Buy FS100 or Rent RED MX ?
- Thread starter vishy1983
- Start date
Do you have other projects lined up to shoot after this feature (for big screen I imagine it is a feature)? If no, then just rent a RED MX.
I own a FS100. It's a great camera, but not as much latitude as a RED MX. the MX is too heavy though under most configurations. Personally I would go lighter, more mobile.
Maybe the compromise for you might be an F3, but fully kitted that's more like $20K not including lenses.
I own a FS100. It's a great camera, but not as much latitude as a RED MX. the MX is too heavy though under most configurations. Personally I would go lighter, more mobile.
Maybe the compromise for you might be an F3, but fully kitted that's more like $20K not including lenses.
I don't think it's possible to accurately answer that question without knowing what your exact purpose is. If you're shooting a feature film- with something that approaches a real budget- then I'd say rent a RED MX.
The catch here is your definition of 'real budget.' For some people you need at least a million dollars. For some people you need at leat twntey million dollars. And for some people twenty thousand dollars is enough for a real film budget.
You will get better image quality with a RED MX. But post will be more expensive. Operating costs will- likely- be more expensive. And production gear will be more expensive from the standpoint that you can use lots of DSLR sized rigs (steady cam flyers and mini jib arms and such) that the REDs are just too big for.... unless of course you can get your hands on an Epic but that's a whole other ball of wax.
The catch here is your definition of 'real budget.' For some people you need at least a million dollars. For some people you need at leat twntey million dollars. And for some people twenty thousand dollars is enough for a real film budget.
You will get better image quality with a RED MX. But post will be more expensive. Operating costs will- likely- be more expensive. And production gear will be more expensive from the standpoint that you can use lots of DSLR sized rigs (steady cam flyers and mini jib arms and such) that the REDs are just too big for.... unless of course you can get your hands on an Epic but that's a whole other ball of wax.
I wouldn't worry too much about the resolution. It's about(?) 750 lines vertical. The Sony F35 resolves around 900 ~1000 lines, and it has shot many many hollywood features like TRON for example. 200 or so lines do make a difference, but more likely people will catch flaws in your lighting or story than any fine details missed by the difference in resolving power.
More worrisome than resolution is bit depth and the codec. I don't know how the codec would hold up on the big screen because I have never been part of a workflow that was shot on a highly compressed format and projected to a huge screen.
More worrisome than resolution is bit depth and the codec. I don't know how the codec would hold up on the big screen because I have never been part of a workflow that was shot on a highly compressed format and projected to a huge screen.
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
I just got my Sony FS 100 ... View attachment 36695 but I don't think it make me a Steven Spielberg
... I know very poor cinematography with RED ONE .. and very good with Canon T2i !! :grin:
cheezweezl
Veteran
FS100 should be awesome on the big screen. A feature I shot in '09 screened last year on one of the bigger screens at the Arclight in Hollywood. It was a shot on a EX1 with a Redrock M2e and had a little 7D mixed in here and there. Both cameras held up extremely well. I spent some time in the projection booth during our test screening during the day. At the Arclight, they have a giant projection room that serves all of the theaters on one floor. I was walking around looking at other movies playing at the same time. Most were film with a few digital here and there. Ours was digital. I'm not gonna say that ours was every bit as good as these big budget films, but there was very little to no difference, depending on which movies were being compared. One thing I did notice is how much softer film is than digital. I always felt this way, but to see them side by side, it's really noticeable.
Anyway, owning both the EX1 and the FS100, I can tell you that the footage looks very similar. The FS100 should project beautifully.
Anyway, owning both the EX1 and the FS100, I can tell you that the footage looks very similar. The FS100 should project beautifully.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Well, I disagree with you math a bit, but after you are done with this shoot, if you buy a FS100, you will have shot your project, and will own a very good camera. If you rent the Red MX, for more money, you will have shot you project and will then return the Red to rental house. Then for your next project, with the FS100 your camera costs will be $0.00, or you could rent another Red MX for another $15,000.00. I think you can buy a FS100, and get it up and running just fine for less than $10,000.00, depending on what gear you have now, and what you want in rigging.
