Redray 4K player with Odemax -Could this be the better than Bluray we have all been lloking for? - Page 7

Take it easy coolscan you do not need to take it personally when someone criticize Red products. Fact is although Red cameras are high spec and cool they also have some design flaws and have other disadvantages that make many productions choose Arri, Sony or Panavision over Red, then again some think 4K outweigh all the disadvantages.

Part of discussing the possibilities for the Redray is also discussing it's possible success and lack of success in different fields otherwise it won't be a discussion, it's just that me and maybe some other people here think that Red is over their head on this one so we raise a lot of concerns. Also considering that this is a HT forum it's good to warn people there is a possibility that the Redray will be a really cool piece of technology that is as useful as an anchor weight in a HT.

I think something like Odemax for theaters could have success but it would need DCP support and maybe only a 5% cut for Odemax of the ticket sales to be competitive. Odemax doesn't handle any marketing so sending a DCP on a hard drive would be much cheaper if they are going to demand 20%.

Add Canon, they altso wants to be a big player in the movie making business.
All available cameras have design flaws or various disadvantages compared to each other.
The reason I hear why some people choose one camera over the other for certain projects very often make me loose trust in peoples professionalism. It seems more often that a mix of emotional ballast and misconceptions dictate their choice than choosing the right tool for the job based on a rational technical understanding of the tools.
When a well respected DP choose to shoot a large franchise movie on a 3.2K camera and not a 5K camera when he know it will be released in 4K and Imax just make me loose respect.
Redray was always promoted as a playback machine for 4K without any commercial movie delivery possibility. Just a tool for film makers.
The Odemax system came as a total surprise. Don't think there are any big change that very many people buy this now before it can show some promise. I wouldn't have bought it, and haven't. The question I have asked now several times, and would like to have some perspective on is;
Is the Odemax system of distributing movies to the Crimson projector a better way of distribution than the way digital movies are distributed today?
And why would it have to have DCI support if the Hollywood studios after testing found that the Redray DRM was as secure as DCI?
Any cinema that buy the Crimson projector will have no need for a DCI server if the big boys studios agreed to distribute to the Crimson.

If we forget about the politics for a moment, is there really good answer to this?
.
.
.
.
I found this funny picture, and post it here just as an afterthought to put two companies competing camera developments in perspective.
See the two cameras?
Both of them was released to the marked about the same time. The large one has slightly more resolution, a mechanical shutter and inbuilt ND filter. But need a separate recording unit to record RAW.
Outside of that they produce very much the same image quality for a 4K finished movie.
Which of these two cameras display the most innovative technical development?

Sony F65 vs Red Epic.
Edited by coolscan - 1/29/13 at 4:43pm

I didn't say Sony or Arri were ahead of RED in technology. What I did say is that major features still reach for the established brands. That is Arri, Panavision, and to some extent Sony. RED is a popular choice for indies. And RED finds uses in special situations on major features.

These are facts. And please, who has more experience with image capture? RED or Arri / Panavision / Sony. Sun glasses and camera optics have little in common.

And BTW, are you familiar with the Bayer sensor? Got news for you. The RED camera is not true 4K! The Sony F65 has true 4K resolution in the green channel.

See this:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/show-highend/resource.solutions.bbsccms-assets-show-highend-F65.shtml#/f65t1_1

Looks like sony is on the cutting edge, not RED.
Edited by Glimmie - 1/29/13 at 7:09pm

Some parts of the Odemax system is a better way to distribute, internet delivery being one but most things are not much different to the current system that I can see. Odemax would handle some of the paperwork and box office reporting but those are not much trouble to handle. There was never really any problem with DCP for independent distributors, VPF is the problem but that has nothing to do with DCP or DCI. There is no license you need or any restrictions who can make and distribute DCP, it's open for everyone and royalty free.

Even if Redray encryption would be as secure as DCI encryption the question remains what advantage does it have over DCI? It would be like having HD-dvd and blu-ray side by side, why would you want or need that? Besides it was the "big boys" who set up DCI in the first place.

I try to choose a tool on the basis of which one is best for the job, which one is more technologically advanced or more innovative rarely crosses my mind nor how good it looks. That might also be the reasoning behind why some big movies are made on other cameras than Red, pixels aren't the only merits of a camera nor it's size.

