This kind of extreme latitude extension is used in some security cameras. Each frame is taken twice at different shutter speeds and then the DSP merges them. Very usefull when at night you have a car with headlights driving towards the camera and you can still read the number plate. I have no idea how well this technique would hold up in terms of overall image quality but I've been tempted to buy one of these camera just to try it out.

It is better if it does it on one pass, somebody suggested doing it the other way on the Digital Cinema thread discussions before. But, this was my point, is better tonality one of the things they get, is it from dynamic range/SN, and the other things (35mm DOF, fill factor).? You can beat out an better sensor through these things then plain small 8+ Mpixel pixels. I wonder if they are using an FIllfactory sensor from Cirrus Logic.

We haven't heard from them, for an while, back on discussion.

Yes, that is one of the ones on file.

I agree with you, price is an sticking price in the Digital Cinema camera market for most around here.

An 2K camera can be made with significantly better performance than Red, except in resolution, or Silicon Image. So, until I see exactly what they are up to I am not discounting their claims of offering something more. As we can see above, even cheap technologies have something more to contribute to the cinema camera market, over what is presently being done.

Maybe they have worked out a good effective work flow, and don't need support of Apple, or popular NLE's. The cinema film camera industry got buy with specialist digital work flows for sometime, and this is the crowd they are chasing. I would like to hear what they say, before they run away (which has happened with other cameras before).

Technically, all this is already available, but spread across different cameras, with aftermarket mods (eg, Hydra, DOF adapters).

Here's a thought:

1. Three half-inch CMOS sensors capable of extreme spatial offset in order to take Hydra, which is built in, not aftermarket.
2. Removable half-inch zoom. It could be essentially the same one that would have been built in as a fixed lens, but modified to be removed.
3. HDMI 1.3a, with full support for higher bit depths.
4. Progressive 1,920 x 1,080, with support for 0-60 frames per second.
5. AVC-Intra, 100 Mbps, 4:2:2, for normal operation, HDMI or Hydra for 4:4:4 uncompressed output.
6. DOF adapter, with stationary advanced plastic screen (a la the new Movietube) and fixed achromatic relay lens, designed especially for the camera.
7. A shoulder-mount-style viewfinder.

Why both a half-inch zoom and a DOF adapter? Well, I'd suggest that you don't always want shallow depth of field.

I find this all fascinating. Candace, I'm curious, what would you do with 0 fps, J/K. It seems like apple will support anybody who gives them an exclusive contract, possibly with a future buyout plan? Lawrence, sorry for my ignorance, what is Hydra? Is there a link to another thread you could give me?

I see both of the specs you guys have posted as pretty specialized towards the indie market. The indie market is pretty small compared all of the other various forms of media production. If Sony or Panasonic could make a decent buck by marketing a cam with a 35mm lens mount, they would, but they can't. The reason why RED could be succesful, in my opinion at least, is not there price point, but the fact that they let Peter Jackson shoot sample footage for NAB. If you can get some major names to use your camera, then people will want to use your camera. I think the ammount of braodcast, theatrical and distributed material shot with the Panavision and Arri digital cine cams will vastly outnumber red, if only becuase DPs, camera ops, and ACs are used to the way these cameras work, and because productions will continue to have the budget to support these cameras. I would hope that the majority of the Red cameras sold will have PL mounts and be equiped with real motion picture glass attachted to them.

Red = modular design ...
 

The beauty of Red is not just the specs of the cam but also, and this is where I think it's appeal really takes off, that it's designed so that modular elements in the camera can be replaced with upgrades. A new chip comes out, replace it rather than the whole camera! This in my opinion is what makes Red viable!

There are just many things why RED is so fascinating.
Unbeatable price point (considering the quality), the support, the upgrades, the 35mm sensor, the modularity, resolution, workflow,...

And RED is a viable camera. I don't want to sound like a fanboy, I don't have the money to buy a RED, but the REDcamera is real, and it's coming.
Peter Jackson didn't shoot his 12 minute short with thin air.

And looking at what the RED team did in 15 months, it's very normal they got a little delayed.

It is a modification to the Panasonic HVX200 (other cameras may be Hydra-ized in the future), done by Reel Stream. A succinct desciption can be found at the beginning of the Hydra thread.

Why not just have high res chips to begin with? Pixel shifting isn't ideal. If you are going to make a camera from scratch, why follow the example of a modded camera.

A few reasons:

1. Through radical spatial offset, Hydra's resolution exceeds (albeit only slightly) 1,920 x 1,080 and may reach or exceed 2K. In effect, the three CCDs become one big virtual sensor, even though, physically, the imaging area is still third-inch and therefore uses the built-in zoom.
2. Although there are small 1,920 x 1,080 chips (the Canon HV20 has one) and a half-inch chip should have more than twice the surface area of a third-inch one, there is still a trade-off between sensitivity and pixel density -- you could opt for greater sensitivity with a half-inch chip, or greater pixel count, or some of each. Maybe with improved technology you could have a lot of each.
3. You probably wouldn't want to increase native resolution but eliminate a design's ability to pixel-shift. I believe that Reel Stream's Juan Pertierra has said that although the JVC HD100 could be modified to deliver 4:4:4 uncompressed data, it couldn't be pixel-shifted beyond its 1,280 x 720 native resolution. Spatial offset, therefore, can be used as a hedge against the future.

Say folks, we have drifted far off topic here... the subject is not RED nor Hydra, but rather the noX. Thanks in advance,

I think that some folks would like to see Nox differentiate itself from its competitors (Red, SI, F23, etc.) and/or step out of their shadow. You have to ask yourself why you would get this camera when some of the cheaper products seem to do the same thing better.

I think Nox is claiming that they will do it, from an cinema filming perspective, better, and I would still like to see exactly what they mean.