I hate the fact that it's silver. Who buys a nearly $20000 USD camera that's bright silver?

Joren - how do you 'stumble' across a porn shoot while location scouting? Aren't they usually inside bland, nondescript buildings?

I think it's vaporware in the sense that it's not available yet and everything is still speculation. Hell, they haven't put out any hard data on storage solutions and certainly not any still images from prototype hardware. It's still at least a year away.

I was not impressed at all with the interview that I read with Jim Jannard - he came across like a surfer dude trying to grasp engineering, and his comments mainly focused on minor features and other issues. The most important things - post workflow and storage solutions - were conveniently glossed over. Although he did claim to realize that the camera is useless without a good infrastructure/workflow in place, none of his comments cleared the water regarding exactly what that would be. My guess is that 4K recording is going to entail the use of their crappy proprietary codec.

I think someone doesnt like it because they can't afford one . Cummon people, look at this beast.

http://www.red.com/products/cameras/redone/index.html

That is just plain bad ass for it's price.

What do you mean by 'for its price'? At this point the product isn't even released yet and all the specifications aree subject to change. I smell vaporware.

The workflow is simply not there at this point, which makes adopting this camera immediately for professional use a tough sell at best.

Honestly I greatly prefer my Kinor 16-CX2M. It only weighs a little more, and it looks a lot cooler Not to mention the fact that it produces beautiful film images that are superior to HD video, and it cost around 2.5% of what this RED camera is going for (without lenses or storage).

You know what that camera looks like? It looks like some kind of underwater mine. Its Butt ugly, my ass is prettier to look at it. Jesus, it would take alot for me to buy such an ugly piece of hardware. I know looks are not everything, but I like to feel comfortable with my tools. Because in the end, the camera should be an extension of your body.



Can anyone even explain what these accessories do?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ryan Gomez,

Well, granted, anything evan has is automaticaly superior. I think it looks pretty sexy. Vaporware or not. Looks like a hand cannon from a videogame Who wouldnt want a camera that looked like that? An extension of my body? Hell yea a mini gun would do nicely

The funny thing is that it only has an LCD The 'creator' claimed that they considered an optical viewfinder but it was scrapped for this version. Funny, but that will probably doom this product for serious professional work. Imagine focusing a digital camera using a 35mm-sized sensor and recording 11 MP with a crappy 3.5" LCD. Yeah, it would not be good.

Well if you know how to make shoot on a DV cam u gotta use a monitor. I have never use built in LCDs to focus.

It will also have an expanded focus feature, I'm sure. It's really not hard to focus with an LCD.

Can someone tell me what the accessories do?

"Well if you know how to make shoot on a DV cam u gotta use a monitor. I have never use built in LCDs to focus."

This isn't an SD or even a standard HD cam at the highest settings - try buying a 4K monitor that is portable enough to get on location

It's not 'hard' to focus with an LCD but if you're recording such high resolution an optical viewfinder would be far better.

Point being, when you have the choice to focus from a monitor or an LCD I choose the monitor. I have been screwed over by thinking something in focus only to realize in post it is blury. Especially on closeups. Any monitor is portable enough to get on location with a PA

"There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas."

- Jean-Luc Godard

True, but if you have a good idea, there is no reason to shoot it on a POS camera.

I've been following the RED camera for a while now and I think there needs to be some things cleared up.

First, an associate of RED has said that the acquisition/recording system for this camera will be around $1k, not 8-10k like Evan is predicting. Second, the entire workflow of 4k (or even 2k) footage is so expensive ($10,000 for this amazing pimped out version of FCP that can handle the footage) that it's not even worth looking at as a student filmmaker, even if you can afford the camera. Third, Jim has said many times that although they didn't include a mechanical shutter (they thought long and hard about it and decided against it) they're doing all within their realm to make up for the lack of an optical viewfinder, which may mean including an attachable viewfinder with a very hi-res LCD including overscan (showing stuff outside what's captured like on Panavision/Arri).

Also, the sensor is not taken from a still camera: this is a custom-built CMOS sensor created specifically by RED.

Also this camera will probably not be silver, or at the very least it will be offered in black. These are simply CGI renderings. Many people have already discussed their distaste in a camera that will reflect light on-set or reveals itself too much in the reflection of sunglasses, windows, etc. Don't worry-Jim is on top of these things, he's the Oakley guy for Christ's sake

All in all, this is a revolutionary camera being offered at a revolutionary price: which simply means that at this point in time, student filmmakers were simply not meant to shoot at 2k. Suck it up, HDV works fine for us, and you all know it. Would you really want to deal with video that's 200-400mb/sec? SATA RAID hard drives? Expensive batteries to power everything? Lenses that cost thousands of dollars? Face it, the professional world and the student world only overlap a little. The people that will really benefit from this camera are indie filmmakers now who can afford this kind of system, and us in 10 years when all the big companies have realized that there's a company offering Super HD acquisition at a fraction of their pricepoint, and have released el-cheapo broadcast-quality HD cameras, driving down the price for us no-budget dudes.

I think a lot of people were predicting a magical solve-all solution to film-like digital acquisition for the price of what they already own. Which is what it is, but not to teenagers with a GS400.

Great post, Ben. That basically clears up everything.

"The people that will really benefit from this camera are indie filmmakers now who can afford this kind of system"

The entire point of my earlier posts was that there aren't many out there. What 'indie filmmaker' who owns their own gear is going to spend well over $25k on their camera? Most productions in that price range rent, not buy.