Hmmm I wouldn't really pick a piece of equipment over another since it's innovative or more technological advanced. I'd rather pick one that is trustworthy! Also when it comes to film making, it's an art since I'm not the DP I don't really question why some DPs like Roger D pick Arri over Red. It's their artwork, let em at it lol. Remember if we directors did go with the most innovative things all the time than all films would be in HFR now!

I agree re Odemax. .However, I don't think the Redray will be a boat abnchor given that any 4K consumer source mterial can be run through a conversion program to let it play on the Redray. and right now there really is no low cost server alternative.r

Cool. Redray started promoting the player and Odemax as a source of content and playback for 4K display adopters, early and future. That's how they got my order. The outlay to buy it is minor and I do not view it as significnt whether it does the job for me. Worth a shot to play back some content sooner or later.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/29/13 at 9:19pm

True as for what is realised now.
My reference was to the original idea that was promoted as far back as 2009, where the player would have a DVD drive and 4K media would be distributed on DVD discs which max out at 10Mb/s.
They demoed 4K 10Mb/s vs uncompressed 4K with a Sony 4K projector at a Red party during NAB 2009, a year they didn't have a booth at NAB.
At that time the idea was that there would be two players. One $1000 HT player and one more expensive Pro Player that could playback .R3D RAW directly from the camera media cards.
Later the DVD playback was dropped for internet distribution and the bitrate was bumped upwards.

It was from the DVD idea that the Red-Ray name came from.

Here is a picture of the first RedRay player design 2009; http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=671

This is how the HT player and Pro player design looked like at NAB in 2011. I don't know if the Pro player is scrapped.


Edited by coolscan - 1/30/13 at 6:23am

It may be too early for internet distribution. From what I am hearing, there is great resistence to the fee schedule Odemax has proposed. They would essentially be a limited product type Amazon with Amazon stores, private stores blessed by amazon, actually shipping the product. The nuyer pays Amazon and after about 8 or 9 % deduction for cc fees and amazon's cut etc, the balance gets sent to the store. The twist here is the method of shipment of the product. Internet or it could easily be SD or drive. Odemax is simply out of its mind if they plan on taking more than 10%.The only twist by Odemax is the shgipping method is internet and Odemax for an obscenee fee is the trucking company. If I was a content producer/owner, the last thing I would want to do is pay the trucking company 20 to 30% of the retail cost of my product.

Arri Alexa is a good camera, though a little soft because of a very strong OLPF, and lacking in the resolution department, but put out true 2K.
Besides the historical legacy of Arri which gives them a trusting position. Even if it is based on manufacture of analog mechanical film cameras.
Not all companies transit successfully from mechanical to digital. Just look at Hasselblad and Arri's first digital camera the D21.

Besides this, the reason why Alexa has become so popular is because it process and export ProRes directly from the camera which means it is easy to use just like a "point and shoot" cameras.

Red cameras record only RAW which seems to for some reason to confuse people in the movie business and Red cameras files got a reputation for being "hard to get good image. Strangely enough, the DSLR stills cameras have been RAW from the start and seems to not confuse still photographers.

When you shoot Alexa with the external RAW recorder it becomes very much the same workflow as with a Red camera, except the RAW Red camera files are 3 times larger.

Arri also had the advantage of many years of image data from their scanner department, and could based on that process images in the camera that looked very much like film.

All this of course made it much safer for DPs that had learnt their craft shooting analoug film and was a little hesitant to learn to shoot a more technical advanced camera like a Red camera with RAW recording. You have to light and expose a little different with a RAW camera than a film camera.
Sorry, you got no news for me. This claim is old. I am a little disappointed that you with your background doesn't know better than posting such a claim backed up with a Sony promotion.
Do you at all know when or where the claim of; "the Red camera is not 4K" even comes from?

It harkens back to 2008 or thereabout from the "infamous" John Galt from Panavision lectures on sensor resolution which was very much a "rant" against the necessity of 4K in movie making. He had at the time just finished the Sony based Panavision Genesis, and against Sony's advise kept it 2K.
He didn't mention Red (as far as I remember) but Red was the only camera with 4K sensor at the time, so other people took it from there.

The first Red One with the original M-sensor was the first digital movie camera with a 4K CMOS sensor.
It is true that it didn't give full resolution based on tests charts. Neither does a camera with a 2K sensor give full 2K resolution.
Red never claimed it gave full 4K resolution, just that the camera had a 4K sensor.
And to repeat; This was the original M-sensor.
About the time these "non true 4K" claims spread, Red had their next sensor, The M-X-sensor ready for upgrade in the Red One camera.
That is a 5K sensor and fully resolve 4K to 4.5K depending on which camera it sits in.(hardware restrictions)

The M-X-sensor sits in the now discontinued Red One, the Scarlet and the Epic.

