Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    412
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by laguun
    if someone is interested, we will probably sell one or two Arri 35 IIB (with mags etc) when red ships for >~1500$.
    I would be interested. Depending on when you sold them.

    - Gavin
    - Gavin Greenwalt
    im.thatoneguy[remove]@gmail.com


     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by evinsky
    I'm guessing here.

    Camera body only.
    6.Viper $60K
    5.D20 Not available but probably $135k
    4.F950 $90K
    3.Dalsa I have no idea but lets say $100k+
    2.35mm $135K (for an Arricam ST since you can't buy a Panavision)
    1.Red, if you don't know by now you're on the wrong forum.
    Well, in 35mm you can buy a way cheaper camera with good lenses and still have the same quality as the Panavision. An old BL2 or Arri 3, even an Arri2C give excelent images. That's one of the advantages you don't have to change the camera that often if ever.


     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13
    Default
    I liken the anti-Red sentiment to the anti-Final Cut folks. "How can a tool that cheap, possibly compare to my $150,000 Avid? And besides, I still have along way to got pay this off, so no way I'm switching to something cheaper." And earlier than that when the first Video Toaser arrived in 1990, then again when QuickTime started to mature and become a powerful tool for real production work.

    Disruptive technologies are always met with extreme skepticism by old schoolers. The rest of us just jump right in and profit from their hesitation.

    Avid users: I'm not trying to start a platform war, or rag on you (okay maybe a little bit), just trying to make a point.

    Jeremy
    Red One #68


     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member evinsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hollywood, California
    Posts
    977
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by pablovi
    Well, in 35mm you can buy a way cheaper camera with good lenses and still have the same quality as the Panavision. An old BL2 or Arri 3, even an Arri2C give excelent images. That's one of the advantages you don't have to change the camera that often if ever.
    Of course you can buy a cheaper 35mm camera but the one I mentioned is comparable to the one used in the side by side test. Also the lenses they used were very expensive Zeiss primes.
    Always beg forgiveness, not permission! http://www.evingrant.com http://www.evingrantdp.com http://www.evingrantphoto.com
    RED #199
    HVX #69


     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Director of Photography TimurCivan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    12,182
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by donatello
    anytime you have a profession that uses expensive tools ( which become elite) and only few can get their hands on it to use/learn, that when a new product that is good becomes available at a price that persons in/out of that profession can buy -those in that profession do not take kindly.
    one goes to work - uses a 150k camera or down the road a RED - they worked their way up the ladder over many years as AC/operator/DP - drives home and see the kid next door in his/her garage with a new RED ...

    ..
    I agree with you 100%. but i dont think it will be "kids next door" it will be small production comapnies, that used to produce $30,000, Small HD Spots, and could never afford film, will suddenly be able to produce TOP quality images. the market will flood with Talent and guys at the top stand to lose ( a little tiny bit) of their "stable" work to smaller companies that can now produce on that level.

    i unfortnatly cant affrod a red camera now. but i do love cinematography, and if my career picks up the way we ALL hope our careers will, i will certainly take that step.
    Cinematographer
    Sigma Pro

    www.timurcivan.com 917-589-4424


     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by evinsky
    However the Red footage stayed fresh in my mind as I watched the ASC/SMTPE screening at the Pickford center and I couldn't help but think OH MY FCUKING GOD! is this really it.
    Evan, the Red footage, by comparison, was not passed through the very unkind workflow done by the fellows at Disney. It really is apples to oranges. I don't think any manufacturer was particularly pleased by the way in which their footage was treated, other than Kodak (who probably shouldn't have been). quickie LUT, DNxHD, down-rez then up-rez..etc!

    I was happy to hear comments from all those in the know- questioning the thought process and post workflow of the test. The same phrases I kept hearing uttered after the screening (in several different variations) was "That test wasn't fair to anything, including film." and "Impossible to draw any conclusions, other than a blatant bias towards film."

    My schedule is really tight right now, as there are a couple big projects prepping this month. However, when things slow down around the Christmas holiday, I'll try to arrange a screening for a people who saw the shootout this week and now have a distorted impression of what 4K images from the Origin (and perhaps other d-cinema cameras) look like. I have the ability to show captured and processed footage in a more ideal manner. With everything we have going on, the only real issue I have about setting it up is time.

    I.
    I.

    Illya Friedman
    Hot Rod Cameras

    My hilarious twitter twocks @hotrodcameras


     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by evinsky
    Of course you can buy a cheaper 35mm camera but the one I mentioned is comparable to the one used in the side by side test. Also the lenses they used were very expensive Zeiss primes.
    Hi,

    The point is, a properly maintained $700 Konvas with a PL mount will give an identical image to an Arricam. Its down to lens & filmstock.

    Stephen


     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member evinsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hollywood, California
    Posts
    977
    Default
    Maybe at 24FPS MOS. But that hardly works as a viable A cam for feature film production.

    This argument is noted but the cheapest 35mm sound capable camera is probably an Arri BL1 or Blimped Arri 2C both of witch will cost you $10K plus.
    The Red offers significant advantages in almost all areas for a very insignificant amount of additional dollars.
    Always beg forgiveness, not permission! http://www.evingrant.com http://www.evingrantdp.com http://www.evingrantphoto.com
    RED #199
    HVX #69


     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member evinsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hollywood, California
    Posts
    977
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Illya Friedman
    Evan, the Red footage, by comparison, was not passed through the very unkind workflow done by the fellows at Disney. It really is apples to oranges. I don't think any manufacturer was particularly pleased by the way in which their footage was treated, other than Kodak (who probably shouldn't have been). quickie LUT, DNxHD, down-rez then up-rez..etc!

    I was happy to hear comments from all those in the know- questioning the thought process and post workflow of the test. The same phrases I kept hearing uttered after the screening (in several different variations) was "That test wasn't fair to anything, including film." and "Impossible to draw any conclusions, other than a blatant bias towards film."

    My schedule is really tight right now, as there are a couple big projects prepping this month. However, when things slow down around the Christmas holiday, I'll try to arrange a screening for a people who saw the shootout this week and now have a distorted impression of what 4K images from the Origin (and perhaps other d-cinema cameras) look like. I have the ability to show captured and processed footage in a more ideal manner. With everything we have going on, the only real issue I have about setting it up is time.

    I.
    I fully recognize that the test was flawed. I've shot the Viper, F900 Varicam and 35mm and I know that there are many things in that test that were not done well. However the Red screening also was shot on an uncharachterized sensor, using a very rudimentary demosaic and Gamma curve/LUT so even though I did say the comparison was "Apples to Oranges" it's not as far off as you make it sound. All the cameras in the various tests were handicapped in some way yet some significant charachter was dicernable from all. Except maybe the Viper which I have seen much, much better results from in other real world productions.

    So I will happily attend any screening you conduct and update my opinion as such.
    E.
    Always beg forgiveness, not permission! http://www.evingrant.com http://www.evingrantdp.com http://www.evingrantphoto.com
    RED #199
    HVX #69


     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by evinsky
    This argument is noted but the cheapest 35mm sound capable camera is probably an Arri BL1 or Blimped Arri 2C both of witch will cost you $10K plus.
    The Red offers significant advantages in almost all areas for a very insignificant amount of additional dollars.
    Hi.

    I bought an Ultracam 35 with 5 Zeiss lenses & 3 mags for well under $10,000. (20db if you believe Leonetti) The camera was advertised on CML, so anybody could have bought it!

    Stephen


     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •