Nikon to buy 100% of RED

Doug Bee said:
The Japanese camera model planning takes about three years.

If they decide to implement R3D TODAY then maybe three years from now you would see it.

Adobe havenât supported NRAW since it was introduced. Others have easily.
Click to expand...

3 years is not that long. But I think maybe the strategy starts to take shape if this is what they're planning. You add red code raw to Nikon cameras which elevates their status. You move red manufacturing to Thailand which trims costs. And maybe they release a Burano or fx6 competitor, ideally under the red brand name I think. But you give it Nikon Z Mount and autofocus as well as Ibis
 
Strangely enough I could see that as well.

Truth is, RED was a thorn in the backside that now goes away (or could) and it's business as usual.

Would be a shame but that's how life is.
 
It's absurd to me that Nikon would even bother doing this if they aren't planning something along the lines of what Abe mentioned.

As others have noted -- they acquired Mark Roberts Motion Control in 2016 and have essentially let them continue operating independently; while integrating that IP & expertise into Nikon branded product(s). That is what they will do with RED.

Nikon is finally reckoning with the reality that if you want to be a successful camera maker; you have to be all-in on video. Otherwise, why would new users buy into your system? With Sony & Canon; you can graduate to pro video bodies with native lenses and accessories you have been investing in. Z mount is a dead-end prior to acquiring a firm like RED. Nikon could never have been able to do that on their own. It's not just for REDCODE or to make a lawsuit go away.

Legitimate R5C II / FX3 II + FX6 II competitors are their immediate targets; and I bet they let RED cinema cameras alone for a couple years. Eventually those become Nikon RED starting with a Z-mount Burano competitor.


Announcement of acquisition of Mark Roberts Motion Control | News | Nikon About Us
 
Would also add that this could be a part of Nikon eliminating dependence on Sony for their most important sensors. There will be a lot more fab capacity in a few years, Intel has expressed interest in fabing image sensors. I could see them making the top end of Nikon (and now RED) sensors in the future.
 
Last edited:
Imagine if the stills cameras get to a point where they are bursting stills so well that not only are they saving as RAW stills but then a RAW video also gets saved after that is meant to be opened up in Photoshop or LR and edited with all of those insane controls those programs have.

I will have seen it all.
 
hojomo said:
Would also add that this could be a part of Nikon eliminating dependence on Sony for their most important sensors. There will be a lot more fab capacity in a few years, Intel has expressed interest in fabing image sensors. I could see them making the top end of Nikon (and now RED) sensors in the future.
Click to expand...
This is a misconception most cameras get their sensors from Sony then it's up to them to design the interface to it. Much like in the PC world there is Intel and AMD the rest is up to the OS and Application company to decide what they do with it. Many camera manufactures do not want to tell you where their sensor comes. Neither Nikon or RED make their own sensor.

I also don't know any technology that RED has that Nikon is looking to integrate into their camera and vise versa. Nikon already has internal Raw and no one is complaining that it isn't good enough and its not a reason people are holding off buying Nikon camera. I've heard RED's compressed raw is the best in the business but at the consumer hybrid level I don't think that's big concern. Many things that are found in hybrid cameras are not desired in cinema world. Take for instance image stabilization. RED hasn't put IS not because they can't understand the technology, rather it isn't a feature that cinema people desire. Even if there is a tech that could be brought over these are completely different architectures. It be difficult and expensive to integrate. So I think both lines will be kept separate.

The one thing that does make business sense is to change RED to z mount that way they can sell more lenses. But that's more beneficial to Nikon than existing RED users who will have past generation camera canon R mount and new cameras Z mount. While this might not be bad for current Nikon customers, how many of those people are looking to transition into cinema camera? People who are serious about cinema will not want to use z mount lenses for photography fly by wire with clicked aperture. Again I don't see a benefit for users who want to cross over.

I think people expectations for the merger are unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Imagine if the stills cameras get to a point where they are bursting stills so well that not only are they saving as RAW stills but then a RAW video also gets saved after that is meant to be opened up in Photoshop or LR and edited with all of those insane controls those programs have.

