contain additional off screen data which can come in handy. But you are right, there really are not any standard output mechanisms that would take advantage of 5k. Also it's kinda like future proofing your work. Just like now you are starting to see old TV shows getting put out on blu-ray. They can do that because they were acquired on film. They were never broadcast in anything more than D1 but because the original information was there on the film they can be remastered in 1080.

[Motoken @ Apr 14th 2008 4:16PM]

and now... blu-ray is obsolete, we need a new format that can hold 2 TB of data, and some 5k lcd's.

[Bryan Thornsberry @ Apr 14th 2008 5:06PM]

why? you couldnt see the difference.

but i bet your bank account would...

[Jesse S @ Apr 14th 2008 7:01PM]

Bryan, it's all about how close you sit to that TV.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

[marc @ Apr 14th 2008 5:37PM]

The future is now. RED are easily the most advanced cameras coming out. If the workflow is efficient in the field, they will grab lots of market share. It's a lot of bang for the buck.

[Shaocaholica @ Apr 15th 2008 12:13AM]

The funny thing is that nothing about the RED is that revolutionary as far as the whole tech industry is concerned. Its just that every other camera maker has been incredibly show to implement new tech and workflow.

[Peter M @ Apr 15th 2008 1:22AM]

This is ridiculous. I hate the fact the only argument that these people who have never shot a frame of 35mm motion picture film have is "resolution." (and don't argue cost, because if you do, you haven't done your homework.) 35mm looks great on 100+ ft screen, why do I need better resolution than that? Seriously. But enough about that.


Still no eyepiece! lol! No professional filmmaker will ever take this camera (much like the Red One) seriously.

[cheng @ Apr 15th 2008 3:27AM]

so an eyepiece is the only judgement of camera quality, not actual picture quality, or functions, or anything else.
i'm glad i haven't seen any of your films.

[Gene @ Apr 15th 2008 11:30AM]

Really, no film maker will take it seriously?

http://www.red.com/shot_on_red

Yup. No one will.

[Ekieki @ Apr 15th 2008 11:49AM]

Yes, a missing viewfinder is a BIG no-no in proffessional shooting scenarios, you simply can not work with only a monitor to frame your picture from...
The Red one is a good video camera at its pricepoint, not fantastic, since the firmware still isn't completely finished and Red has some issues with their workflow implementation in post.
This is NOT the death of 35mm, with the new film stocks recently released from Kodak, video has once again fallen 3 steps behind in terms of light sensitivity and flexibility in colorgrading.

[Alx @ Apr 15th 2008 4:12PM]

why is the reflection in the lens of a kitchen? its the same on the pic of the 4K Red One aswell...

[DiscoCat5 @ Apr 19th 2008 2:01AM]

i dont get it... what is supposed to be played back on?, since barely any cinemas are digital, and when they are they are lucky to be 2k, i dont know i guess the footage will be future proof i guess.

[Thomas @ Apr 19th 2008 6:09PM]

so, a 14 MP Camera, not bad... but it will be sooo last cenury in 2 Years ;)

no, seriously, who doubted the digital revolution would spare the last niche market Kodak is still making money in...

the much bigger question is which industry is next to be wiped away? My bet is on the car industry... Electric cars, designed in California, made in china sort of thing ;)... time frame: 10-20 Years...

[baghsing rathore @ Apr 21st 2008 10:10AM]

hi this is baghsingh rathore (WICA) i like red on camera is this the best camera for the cinecameraman in world

[John A. Rupkalvis @ Apr 23rd 2008 9:55PM]

Considering that 4-perf. 35mm motion picture acquisition film resolves 12.746,752 megapixels, 5-perf. 65mm film resolves 33.220,339 megapixels, and 15-perf. IMAX resolves 99.661017 megapixels, and considering how long it took digital to get from HD to 5K, it will be a long time before digital acquisition formats even approach film resolution.