Was it a dream or is RED going to bring out a 2k camera for around $5 to $7,000.00.

They mentioned that they'd be making a mini camera. As far as I know, it's totally unsubstantiated that it'd be 2k or $5,000 or $7,000. No mention of price, no mention of features, no mention of any details whatsoever. I nagged them incessantly for details, and the closest they'd come is to say "look, we'd be the ones making it, so that should tell you everything you need to know, okay?"
 
Argh! I want a camera now! But first Sony tantalise me with XDCAM EX and now RED with god-only-knows what (although I know god knows it's gonna be really frigging cool).

Why must they make my decision so damn hard! An XHA1 would be lovely, but I want tapeless, 1/2"+ sensory goodness!
 
Grug said:
Argh! I want a camera now! But first Sony tantalise me with XDCAM EX and now RED with god-only-knows what (although I know god knows it's gonna be really frigging cool).

Why must they make my decision so damn hard! An XHA1 would be lovely, but I want tapeless, 1/2"+ sensory goodness!
Click to expand...

Sony announces XDCAM EX prosumer camcorder
Posted Apr 16th 2007 6:20AM by Thomas Ricker
Filed under: Digital Cameras

NAB brings the prosumer a new choice in camcorders this morning with this, Sony's XDCAM EX. This tapeless MPEG-2 recorder will snag images captured by a trio of half-inch imagers to a pair of Sony's (and Sandisk's) new SxS 16GB ExpressCard flash modules for up to 120 minutes of high-definition video. It's switchable between 1080/60i and 720/60P, and capable of recording at 1080/50i/30P/25P/24P and 720/50P. No official word on dates or pricing yet but they'll probably slip in around the time the SxS cards hit which is sometime "later in 2007." Picture of the SxS flash card after the break.

Sounds great, but RED, RED, RED!!!!!
 
Mpeg-2 is lame.

Get an HVX200. You won't be sorry. And if you are, you'll only be sorry for 8 months or so until Hydra comes out. Then you'll not only be happy, but probably just end up with a big RED mini or an SI-2k mini with more color and interchangable lenses with an M2, without having to work in cineform.

The best thing to do is to get ahold of any camera that strikes your fancy right now, then preview footage YOU shoot with it 1:1 pixel full frame rate, and run it through your intended workflow.

19138439830191280% of people who do this end up with an HVX. Fourteen thousand percent of people know that.
 
I haven't checked his numbers (and you know I will), but I'll say that he sounds just about dead-on.

e
 
A couple decades from now, filmmakers are going to look at the specs of the red camera and laugh. "HAHAHAHA, ONLY 4K!?!? Oh man, thank god for 37K."
 
No they are gonna say, Wow... ever i threw my old red inthe garbage, i went back to film, the workflow has been so much easier.....
 
i dont think film will ever be obsolete. it looks too good. Even if digital becomes AMAZING, and reaches the Dynamic range, res etc.... (RED2 maybe) it will just be a different tool. Digital looks Smooth and clean. Film looks organic and imperfect. Its two different things. I think RED will cause a sea change in the commercial / Music video/ industrial video world. High quality low cost, super glossy and clean. But i feel like feature films will most likely stay shot on a mix of the two. Nothing responds to light films does. Also the photo chemichal processes like, REAL bleach bypassing, flashing, etc.... provide a look that digital enhancement in post, never quite mimic perfectly. Though the digital Color correction, has its own look. Top level DP's choose processes, based on the final look. Thats why they shoot some scenes, with a F900 and another scene with S8mm, then the final scene in Vision2 film stock. its not because the film was too expensive, but because he wanted the specific looks these tools, could provide. Everythign looks different.
 
What drives me a little crazy are the people calling for films demise like a pack of witch burners. Yes film is expensive to shoot, but it's friggin gorgeous and a totally different aesthetic than digital. It's not always a good thing to go for a totally clean image, and the people who say you can replicate films look in post are wrong. You can tell it's different, it's just not the same feel.

I cross processed reversal film last week and also shot tungsten film with an 85 filter as well. Both are different looks, and film is great because it's a lot like cooking. There isn't one perfect exposure, it's about feel and mood. And you don't get that same feel and mood color correcting in post. Trust me...you don't.

EDIT: I think of the film/digital argument like the DVX/XL2 argument of yore. The DVX was inherently noisier, but that noise was akin to film grain, it was organic and imperfect, and that clean XL2 image just screamed video. Both are different looks, and it's all about what you're going for. Sometimes a perfectly grainless image is a good choice, but think of what Saving Private Ryan would be like without that grain.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
What drives me a little crazy are the people calling for films demise like a pack of witch burners. Yes film is expensive to shoot, but it's friggin gorgeous and a totally different aesthetic than digital. It's not always a good thing to go for a totally clean image, and the people who say you can replicate films look in post are wrong. You can tell it's different, it's just not the same feel.