I will have seen it all.
Click to expand...

this is what d3 owners like Jannard (and me) wanted in the era of the d3 and ex1 (2007?)

this was “obvious” and one cannot patent “obvious” which is why the patent always confused me.
 
hojomo said:
It's absurd to me that Nikon would even bother doing this if they aren't planning something along the lines of what Abe mentioned.

As others have noted -- they acquired Mark Roberts Motion Control in 2016 and have essentially let them continue operating independently; while integrating that IP & expertise into Nikon branded product(s). That is what they will do with RED.

Nikon is finally reckoning with the reality that if you want to be a successful camera maker; you have to be all-in on video. Otherwise, why would new users buy into your system? With Sony & Canon; you can graduate to pro video bodies with native lenses and accessories you have been investing in. Z mount is a dead-end prior to acquiring a firm like RED. Nikon could never have been able to do that on their own. It's not just for REDCODE or to make a lawsuit go away.

Legitimate R5C II / FX3 II + FX6 II competitors are their immediate targets; and I bet they let RED cinema cameras alone for a couple years. Eventually those become Nikon RED starting with a Z-mount Burano competitor.


Announcement of acquisition of Mark Roberts Motion Control | News | Nikon About Us
Click to expand...

agreed. Right now zeds dead baby
 
morgan_moore said:
this is what d3 owners like Jannard (and me) wanted in the era of the d3 and ex1 (2007?)

this was “obvious” and one cannot patent “obvious” which is why the patent always confused me.
Click to expand...

It's like...25 years ago you have pretty good stills getting going and then so the cameras are getting better and the next logical move would be to make them improve video like that (at least at HD/2K) but then someone patents the technology/process.

I'm not against it because that's business, that's the USA, but it's like...we could have somewhat avoided 25 years of heavy compression and the excruciatingly slow improvements in bits, color and resolution for video.

It's just so funny how life is...photos were pretty good but the consumer/prosumer non-film video was so poor for so long and so much history was captured like that (which maybe in a way is beautiful).
 
I had 16bit phase one on hasselblad h1 and my ex1

The difference was baffling.

i bought a d90 on release week and attached my 50-1.4

i new ex1 was not giving me the file or look i wanted.

i wanred 24 nefs a second. As did the owner of oakley!
 
Nikon are a much larger company than RED.

They do not need any help designing cameras or sensors from RED and then having Sony semi or whomever manufacture them to their specifications. Nikon have been in business for more than 100 years.

RED do not make their own sensors.

Neither do Arri.

They do need compressed raw to be able to continue to sell cameras that are already shipped and announced as having internal raw. So there is that.

They would love to control who else is using internal compressed raw, especially their other Japanese competitors.

RED is a tiny tiny tiny market. There are maybe total 20 000 RED cameras out there. For all the time they have existed. That is a pitifully small number of units for a company like Nikon.

Having a few Z mounts on red cameras does not drive lens sales in volume.

This is a strategic purchase for control of IP.

What I find amusing is to reflect on all the revolutionary communist branding of RED as a nod to this power to the people make cinema cameras accessible and overthrow the overlords of cinema by upending norms. But it was a lie. A marketing hype sold by a billionaire who started a camera company for fun.

In reality they are more thin skinned camera fascists that do not truck with criticism and arguably never delivered on their original promise. Komodo was the closest they got to their original promise.

At best they introduced the idea of the metaphor of RAW video when that was not a thing.

REDCODE was their greatest achievement, not a camera.

And that is what Nikon paid for.
 
The hardcore RED loyalty was very yesteryear, 2014-ish, and that kind of extreme support exists everywhere (humans being humans, I see it in other hobbies) - but RED was the first to make cinema cameras accessible, just not at the promised price.

Cameras like the F55, Alexa, C300 didn't start shipping until a few years later and until then you had no other choice besides a shoulder camera or film.

So just by definition, people had access to purchasing a digital cinema camera when there was nothing else (at least affordable for most).
 
Run&Gun said:
Not exactly apples-to-apples, but I bought two more 2nd gen P2 Vari’s last year(I own 4, now) and one of my best friends picked up another one, too. We’ve had such a resurgence with them for our broadcast/network work and they are so cheap on the used market…. We are regularly doing 2-6/7 camera shows for a network client with them. And even though they came out ~16 years ago in 2008(!), they still produce images that are beautiful even in the context of today.
Click to expand...