The M-X-sensor is 5120 (h) x 2700 (v) which is roughly 14 megapixel. Quite enough for 4K/8MP finish.

It is true that Sony (in F65 and F55) has a edge on Red at the moment.
Their sensor is about two or three years newer than the Sony sensor.
We will see later this year when the new Red Dragon 6K sensor (about 20 MP like the Sony sensor) is ready for upgrading who got the edge.
.
.
Because you posted the link to the Sony F65 promo I like to comment on it.

Sony promote this camera as a 8K camera. Generally a 8K sensor is about 33 megapixel.
How does Sony reach those numbers when the sensor in the F65 is only 20MP, and can we trust Sony on this?

The F65 sensor capture from 17.6K of the sensor area. The sensor pattern is tilted 45 degrees.
Something others like Fuji does with some of their sensor for still cameras.

The F65 sensor has double set of green photosites compared to red and blue. Not uncommon in some Bayer pattern sensors.
Horisontal 4000 green + 2000 red + 2000 blue gives 8000 photosites and is the background for Sony's 8K claim.

BUT! That is only in the horizontal direction. In the vertical direction the photosites are divided evenly like in a regular CMOS sensor.

In fact the Sony photosite count makes the sensor having a aspect ratio of 3:1, which the sensor certainly isn't.

In normal resolution count of CMOS sensor with double green photosites, the double green is usually counted as one photosites because it doesn't contribute very much to the resolution but add significant to the capture of green.

Lately Sony have said that with a new firmware coming in April the F65 will record true 8K.
How they are managing this from a 20MP (less in fact) sensor that lack more than 10 million photosites to reach true 8K resolution will be very interesting.

So is Sony's tech promos to trust? Naah, not so much. A huge dose of scepticism should come whenever Sony claim or promote something as "Best in the World" in any category.
Sony make good cameras, but I am not so sure people that invested in the F65 are so very happy now when the much smaller F55 arrives (same sensor as F65) with a much lower price and almost makes the huge cumbersome F65 obsolete.

Just like we know that to have true quality 4K finish we need two to three times the sensor resolution for sub-sampling. Good to remember when all these new smaller cameras with 4K claims from Canon, Sony, Panasonic and JVC enters the market.
When true 8K cameras arrive in the future they have to have minimum a 60+m megapixel sensor to be able to deliver quality 8K.

This is how a 45 degree with double green photosites look like. Image from Fujitsu.

There is no confusion. The initial problem was the RAW files could not be transcoded in a timely manner which made the work flow unusable. And IIRC, the industry ran into the same old RED "our way or the highway". Well that highway is well traveled with other vendors that understood the workflow. Why was the RED Rocket card such a crash project? They had no choice as nobody in the A title business would use the RED RAW.

You are very good at collecting data off the net but do you work in this business? Have you heard the term "the RED look"? And that not a complimentary term in A title DP circles.

I agree RED is a player in the market. The do well with budget strapped projects and new startups. But enough of this poster boy for RED.

My guess is that your are a student? Your post style fits the model very well.

P.S. this is most incorrect:
What do you mean by the "significant capture of green"? Yes, we have twice the bandwidth on the green channel. That is then used to further interpolate the red and blue. And it's very effective.

I come out of the TV industry. And after all these so called "digital film cameras" are still in fact TV cameras. The same color science principles that were used in the development NTSC still rule today. Math does not age.
Edited by Glimmie - 1/30/13 at 11:30am

Maybe confusion is not the right word. Ignorance would be better.
Some of those initial problems can be laid at REDs door, because they where very bad at educating the "masses" relying too much on "third party educators."
There also took quite some time to build good enough RAW conversion tools.

But you can not blame them by comparing the Red workflow to established workflows at the time, because non of the other workflows started out as RAW. It is first now nearly five years later that Arri and Sony RAW workflow and tools are being used in any significant degree. And they have Red to thank to having gone before them with RAW.

Still, following Red from 2007, I saw the difference between the guys that had no problem with the RAW workflow and the guys that where constantly complaining.
Soderbergh managed to shoot two movies, the Che movies on preproduction beta Red One camera so it was doable. He has shot all his movies since then on Red cameras, so some get it to work, others don't.

