The RED full-meal-deal?

D_and_G said:
What's the difference betwen the redrock follow focus and the Arri follow focus, which goes for about $4300 ?


RED + Zoom # rebel with a clue
Click to expand...

The Red rock $645 Follow focus unit is not in any way in the class of the big Studio follow focus like the one that retails for $4,300.

It's a single side lightweight system. The corresponding Chrosziel system is the DV studio http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/product/8D88194B80DC41E385256DA6004FE63C that retails for $1,395.
It's still cheaper though...
 
The key is for Jim and Ted to price such that RED is profitable enough that customers are taken care of, and the future of the company is assured.

Purchasing this camera, lenses, and so on, is taking all of my financial resources. Plus fundraising. However nothing on the market today is even close, financially or technically, to allowing me to shoot the documentary I want to shoot.

So at 47 I'm betting everything I've got, one more time.

I'm counting on Jim and Ted setting prices high enough - not too low in other words - that after the initial development funding is over and they're running on sales, RED has enough profit that Red Digital Cinema Company is organized around taking care of the concerns of shooters. Period.

It isn't that I especially want to pay more. But a profitable company that isn't scraping by, is very much in my best interests. In fact, the more profitable RED is, the better positioned it is both to support what its got going, and to jump-start new revolutions.
 
thats why we believe - the Red will be a perfect rental camera - at least in Europe, where the most cameras will be rented. there you have the choice of heavy or lightweight tripods, a lot of lenses, long and short zooms, and any other stuff which costs a lot of money - but can be rented in a good rental company. if you want to shoot 4k and you will screen it on a big screen you need the best lenses to have sharpness over the whole screen - think on ultraprimes or masterprimes or cookes s4 - you will not get 2 lenses for the price of one camera !
 
The lightweight options could drive red sales to a bigger market and that would help all of us with less cash to spend. The 2/3rds lens option is still clouded and the s16mm lens option is still pretty heavy and expensive. The prospect of using a lightweight still zoom lens at around $1500 is massively appealing surely. Talk of breathing in these lenses appear to occur whist zooming, if that is correct (only when zooming) then does it matter? Is it not the case that most people zoom merely to reach a desired focal length, would the breathing part not be edited out or is my lack of experience showing up badly here?

No one expects a still zoom or still lens to perform as good as a cine lens. But without knowing what level of performance we might expect from stll lenses with red there remains major doubt. If red could show us some footage with a still lens that doubt may be removed.
Click to expand...


The thing with cinelenses is that their gears are especially build for racking focus during a shot. In still lenses this is not necessary so a focus pull will be less "steady" Breathing might occur, but the stability factor is also important, and might make some still lenses unusable. Optically stills lenses are fine; century optics have upgraded minolta and canon zooms (17-35 and 28-70 and they charge 13.500- 15000 US$ for it...) to cine specs and are wonderfull. The downside is the size of these lenses get much bigger since their housing is rebuild for steady focuspulls. So I am wondering what the 18-85 RED lens will be like; i expect it to be the size of the camerabody at least, and heavier.

Mick van Rossum NSC
Netherlands
RED#458
 
aaton31 said:
So I am wondering what the 18-85 RED lens will be like; i expect it to be the size of the camerabody at least, and heavier.

Mick van Rossum NSC
Netherlands
RED#458
Click to expand...

Thanks Anders. I also want to check out the cavision follow focus.

And Mick, Jim said that the RED 18-85 zoom lens was a 'compact'. If that description is similar to other compacts on the market then it won't be the size of the cam, or be too heavy, I think... :beer:






RED + Zoom #rebel with a clue
 
But listen folks - a 18-85 mm calculated on the size of the sensor
is corresponds 7 - 34 mm with a 2/3´´ sensor size. I think most films
are shot with longer lenses.
the 300 mm corresponds 120 mm on 2/3´´ sensor.
 
ludmux said:
But listen folks - a 18-85 mm calculated on the size of the sensor
is corresponds 7 - 34 mm with a 2/3´´ sensor size. I think most films
are shot with longer lenses.
the 300 mm corresponds 120 mm on 2/3´´ sensor.
Click to expand...

Huh?

It's the other way around in fact: what's the point in calculating the 2/3" equivalent of 35mm lenses?

And, no, you are completly wrong if you really think "most films are shot with longer lenses"... An 85mm is more than enough most of the time. I know some directors who tend to never use anything above 50mm ... As a matter of fact, 18-85mm is perfect as it covers most focals you'll ever need for fiction work!
 
this is a very subjective view, which lenses you need for a film - it depends on the kind of project - you are right in many scenic productions for a big screen, but for a documentary you will not be satisfied.
to calculate 35mm to 2/3´´ ccd - just divide thru 2.5
 
"but for a documentary you will not be satisfied."

Sure!That's why I clearly spoke about fiction, which isn't something to be excluded from the comment you made "I think most films are shot with longer lenses."

Furthermore, your choice of words and arguments seems to cause confusion because you first calculate the 2/3" equivalent of an 18-85mm to then conclude it is "not enough for most films"... That's what bothers me the most...
 
I'm counting on Jim and Ted setting prices high enough - not too low in other words - that after the initial development funding is over and they're running on sales, RED has enough profit that Red Digital Cinema Company is organized around taking care of the concerns of shooters. Period.
Click to expand...

