Looks of the camera?

Landon D Parks

Landon D Parks

Active member
Is it just me, or does the RED look childish? I mean come on, it don't even look like a professional camera. I like what SI-2k did with there full camera, which gave it a bigger, more bold body so that it mimics the feel of a small film camera.

RED looks like something from Star Trek... I just never did like the look of small, weird looking video camera. There also don't look very proffessional. Even the route Panasonic took with the HVX was wrong if you ask me.... RULE #1: Dont make a pro camera look like the ones you buy at Circuit city, it can turn off potential clients who think there getting someone with a pro package, and who shows up with a setup looking like the CEO of the companies home video camera.

I think RED should have went with a better body design. Of course, this is my opinion. :dankk2:

PS) The red camera would look funny as hell with a matte box, follow focus, huge zoom lense and monitor on top... The accessories would take up more space than the camera... Which for some is good I guess, but for others, it just don't do that trick. IMHO, to make a film feel professional, you should run a professional set. To make shooting a movie feel like shooting film, you should have a camera that feels somewhat like a film camera, it just works.
 
Last edited:
I disagree 100% I love the sleek black look. I think it looks very pro and as a DP I LOVE HOW MODULAR THE DESIGN is personally I can't think of a lot I would do to improve the design at all. PROPS to the Red design team, the design I like MUCH better than the SI project, and the foresight Red has put into make this upgradeable ie... CMOS chip and ports in the future is unbelievable, I mean how fast technology is changing its added insurance that your investment will be protected and easily upgraded down the road and ultimately that means far more to me than the design concept, although as I said I think its sexy!!!
 
Sexy and professional are two worlds by thereself, IMHO. Plus, from what I hear, the SI2k is also upgradable in the future... both there camera head AND there software that drives the camera.

I'm not smashing the RED camera in general, its a really good idea, and I think the specs will blowout anything Dalsa or even the D20 or the Panavision monster has to offer. JUst look at it this way: Wouldnt this camera look a little out of place on a $150,000,000 hollywood blockbuster?
 
I agree with Lighthouse. The RED has a revolutionary design that attracts me to it. When I show all my friends they like it too!

Not to mention the SI 2k camera looks like a CCTV security camera with interchangeable lenses.
 
Impressive Desgin

Impressive Desgin

The camera is small over all considering. The camera was designed to take up the least amount of space possiable. Which in my book is a good thing. The camera body itself looks like it might not be any bigger thena HVX200. Which is awesome. Such a camera in a small package means that it will give the independent filmmaker more flexiability. And I believe and correct me if im wrong (let me know "Red") but this camera is desgined such that the user has complete control of its setup. Another benfit is that it does take up so little space that it will be fairly easy to transport 3 of thease cameras on one case. The only question i guess is how large is the storage device needed to capture uncompressed video and how large are the batteries for the camera and the storage. Either way sure it looks a a BFG from like "Doom" but it does becuase its well designed very well....not for cosmetic apearance. Thats my two cents I may be wrong but maybe im not.
 
Landon D Parks said:
Plus, from what I hear, the SI2k is also upgradable in the future... both there camera head AND there software that drives the camera.
Click to expand...


This was said a long time ago with RED....they have designed the camera to be upgradeable when updates are available. Just DL to the camera and you are good to go.
 
"Not to mention the SI 2k camera looks like a CCTV security camera with interchangeable lenses."
Thats just the camera head.... Not the actual camera.

Heres a pic of the SI2k:
http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=si2kproductpageuf8.jpg

The only advanagtage RED has over SI-2k is the 35mm sized sensor, and 12 megapixels (which is a HUGE advantage over 2/3" 2 mega pixels.... But both camera have likes and dont likes that make it REALLY hard to choose which one to buy... For the price, RED seems better in fact that you get more, while paying less (For the camera itself). I think RED is what, about $18,000? The SI-2k is $22,000.00.

My other gripe about the RED is this: IF your not a reservation holder, when will you be able to buy and GET the camera? Nobody seems to have a pure answer to that question. SI-2k will deliver camera by Januarary of 2007, about a month away.

So frustraiting to descide! If RED had a different body design, that would be my #1 choice right now.
 
Last edited:
Landon D Parks said:
So frustraiting to descide! If RED had a different body design, that would be my #1 choice right now.
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake too make your purchase decision based solely on looks. You can dress up/down the Red One in so many configurations that it can look like anything you want.
The SI2k is a box. It's dressed up with a lens, matte box, FF, AB battery pack and rails.
 
Reactor88 said:
The camera body itself looks like it might not be any bigger than a HVX200.
Click to expand...

