Looks of the camera?

Ramjet1979 said:
People won't be watching your camera. They will be watching the footage you created with it.

Jason
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if you're new to the business and don't have a great Demo Reel and/or established client list, this isn't necessarily true. While I personally do like the design of Red One (especially after years of trying to handhold 535s with zooms and the like), most clients who are willing to give new guys a gamble might get a little nervous when they see you come to the location with the Red. Of course this is only applicable if you are getting into the commercial/industrial game. If you're making movies, you're good to go!
 
Oh for goodness sake, once you've got rods, hood, focus wheels, monitors and all the other 'cac' hanging off it, it will look like every other professional shoot; except you will be able to screw that stuff on wherever you want to. This is a stupid thread.
 
To me a "professional" tool becomes the tool that simply works the best for the job intended. Nothing but function and end product quality matter.

When sony first started to try and sell HD to the 16mm TV series and MOW market people scoffed and even laughed at the fisher price looking beta cam style camera. Now there are far more TV series and MOW's shot in HD then 16mm. The HD tool worked and was adopted. So even though RED will run into sceptesism HD has already paved the way for people no longer having as much of a "Film and film cameras are the only way" mentality.

Now as far as being too small goes that is the thing I would never want RED to change. ARRI, Panavision and all the rest of the film camera companies build their cameras as small and light as they possibly can and still be able to function properly. A small 7 pound body sound sinc 1-60fps 35mm camera would be rented non stop if it was even possible to build. I spent 2 days in the back seat of a 69 camaro with a moviecam compact (ya right compact my ass) on my shoulder for a small feature. It was not a lot of fun and hell yes I would have taken any camera smaller that could have done the job for the budget the production company had. So to mention making the camera bigger so it looks cool seems crazy to me. Anyone who has shot with a 35mm or hd camera has at one point not been able to get the shot they wanted because of the inhibiting size of the camera.
 
For once we have a camera that's truly designed with longevity in mind and not peppered with plastic flimsies that seem to break right after the warranty dies. RED ONE reminds me of the old school, over-engineered days of yore, when even a lowly stapler was grabbed onto by the British and recast out of ship iron and solid brass. This puppy looks like the camera-equivalent of a ruggedized mil-spec piece of tech, and that gives me a bit of comfort.
 
he has a point...not really

he has a point...not really

although he fumbles through his post and responses he makes a point. by trying some revolutionary designs, red is catering to one breed of consumer but by maintaining film standard features like pl mounts and the basic digital cinema approach (electronic film or 60 fps dslr), red is also trying to cater to the already established film industry. so you're bound to get opinions like this but again, this opinion is based mostly on hollywood crap and egos. dps that care about what their camera looks like aren't spending their own money. they're spending studio dollars to schmooze studio clients. take any dp, give them a challenge, a style, a motivation and then a budget...the looks of their camera will be the last thing on their mind.
 
Small is beautiful

Small is beautiful

Finner nailed it. After years of putting the current crop of rigs on my shoulder the right one is now lower the left, just ask my chiropractor. A small post-modern design is a plus, not a minus. I feel Dominic's issue with presenting a professional profile for new clients, and for producers trying to impress their clients. Just put a serious piece of glass and a matte box on there and I think you'll be just fine.

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19
 
the looks of their camera will be the last thing on their mind.
Click to expand...
And yet -- if looks are the last thing on their mind, why go with such a radical departure from the norm?

The film and video industry is largely based on the concept of a comfort zone. Too many things can go wrong, so advertising execs and producers usually lean heavily on the familiar, tried, and proven. The radical design departure from conventional is not likely to help Red penetrate the existing market very much. In my travels for HVX training for the best professional camera ops in NZ and Aus, many wanted to ask about Red and whether it's going to actually exist or not, etc, but the one consistent feedback I got about the Red One from them was "couldn't they at least have made it LOOK like a camera?"

With any radical departure from conventional design you're going to find some who love it and some who hate it. That's why you rarely see exotic car-show concept car designs survive intact to the production model, they're always toned down before it gets to the customer.

You gotta love the features and capabilities RED has built in, those are absolutely magnificent; but I wonder if the exotic appearance hasn't just made their job harder. If there are true easily-demonstrated ergonomic benefits that come from the design, those will help sell the changes. But if it's just "art for art's sake" or, worse, the design actually makes it more complex or difficult to do what has always been familiar and easy, then the exotic nature of Red's design does have the potential to backfire on them.

It's all speculation until we get our hands on a working prototype and see how it all feels and how it all works together. If it was all about the performance and none about the looks, JVC would never have sold a single HD100, but to some people that form factor and look are worth it to them even if it means HDV, 720-only, a madly-breathing lens, no 60p, etc.