The biggest mistake in the workflow pipeline, which gave Red an undeserved bad reputation, was that so many just transcoded the Red RAWs to ProRes.
Because of this they neither had the advantage of grading on the RAW files, or any way to go back to the the RAW files if the ProRes was not transcoded from the ultimate development of the RAW files.
Here Red should have been much stronger on informing and educating people that they should linkback to the RAW files and not discard them before the edit was finished.

This is all history now as the Red Cine-X editor is much better, and Red RAW has support in all the major editing programs. This also makes the need for Red Rocket less.

I don't take that as a compliment, and I believe you don't mean it as that.
I have worked with cameras and been interested in camera developments for very many decades. You just have to accept that I know some things about this.
It is not the first time I have been involved in discussions to clarify and rectify facts about the Sony F65 or Red and Arri cameras.
Yes I have heard. Depending on the circles you wander it is often a compliment as not.
Some of that negative reputation you can as much lay on the doorstep of people who never cared to learn how to shoot a RAW camera or how to develop the images which I outline above.
With RAW you can make your image look exactly the way you want. People who don't master that don't know how to use RAW.
There is also the Alexa look, not always meant as a compliment.

I have lost a lot of respect for the people in the film makers community because of the irrational reasons some people give to why they wont shoot Red cameras. Which mostly are based their lack of knowledge, basing their reason of hearsay and unwillingness to learn something new and have a rational professional attitude to new technology.
And they of course defend themselves by criticising without really having a basis for their critic.
You don't manage to have a discussion without inserting the negative remarks now and then do you?
I guess that's because you have taken a standpoint based on stories about Red that have little facts in them. And that perception is hard for you to change.
But that also show that you know less than you thought you did.

So to say that Red cameras are only good for "budget strapped projects and new startups" rather show you are unwilling to check your facts first.
So take a look here and see if your statement holds water?
And that's just a small percentage of the movies shot on Red, not to mention all the movies where Red cameras are used as B-camera or for VFX because the A-camera can't do what the Red cameras can.
You are very wide off the mark in the first sentence, I am much much too old for that, but then life is a contentious learning process, isn't it?
Maybe I should take the second sentence as a compliment as too that I still have my youthfulness and have not become an "old fart".
But I am not a scholar and neither do I have the style of one.
English is also not my first language.
Yes it is effective, and is being used more and more in CMOS sensors. But there are a discussion going if the extra green photosites should be counted when giving a sensors resolution numbers or not. But I guess all manufacturers lie a little when they want to "hype" a new camera.
The most interesting going on at the moment regards to CMOS sensor is Fuji's use of random pattern Bayer in their X-Trans sensor. Eliminates the need for OLPF.
But that's a story for some other time.
An important difference between the TV cameras and the Digital Movie cameras is that the movie cameras have significantly larger sensors, which makes an impact of how the image appear. Different optics, shallower DOF etc.

Even though basic Math doesn't age, newer mathematical equations like newer and better algorithms are created all the time and in that way improves image quality even from an older sensor.
That's the strength of RAW. Because sensor data is just "a heap of numbers", by continuously improving the Math you can make a sensor perform better.
Such things it is that makes Red owners very loyal, because the sensor in their camera "becomes new" every time Red release a new sensor data firmware upgrade.

Just want to tag on a link to a new website that is somewhat related to this discussion, an alternative to IMDb's technical specs. The website gathers technical information about films.
Quite new I think, and growing it database fast. Should be a great learning tool and reference for people interested in the BTS of movie making; ShotOnWhat?

I guess I have exhausted everybody by now.
Edited by coolscan - 1/30/13 at 3:36pm

Really? And just how were we supposed to do that when the data was not in the metadata? And even if it was the editorial community doesn't have time for that crap. The dailies software must be able to output any file format the editor needs. RED released the RAW format without an SDK to go with it.

You seem to have all the answers and quick to point out current workflows are antiquated. Yet do you have any practical experience in the film and TV industry? There are just as many people on Superbowl Monday that think they could have saved the game for the losing team!
Edited by Glimmie - 1/30/13 at 4:17pm

Wow. This thread is really helpful concerning the Redray player and getting and playing content on it.