"First, an associate of RED has said that the acquisition/recording system for this camera will be around $1k"

The acquisition system that can capture 4K? I think not. That's probably just for their crappy 160GB drive-based recording section, which won't be able to handle much more than 1080i.

Why didn't they do the CGI renders in black? It would have spared them a lot of ****.

"Also, the sensor is not taken from a still camera: this is a custom-built CMOS sensor created specifically by RED."

So they say. I bet it's a still camera sensor that is slightly modified and 'custom made.'

"Second, the entire workflow of 4k (or even 2k) footage is so expensive ($10,000 for this amazing pimped out version of FCP that can handle the footage) that it's not even worth looking at as a student filmmaker, even if you can afford the camera."

I already said this, which is the reason why the high resolution is not that exciting from a holistic standpoint.

"Third, Jim has said many times that although they didn't include a mechanical shutter (they thought long and hard about it and decided against it) they're doing all within their realm to make up for the lack of an optical viewfinder, which may mean including an attachable viewfinder with a very hi-res LCD including overscan (showing stuff outside what's captured like on Panavision/Arri)."

1. That wasn't smart! A mechanical shutter and proper reflex viewfinder would have separated their toy from the many other 'video cameras.'

'Overscan' on an optical viewfinder is no big deal from an engineering standpoint. My $450 Russian camera has it, as does my $80 one. The way Jannard talks about it you'd think it was the second coming of Christ (and it's not that hard to implement with a large CCD either).

No matter what you say, it is true that indications were that this camera was going to be in the $3-6k range for the body. I'm not bitter - I was never going to get one anyway - but simply amused at how it turns up at a much higher price point than they had originally hyped.

As for the trickle-down effect, maybe. If this is the only camera that offers that feature set I doubt you'll see much benefit even in the 3-4 year range. Before miniDV took off as a consumer format it had a wide range of manufacturers competing with each other to produce cameras and equipment. If RED is the only company with their super "Mysterium" sensor it's not going to spread that fast.

quote:

Overscan' on an optical viewfinder is no big deal from an engineering standpoint.

Of course it isn't. Which makes you wonder why it isn't more common than it is. Jim was smart to implement it; ideas don't have to be unobvious to be good.

quote:

The entire point of my earlier posts was that there aren't many out there. What 'indie filmmaker' who owns their own gear is going to spend well over $25k on their camera? Most productions in that price range rent, not buy.

And the ENG market. And studios that don't want to spend $100,000 each on every camera they place in front of a news anchor.

quote:

No matter what you say, it is true that indications were that this camera was going to be in the $3-6k range for the body.

From DVinfo.net boards, just one topic:
"I think RED at a minimum has to be marketed toward 2/3" CCD camera users."
"As this thread is titled "pricing" I would say that we maybe looking at a $20K price, though I hope much lower."
"I think most people on this board would benefit from a ~$4k camera that they can edit on their home computer. Now at that price point, it'll probably rule out 35mm frame size and all that jazz."
"Like I said, if RED + a decent lens is under $25,000 is will be revolutionary."

And, to finally prove my point conclusively, I present the sticky:
What people thought RED would be priced at
$3k-$6k wasn't even an option! Not even close!

Evan, you can't say the RED camera was expected to be between $3k-$6k. That's just a lie. Whoever thought that was clearly very, very uneducated.

"And the ENG market. And studios that don't want to spend $100,000 each on every camera they place in front of a news anchor."

Who cares? I never said that there weren't *any* markets for this product, just that the markets that can afford and will use this are not going to be narrative low budget productions or even higher budget productions since they always rent gear.

That thread that you linked to isn't conclusive at all. For one, the fact that the 3-6k range wasn't an option proves absolutely nothing - if it had been included it might have received some votes.

Furthermore, that thread is from a few months ago. The speculation that I was referring to was much longer ago - a year or more. At that point it was somehow insinuated that it would be well under $10k. I don't have time to search for an exact post but it was definitely out there.

What's also funny are the absurd usable life predictions - from one forum:

"RED will last for at least a decade or two, whereas cheaper cameras will be showing their age within the next 5 years."

A decade or two? Please. When home video cameras became popular in the 80s people probably thought they'd those for decades also. Look what happened.

Also, support for RED is contingent upon the company staying around. That's the nature of proprietary digital technology. I wish them well, but twenty years lifespan is quite a while.

Compare that to a 16mm camera from 1930 which will still work, or a Mitchell 35mm from the 40s that can still be used today. Even when the companies go belly-up film gear lasts much longer because there's less electronic trickery and proprietary issues to deal with.

quote:

At that point it was somehow insinuated that it would be well under $10k.

Well if it was said, it sure wasn't said by Jim. He specifically outlined his reasoning for leaving the pricing originally open-ended. If there ever was a $3,000-$6,000 <$10,000 rumor it wasn't started by the people who make the darn thing.

quote:

What's also funny are the absurd usable life predictions

Yes, they don't make things like they used to. Then again the chemicals in ICs break down after x number of decades anyway. LCDs burn out over time. As technology gets more complicated, the lifespan of products decreases. It's a fact that everyone in every product business has had to face.

Film cameras are simpler, more mechanical than electronic gizmos that therefore stand up to the test of time. But where does that film go these days? Into an NLE software program, run by a computer. Which is then spat out onto a high-tech three color 35mm transfer machine. And then distributed on DVDs to be played on LCD screens. Yes, a computer doesn't last as long/isn't as cheap/is not as dependable as a typewriter, but when you sit down to write a script, which one do you use?

Heh, I'm honestly guessing Evan's the typewriter ty-, er, kind of guy.

elliott...