RED One is so small, how hard would it be to design a snap-on more-conventional-style shoulder mount rig that looks more like what experienced cameramen are expecting? That way you could have the best of both worlds; give those who need the familiar look a way to get the familiar look, and those who are ready to embrace the exotic/Terminator 2/RPG vision can go that way.
 
I think that RED ONE is not a conventional camera by any mean.

That's precisely what's interesting about this camera.

1) the power and quality of a VERY BIG camera.
2) the weight (and flexibility) of a small camera.

I see it as a powerfull and pure image generator...Very pure.

RED design seems to come from "utility" rather than conventional form factor.

I like the limits to be pushed farther.
...and it is more than obvious than the RED guys LOVE to push the limits.

I think the weight and form factor will give people new ideas, new techniques, and new possibilities.

That's fantastic.
 
HM.

Didn't Jim just update that the body is quite radically redesigned. I have sorta thought that "radical" in this context could mean "more familiar" -;)

I don't mind either way, though. As long as it is sturdy and gives me the images -;)

Gunleik
 
As of the L.A. screening, much of the original feel of the RED body was maintained. It felt more like a "real" camera because there were labeled buttons, quick releases, a proper PL-mount, etc.

At least in my opinion.
 
vinney57 said:
Oh for goodness sake, once you've got rods, hood, focus wheels, monitors and all the other 'cac' hanging off it, it will look like every other professional shoot; except you will be able to screw that stuff on wherever you want to. This is a stupid thread.
Click to expand...
I agree; I think perhaps one reason that RED ONE still looks (even more) different than anything else around is that they have yet to post a picture of it with a lens attached. A simple subtly yet one that makes a lot of difference. I think even Evin's recent photoshop mockup makes the camera look a lot more "legit" than just the bare body renderings on red.com do.

That being said, I agree - what is going to make people flock to this camera is the pictures it produces, not its physical aesthetics. Dare I go another step further and say that I think the HVX looks like a cheap toy - I've hated that design from day one - yet I still bought one because it did what I needed it to do for the price I paid.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what a lot of people are talking about. I've seen a few film cameras before and all of them were just boxes basically, even Panavision cameras are like that. The rest of the camera is in the accessories on those, so... how is the RED any different?

Perhaps many people bashing the RED's looks have only worked with ENG-style cameras? (which even so, are just elongated boxes with a rounded shoulder rest)

I don't understand this "looks" argument at all. A camera's a camera, use it!
 
Landon D Parks said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

Hi Landon,

Just curious, but have you ever used a professional camera?

Stephen

(its fun to google)
 
RED isn't going to look much like a film camera, because there's no film magazine (a defining part of the shape of a film camera rig), and it's not going to look much like an ENG camera because it's a more modular design.

It's also going to be covered in mounting points (for attaching stuff -- pretty important with a modular system!) and ridges (for grip). This is going to pretty much unavoidably give it a fairly industrial look, particularly since they're making the body out of metal rather than plastic. That, plus the buttons, displays, etc. are going to make it look a bit like a sci-fi prop.

I happen to think that's pretty cool, but for the people who don't... how do you avoid it without sacrificing functionality present in the current designs?
 
I do have a few concerns regarding the current design stills.

Basically for handheld operation I really like the shoulder cut away of arri/aaton cameras, as it get's the CG and image plane closer to your shoulder than current public RED stills. The redrail seems to place the camera pretty high. Don't know if that's still the case.

Also the control panel on the back could be a problem, as it's pretty exposed it you operate in tight quarters. The operator side is definitely the least exposed, when doing hand held. It might be cool if you could remove the panel and extend it with a curlie wire...

Basically weight distribution and ergonomics of the body and controls are the most important for me. If it looks radical or not, doesn't really matter. It's is all about taste.

Looking forward to seeing the updated designs.
 
Chris Kenny said:
RED isn't going to look much like a film camera, because there's no film magazine (a defining part of the shape of a film camera rig), and it's not going to look much like an ENG camera because it's a more modular design.
Click to expand...
Let's also not downplay that fact that the core of the physical design is a direct result of Jim's creative drive! Love the design or not, I think that the best thing about it is that it is distinctively RED. From 20 feet away, it's hard to tell one ENG camera from another... with Red, that won't be happening.

Personally I love the look (and the new render!), and I think when it's fully decked out, it will fit in just fine. Of course, you will still be welcome to shoot with any other camera you like. :)
 
Anders, the EVF has [full?] interface controls on the L.A. renderings. One could control the camera's settings with it on their shoulder. I'm hoping that there's a little switch to disable or cover the body's buttons in tight settings... leaving all camera control to the 3 buttons and click-knob on the EVF. Your concerns may already be addressed. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top