Maybe to keep this thread going you guys could talk about Red and its cameras and workflows.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/30/13 at 7:23pm

Like many on AVScience forum at the moment concerning new technologies and standards such as 4k, this thread is very interesting and informative.
And as is normally the case, there is a certain amount of banter and hyperbole, which adds a bit of fun and spice to the discussion, and that's fine.
However, there was one comment by Glimmie which puzzles me a bit.

"I agree RED is a player in the market. The(y) do well with budget strapped projects and new startups...."

I was wondering, could Glimmie, (or anyone else for that matter) tell me?
Do James Cameron and Peter Jackson belong in the "budget strapped projects" category or the "new startups" category?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Yes they use RED cameras for certain shots. Coolscan was correct on that. But they use others as well.

Jackson shot all of "The Hobbit" trilogy on Red. Red Epic is firmly established as a viable camera for A list megabudget films.

I didn't say that current workflow was antiquated.
I pointed out that very many post houses didn't know how to handle Red RAW (and many still don't based on stories frequently posted on the Red forum).

Didn't I say it was a mistake that they didn't have a better SDK support in the early years?
It was there from the start, just not good enough. Still; Many film makers managed to finish film without much problems.

You still harken on about things that happened years ago.

And that obviously has colored your perception.
Add in a lot of gossip and hearsay you have heard from people that just want to cover their ignorance and you become the poster-boy for people that get stuck in their own perception without willingness to change when the facts change.

Everything you have said about Red here are a rehash of gossipy FUD that have been circulating for years to the point of becoming a cliché.
Nothing you present that I haven't seen repeatedly for years.

Time for you to move into the present!!

It doesn't matter for your personal use that you don't want to do some research and update yourself.
But when when you engage in a public discussion and present your faulty and outdated perception and ignorance when it is thoroughly exposed by facts, you can't continue repeating the same outdated perception and present them as facts like as if nothing has happened.

Particularly when you have the background you have.

You have the full opportunity to test Red workflow yourself and see if your perception is right by getting hold of some .R3D files. Downloade the free Red Cine-X and put the files through the editor.
Do the same with Premiere Pro and any of the other Editors and Color grading softwares that support .R3D.

Have you checked out Arri RAW or Sony RAW workflow? The path which Red have gone before them and hightened the awareness of the usefulness of RAW.
Even the latest Sony camera (F55) which is as large as Alexa can't manage to record without a $8000 external recorder to utilise the full capacity of the camera.

I am surprised you still give such a response.
You have had the full opportunity to know that you are wrong by the links I have provided in this thread.

So what is it you really mean?

Is it that Tom Cruise latest movie "Oblivion" was shot on F65 with Red Epic for some shots?
Or "James Bond; Skyfall" shot on Alexa that used Red Epic for some shots they couldn't do with the Alexa?
Or Michael Bay's "Pain & Gain" that was shot on a mix of film and Red Epics.
Even his last "Transformers" used Red One as one of the seven camera types used on the show. He is also frequently seen shooting Red Epic for his "Victoria Secrets" commercials.

Or do you mean; Peter Jackson's 3 "Hobbit" films that was shot on Red Epics and no other camera used?

Or; Ridley Scott's first digital shot movie "Prometheus" with Dariusz Wolski lensing that was shot on solely Epics.
And they seemed to like it so much that they shot Ridley's latest movie "The Counselor" (now in post) on Red Epic too.

The latest "Spiderman" was shot on Red Epic preproduction models with John Schwartzman lensing.

Shall I "namedrop" more movies from "A-list" directors released and upcoming releases that are shot on Red Cameras without "assistance" from other cameras?

Baz Luhrmann's; "The Great Gatsby".
Bryan Singer's; "Jack the Giant Slayer".
Guillermo del Toro's; "Pacific Rim".
Sam Raimi's; "Oz the Great and Powerful".
Brian Helgeland's "42".
Robert Zemeckis; "Flight".
David Fincher's; "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".
(He is producing the pilot and the first episode of the new TV series "House of Cards" shot on Red Epic,
and rumour has it that he is shooting an unknown project on the new Black&White Epic camera.)

More?
"Hitchcock"
"Resident Evil: Retribution".
"Total Recall".
"Underworld: Awakening"
The list could go on and on with everything from Hollywood movies to Independent and major movies all over the world, to TV series, to magazine covers and editorials.

So when you state; "Yes they use RED cameras for certain shots" you should by now understand how ridiculous your statements look.
Edited by coolscan - 1/31/13 at 4:06am

Can we drop the personal attacks here and get back to how Red still hasn't really stated anything about the RedRay? I'm starting to worry...