I can't find the article, but last year or so some blogger wrote about using a 20-year old Leica digital camera. The results were beautiful. Cameras have come a long way since then in terms of sensitivity (although the biggest difference in this case was boot time, frame rate, autofocus speed). But in terms of color quality and look, cameras today aren't necessarily any prettier than they were 15 years ago.
 
ahalpert said:
I can't find the article, but last year or so some blogger wrote about using a 20-year old Leica digital camera. The results were beautiful. Cameras have come a long way since then in terms of sensitivity (although the biggest difference in this case was boot time, frame rate, autofocus speed). But in terms of color quality and look, cameras today aren't necessarily any prettier than they were 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

20 years ago it was probably a CCD sensor rather than CMOS, not sure. I have a nearly 20 year old Imacon back that became Hasselblads backs. It is a CCD sensor and has perfect 16bit colour as far as I am concerned. But, you can't really go above it's base 50 ISO without horrible noise. Mine lives on a Mamiya RB67. I cannot bear to part with it. 22mp.
 
Doug Bee said:
.

This is a strategic purchase for control of IP.

What I find amusing is to reflect on all the revolutionary communist branding of RED as a nod to this power to the people make cinema cameras accessible and overthrow the overlords of cinema by upending norms. But it was a lie. A marketing hype sold by a billionaire who started a camera company for fun.

In reality they are more thin skinned camera fascists that do not truck with criticism and arguably never delivered on their original promise. Komodo was the closest they got to their original promise.

At best they introduced the idea of the metaphor of RAW video when that was not a thing.

REDCODE was their greatest achievement, not a camera.

And that is what Nikon paid for.
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting take. I subscribe to the theory that the Japanese manufacturers are in collusion, so I don't know if I buy that they want to keep their Japanese competitors at bay. But I guess we'll see. Maybe DJI is the target. Or maybe Nikon is destined for bankruptcy and it's a big money laundering scheme and when they go into liquidation they'll sell the IP to Canon/Sony at a steep discount.

Regarding RED, I can't remember who called them a lifestyle brand but it's absolutely true.

Eoshd has an article pondering why Atomos is so excited about the RED acquisition. A couple notes on RED'S pattern of bullying and litigation:

they forced me into signing a non-disparagement agreement with RED over a satirical blog post. Groundless legal bullying. Can I now go to Nikon, and ask for this to be cancelled? Should I sue for compensation? I really am considering getting in touch with the Japanese...

I think they owe Bruce at Jinni.tech compensation for the destruction of his business.
Click to expand...

https://www.eoshd.com/news/whats-behind-atomos-excitement-at-nikon-red-deal-as-ex-ceo-returns/
 
Yeah, from a business perspective it would be reckless for the Japanese to truly compete with each other.

They run the overall camera world (regardless of ARRI) and every country in such a position would have the companies work together to control the power and boost the economy.

You can and should pretend competition, but everyone has to be on the same page and play nicely.
 
And that also doesn't mean they didn't make miscalculations or mistakes which had tremendous impacts - because they sure did.
 
NorBro said:
The hardcore RED loyalty was very yesteryear, 2014-ish, and that kind of extreme support exists everywhere (humans being humans, I see it in other hobbies) - but RED was the first to make cinema cameras accessible, just not at the promised price.

Cameras like the F55, Alexa, C300 didn't start shipping until a few years later and until then you had no other choice besides a shoulder camera or film.

So just by definition, people had access to purchasing a digital cinema camera when there was nothing else (at least affordable for most).
Click to expand...

I guess it depends how you define "cinema camera". If 35mm sensor, then yes. Prior to RED people shooting on a budget were working in DV and HDV (the original focus of this site) with 1/3 and maybe 2/3 cameras if they could swing that. DoF adaptors were popular. Most early indie users of RED weren't shooting theatrical features, they were shooting the same kinds of projects they would have doing on HVX200's with Redrock Micros a year or two earlier--music videos, short films, web videos. The first project I tried out on the REDOne was set of promo videos that posted at 240p online (still only viewable as such).

I am of the mind that "democratizing" the purchase price of a 35mm sensor digital camera ultimately served to put new DP's in the position of having to own cameras just to get hired, and rarely compensated properly for said camera or their support gear, which was not a positive development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top