The camera body is bigger than you might think. I have to admit I was surprised when I saw the mockup at IBC. I had pictured something smaller. But when you think about the size of a cine lens, it makes sense that it can't be that small.

Nick

PS see http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=71653 for a picture to give you a more accurate idea of the size than you can get from the CG renderings on the Red site.
 
Last edited:
quoting Landon D Parks..

"Is it just me, or does the RED look childish?"

maybe it is just you..

"I mean come on, it don't even look like a professional camera."

what does it mean?.. the «professional» concept is to have a «professional» look?

"this I like what SI-2k did with there full camera, which gave it a bigger, more bold body so that it mimics the feel of a small film camera."

so why bother here?.. buy it where it is for sale!..

"If RED had a different body design, that would be my #1 choice right now."

then, apart your cinematography.com membership we all just know now you'll be out only because the look of the camera.. :crybaby: and we'd need to read it here because there (cinematography.com) it wouldn't mean NOTHING at all..
 
Looks don't really mater its function....the red desgin is very functional while and utitlitarian. This is ideal for a camera....Last time i checked the physical look of a camera has little to do with the product. Its mater of what it can do not how it looks. And more important what you can do with it, which as was said if looks are and issue then thats likely not much. I might be wrong...but hey feel free to correct me.
 
I appreciate the body design - they've managed to keep the body very small, streamlined and sexy. If its design offends you, you can build a litte box around it so it matches your beige PC. :laugh:

I kid, I kid.

Regardless, it's this kind of attention to detail that shows me that they care. Everything about this camera makes a statement.
 
Who cares if the camera is housed in a ball of cow dung. If the body is sturdy and the camera takes beautiful imagery, then who cares? Might one suggest if you are worried more about the look, rather than the functionality of the camera, you might look at a career change. Perhaps hairslylist :thumbsup:

People won't be watching your camera. They will be watching the footage you created with it.

Jason
 
The maximum all of those serious readers here should have is a quick laugh.

Please grow up and restrain yourself from posting such silly stuff.


"Mr. Parks" is a kid, I remember some really stupid and annoying conversations with his little playmate "Smith" on cinematography.com ( btw, I don´t bash that forum, it´s a very usefull community to me, but like here, there are jerks, too )

Edit: Oh, I have to add that he´ll surely "run back" and report how bad he got treated by this forum´s members...just wait
 
Last edited:
Landon D Parks said:
"
The only advanagtage RED has over SI-2k is the 35mm sized sensor, and 12 megapixels (which is a HUGE advantage over 2/3" 2 mega pixels.... But both camera have likes and dont likes that make it REALLY hard to choose which one to buy... For the price, RED seems better in fact that you get more, while paying less (For the camera itself). I think RED is what, about $18,000? The SI-2k is $22,000.00.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the sensor is the only disadvantage, Red is super modular want handles in the back, top, sides, where do you want your battery pack top, bottom, L-R, Viewfinder LCD, all accessories can be re-arranged and modified. Not to-mention Redcode, and the redcine software which are phenomenon unto themselves. I agree I bought a camera once for looks, an XL1 and sold for a DVX100 that did things I could never have done with my XL1, for me looks will always be 2nd to functionality, but I maintain my original argument I LOVE THE DESIGN!!! Who said a camera has to look like freaking ENG body???? Also keep in mind that Jim recently announced changes to the body design that should be unveiled soon which may make this hole discussion defunct LOL!!! One of the things about critiquing Red is that you must remember....its still in development and unlike other companies who design things we don't get any input except to complain about it until its on the Market. Jim has let this entire community be apart of the process which in my mind is unprecedented, and I really respect. Along with that comes the opportunity for people to critique things in development that was never previously possible.
 
I suppose, by Landon's standards, I should be upset because in the 1970's Sony introduced a camcorder that didn't look like a "professional" Cinema Products CP-16 film camera.

The greatest benefit of the Red One's form-factor is that it can be used in almost any situation - Steadcam, Jib, Crane, shoulder, tripod, gripped in the corner of the room, what-have-you.

Red One's design is definitely a matter of "form follows function" without influence by historical choices.
 
kalone said:
The maximum all of those serious readers here should have is a quick laugh.

Please grow up and restrain yourself from posting such silly stuff.


"Mr. Parks" is a kid, I remember some really stupid and annoying conversations with his little playmate "Smith" on cinematography.com ( btw, I don´t bash that forum, it´s a very usefull community to me, but like here, there are jerks, too )

Edit: Oh, I have to add that he´ll surely "run back" and report how bad he got treated by this forum´s members...just wait
Click to expand...
agreed.. but here it's well known the stupid treatment on this camera project there.. some of them should be fair at least..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top