I agree that red has to be profitable which is why i also think it has to keep an eye on what the cheapest package can be in order to capture that section of the market. If we are looking at sales of 1,000 to 2,000 red one's over two years compared with 5,000 plus over the same period we are looking at two hugely different profit margins with a service sector to finance by being profitable. With 1000 units red will have to look to more profits from extras such as lenses red rails, EVF etc. It would also have to look at service costs being higher as well. The wee guy stretching out to purchase red needs red to sell in their thousands.

Lenses are a real concern to all of us. The weight of the new proposed red zoom is a worry. At 5lbs and under it could possibly be of use to those who want mobility. At 7lbs probably not!. Based on my reading up, it is difficult to imagine the red zoom being as light or lighter than 5lbs. Other zoom non-compacts with similar specs weigh around 12lbs. So how light is compact? We will have to wait and see. Cine guys might well be delighted with the red zoom

When you purchase a s16 lens they are optimised to work for that particular sized sensor, same with a 2/3rds lens, though they have other concerns.

If we use a large format lens be it 35mm still or s35mm red I worry that once you start to use windowed mode at 2k the smaller part of the sensor will demand a sharper lens. I am sure red will see to it that their red zoom will perform as well as can be expected using windowed mode. But what if the sensor does not perform well. what if it is markedly worse using still lenses. The good news is that several still lenses have been converted to cine use with FILM....and have performed well enough. Will they work with digital cinema and work well enough?

The price of conversion to cine use is eh....confusing. At prices quoted here in this forum of around $15,000 for a still lens conversion for cine use! Its hard to contemplate that option with red zoom at $9,500 and a prime 300mm for under $5,000.

What is required from a suitable (i stress suitable) Nikkon still lens other than a follow focus set up and a suitable matte box. If the lenses themselves can be fully rotated in less than a quarter turn compared to cine lens (or thereabouts) then surely it is just a matter of the follow focus having the correct gearing to make these lenses turn round exactly at the same speed per movement than a cine lens with follow focus. Once agian remember i am all theory no experience so have i got that right?

The specs of the proposed red zoom is said by experienced users to be perfect for 90% of cine use.

For comparisons to other sensors see the red lens thread or Proteus had done a chart that is useful for that purpose.

Michael
 
Last edited:
Red, Which System To Use?

Red, Which System To Use?

Having in mind that im gonna shoot 4k and etc..
which system should I use MAC or PC? to handle this type of footage...:huh:

Somebody Please Answer, Thanks for your time.
MMR. LucernaStudios
 
MMR said:
Having in mind that im gonna shoot 4k and etc..
which system should I use MAC or PC? to handle this type of footage...:huh:

Somebody Please Answer, Thanks for your time.
MMR. LucernaStudios
Click to expand...


Don't you think it's a little early to answer this question? For sure, a MAC Pro with 8 cores, as should be available when the red will be on the market, should be able to handle quite some resolution. But will it be enough for 4K? Only time will tell...
 
sorry arkham - it is a bit confusing. in some threads i have the impression a lot of people want to use their RED instead of a dvx100 or hvx 200. so I tried to communicate our view - that RED is more to compare with a D20 as a DVX 100. Yes, I agree you can make wonderful pictures within a range of 18 until 85 mm. But I think it is dangerous to calculate 50K for a complete running system which covers all the work of a DOP.
 
arkham said:
Don't you think it's a little early to answer this question? For sure, a MAC Pro with 8 cores, as should be available when the red will be on the market, should be able to handle quite some resolution. But will it be enough for 4K? Only time will tell...
Click to expand...
You may need an 8 core computer to handle uncompressed 4K material, but with the REDCODE settings implemented, you should be able to handle the 4K footage even on a good system that's available right now. I think, given their announcement at IBC, more people will choose to shoot 4K than we originally expected, thus having a future-proofed master as well as the ability to downrez to any other resolution in post.
 
Haakon said:
You may need an 8 core computer to handle uncompressed 4K material, but with the REDCODE settings implemented, you should be able to handle the 4K footage even on a good system that's available right now. I think, given their announcement at IBC, more people will choose to shoot 4K than we originally expected, thus having a future-proofed master as well as the ability to downrez to any other resolution in post.
Click to expand...

This is what has me excited the most about this camera. I was fully expecting to shoot at 2k for my next feature, but REDCODE will apparently allow me to shoot 4K RAW and not need a RAID the size of a house to store it. Many people here seem to think that editing offline and then conforming an online is EVIL. Whatever. I'll shoot 4k, downconvert to 720p (or maybe even 480p), edit till I'm blue in the face, and then do an online with the 4K footage. Easy and fast.
 
jrv3034 said:
This is what has me excited the most about this camera. I was fully expecting to shoot at 2k for my next feature, but REDCODE will apparently allow me to shoot 4K RAW and not need a RAID the size of a house to store it. Many people here seem to think that editing offline and then conforming an online is EVIL. Whatever. I'll shoot 4k, downconvert to 720p (or maybe even 480p), edit till I'm blue in the face, and then do an online with the 4K footage. Easy and fast.
Click to expand...

I was thinking 1080p... I've always thought it would have to be an offline edit myself and when the picture is locked then do your online...

I like to know about monitors for the best image at a good price... not interested in reading a million pages of specs... I just want to know what monitor or monitors, how much, etc... will work with 4k...

Also big or raid system... render time, etc...
 
You do realise you're talking about offlining in HD don't you :)

This is what's got me really jazzed too. All I need now is for a) Apple to include Redcode 4k in FCP 6 and b) Apple to introduce a 4k monitor.

Then I'm all sorted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top