Yes it is. But I am referring it's market acceptance over it's competitors. Some people here don't like being reminded of that. This idea that RED is the future and anything else is antiquated is just silly.

The post houses that Coolscan refers to are tiny boutique operations and don't have the engineering staff to evaluate these issues. The post houses I am refer to are Technicolor, Deluxe, Fotokem, Modern Videofilm and even smaller places like LightIron. This is where the R&D gets done outside the lab at RED.

Again RED is just another player in the business. That's all. For every technical achievement they master, a competitor will soon top and the cycle starts again.
Edited by Glimmie - 1/31/13 at 11:16am

You should never ever worry about HT fecal. Life is too short. Red hasn't charged anybody for the unit. So whjat is there to worry about. the player will come soon. Its just a server which some software and sooner or later soiftware can be fixed.

What you should be concerned about is Odemax. Source owners will get the idea that they can distribute their content ob SD cards and USB-2 cards. An amazon site baby and use the Redray protection stuff and sell it so it can't be copied and even make it so it can only be played on one server, by serial number.

the future looks bright. maybe not for Odemax but there will be others ans sooner or later distribution will be by internet. Data caps and speeds will increase.

Right now I can buy Timescapes in 4K for $99. A great business opportunity would be for some geek to convert source content into Red playable for a small fee. I will never be able to do it myself but the world is populatyed with 15 year olds and up that will do it for X money.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/31/13 at 1:52pm

Nobody here as stated that except you. That would be the same as if I had stated that you meant that Red didn't have a future, which you almost did.
As I haven't named any post houses, this is you trying to put words in my mouth.
By the way; Fotokem did the post for the second Red Reel in 2009. Looks beautiful.
Stating the obvious.

Just remember that it was you that jumped into the middle of this with a lot of ignorant and negative statements. Then you where called out on them.
I hope after all this your perception has changed, even if you don't want to admit it. (not required).

iF YOU guys keep this up, the thread will get locked.

Now it is gettnig to who has the last word. Who will be big enough to let the other guy have the last word?

If you guys want to continue to argue, just take it off line. The smiles help of course and nobody is being hurt but it is starting to get uncomfortable to read.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/31/13 at 1:50pm

Sorry meant ODEMAX. Was hoping for a nice update from them at Sundance but all I got was hey we got the flu lol

I just did with my last sentence.

If you have a computer it is supposedly as easy as pushing a button. Nothing to learn really. Depending on your machine it might have to stay overnight.

I also hope there will a lot of free stuff, something like the Shot on Red forum section where three daily are posted new tree minutes videos. Lot of beautiful stuff there, and in-between there are some real "eye candy", the type people like to use to show of their projectors and TVs.


Edited by coolscan - 1/31/13 at 1:59pm

i have a laptop. Exactly what do I need to buy? I have USB ins that I can shove a drive into but I have no SD slot. I assune you would need tenough memorary to store the converted file and then output it to a clean drive or card.

If you get uncompressed content, then you must get it either on a USB drive or buy a inexpensive Card reader to connect to your PC.

AS for PC hardware requirements, I don't know because they haven't released the plug-in so nobody have done any test yet an shared any minimum specs for a PC.
I have run 4K Red Raw both in Recine-X and Premiere pro on PCs with i7 CPUs. One with 8GB RAM and one with 16GB RAM. Non of them went over 50% RAM usage even when I loaded quite a bit of effects. Most of the time the usage was 20% of the RAM.
Rendered 4K should push less stress on a machine than RAW.

You can also put more RAM into your machine, at least most machines can.

But if the requirements for .RED encoding are higher we don't know yet. But I would think not. It just takes more time to encode on a weaker machine.

Mark, I very much doubt that you could buy any laptop or notebook that can output 4k to a projector or tv. AFAIK you would need a proper desktop computer with the latest and greatest graphics card that can output 4k2k via HDMI.
I may be wrong though.
Sorry, on re-reading your post you seem to be asking about using your laptop to convert files to a format that the Redray player can feed to your projector and that certainly should be possible.
Edited by catonic - 1/31/13 at 4:05pm

He don't need a laptop to output to the projector. He will have the RedRay player for that. He just need to be able to encode any non RedRay encoded 4K footage he can get hold of to the .RED codec format to be able to play it on the RedRay player.

Yes, your right coolscan.