I cross processed reversal film last week and also shot tungsten film with an 85 filter as well. Both are different looks, and film is great because it's a lot like cooking. There isn't one perfect exposure, it's about feel and mood. And you don't get that same feel and mood color correcting in post. Trust me...you don't.

EDIT: I think of the film/digital argument like the DVX/XL2 argument of yore. The DVX was inherently noisier, but that noise was akin to film grain, it was organic and imperfect, and that clean XL2 image just screamed video. Both are different looks, and it's all about what you're going for. Sometimes a perfectly grainless image is a good choice, but think of what Saving Private Ryan would be like without that grain.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. There is room for both. I am going to go out on a limb here, but I believe we need to stop trying to compete with film, and just do what we do. I can respect the effort in trying to mimic film looks and what have you, but in that effort we have stumbled upon a great look and techniq in itself. Hollywood was founded on the principle of capturing the imagination of its consumers with fantacy, mystery, adventure and you get the point. Digital film maker have that same ability today in the confort of our own basements. I feel that we tend to waste too much time arguing over the tired debate of is film better than digital. I truely believe we're comparing apples to oranges in many respects.

Just my opinion.
 
Barry_Green said:
They mentioned that they'd be making a mini camera. As far as I know, it's totally unsubstantiated that it'd be 2k or $5,000 or $7,000. No mention of price, no mention of features, no mention of any details whatsoever. I nagged them incessantly for details, and the closest they'd come is to say "look, we'd be the ones making it, so that should tell you everything you need to know, okay?"
Click to expand...
In one of the other threads you mentioned that you didn't understand why everyone jumps all over a new product just as its getting launched, could it be because of answers like this - "the closest they'd come is to say "look, we'd be the ones making it, so that should tell you everything you need to know, okay?"

Its that kind of arrogance from the very beginning that leads them believing their own hype and customers being incredulous about their products.

Sorry I forgot to enter the debate about film vs video -- film sucks, video rules!
 
Well, we've gotten very amped about pre-release products before, but it seems like we're in a different time now. Before, we got all ga-ga over the DVX because it brought something unprecedented to the table -- 24P acquisition. Then we went rather nutso over the HVX because it's full-fledged DVCPRO-HD at 4:2:2. We've crossed the threshhold to "good enough for theatrical release" from many manufacturers and many products -- even a little HV20 might hold up fine on a film print! So I guess I'm saying that there's no longer a need to get all googly-eyed about unannounced (or barely-announced) products, since the existing tools are soooooooooooooooooooooo much better than they ever used to be. Standard-def DVX films have been nominated for back-to-back Oscars, there are shots from the HVX in two of the "Best Picture" nominees (including the winner!) so... I know we like talking tech, but when a product like the XDCAM EX is 8 months away, and the Red MiniCam hasn't even been given a timetable yet, I just think it's okay if we put those on a bit of a back-burner and talk about what we're doing now with what we've got now, right?

I'm amped about the new product introductions, but frankly there's work to be done, and today's tools are plenty good enough to get that work done until the new ones are at least closer to reality and we know what their new/better features will actually mean to us, as to what we can do that we couldn't do before, y'know? And today's tools are so ridiculously cheap that it seems like a no-brainer: buy what you need today, make your money off it now, and when/if something better comes along, just sell and upgrade to the next newest/best thing if it offers you some benefits you need.

(and btw, I don't think Red came across as "arrogant" when they gave that answer; they were seriously bound to not disclose anything, so they were trying to give me a wink and a nudge to say "we know what you want, and we're gonna give you that").
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
(and btw, I don't think Red came across as "arrogant" when they gave that answer; they were seriously bound to not disclose anything, so they were trying to give me a wink and a nudge to say "we know what you want, and we're gonna give you that").
Click to expand...
That's fair enough. But that is why I said if they can't really talk about it, then they can avoid the entire problem by not making any sort of announcement.

I realize this is a camera forum but I think a more productive conversation would be about what tools are available to effectively post produce images regardless of whether their HD or 4K.

As you mentioned, there's been a huge spike in camera development that the post production side has not really kept up with.
 
ChuckS said:
That's fair enough. But that is why I said if they can't really talk about it, then they can avoid the entire problem by not making any sort of announcement.

I realize this is a camera forum but I think a more productive conversation would be about what tools are available to effectively post produce images regardless of whether their HD or 4K.

As you mentioned, there's been a huge spike in camera development that the post production side has not really kept up with.
Click to expand...


Soooooo.....editing 4k footage in FCS2 is an example of the post side "not keeping up"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top