Last edited:
Vishy the more important question is who's going to be shooting it?
nyvz
Veteran
I would say it is very difficult to compare buying to renting. When it is my money, I always buy if it is an asset that will most likely hold its value well over the period of time I will be using it. Assuming your numbers are correct, and your FS100 package is $10k and renting a complete REDMX package (with the same lenses?) is $15k. At the end of your project, if you bought a camera, you own an asset worth just under $10k and you could sell it for $8-9k and in the end you only spent $1-2k instead of giving $15k to a rental house. I would highly recommend that your decision be informed by the rest of your budget, your shooting style, any marketing concerns, and your story.
There are much bigger concerns that may significantly influence your project. The built RED will likely be >30lbs and produce ~120GB footage per hour or shooting, whereas the FS100 will likely be <10lbs and produce ~12GB of footage per hour of shooting. The RED will need battery changes every hour or so that require 3-4 min of downtime, the FS100 will run all day on one battery. Many of these factors will have an impact on the cost of tripods, jibs, steadicams, camera crew, and affect the speed at which your camera crew can work. Images from the REDMX look great, and if image resolution is of the greatest importance particularly if you are delivering in theaters in >HD, RED will probably be worth the money and effort. If you are considering dealing with buying equipment anyway, why not throw a little more money at it initially and buy a $30k red package and sell it for $25k when you are done? It's a lot more work, but if you are trying to maximize image quality and minimize costs...
There are much bigger concerns that may significantly influence your project. The built RED will likely be >30lbs and produce ~120GB footage per hour or shooting, whereas the FS100 will likely be <10lbs and produce ~12GB of footage per hour of shooting. The RED will need battery changes every hour or so that require 3-4 min of downtime, the FS100 will run all day on one battery. Many of these factors will have an impact on the cost of tripods, jibs, steadicams, camera crew, and affect the speed at which your camera crew can work. Images from the REDMX look great, and if image resolution is of the greatest importance particularly if you are delivering in theaters in >HD, RED will probably be worth the money and effort. If you are considering dealing with buying equipment anyway, why not throw a little more money at it initially and buy a $30k red package and sell it for $25k when you are done? It's a lot more work, but if you are trying to maximize image quality and minimize costs...
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
If you are aiming for the silverscreen you don´t want a PAL version, as it does not 24p. Also the 60p is nice to have for slow motion.
There is some rumors that the PAL version shout be upgradeable to 24p, b but in the moment ist´just a rumor.
I have the PAL FS100 and really wish I would have the US version.
Frank
There is some rumors that the PAL version shout be upgradeable to 24p, b but in the moment ist´just a rumor.
I have the PAL FS100 and really wish I would have the US version.
Frank
We just converted our 25fps PAL film to 24 with a slight slowdown. Worked very well. I don't really see a huge problem there.
Maarek;
I too had a similar decision, producers were OK with any of the choices, (renting RED or Alexa or buying a small camera) if i was comfortable and coinfident that we will get great images on screen.
My choice was driven by the script, and the scheduale.. the script is 70% night exteriors, and the sched has a 3 month break while an actor bulks up (he's currently losing 20Kilo for the first part of the film where he is sick)
I have chosen to go out on a limb and buy a pair of FS100's (Acam/Bcam) and the Sony/Zeiss stills zooms - 1 short zoom (16-35 t2.8), 2 midi zooms (24-70 t2.8 ), and a Nikon long zoom plus some misc primes and some day rentals of special glass like a 1200mm for one scene, and a pair of Nikon super wide zoom's for another scene.
Almost all of the film will be shot on the midi zooms tho
The camera gear budget is about the same by the time all is said and done, around 25K.. the crew is the same with any of the camera's looked at.. i tested the F3 (before 444 & Slog) and found very little between it and the FS100, i think if i re-tested with the current F3 might have tried to work the budget towards the F3
The huge ecnomic/artistic value is the low light capabilities, and the wonderful and dead cheap Zeiss zooms
The camera is going to produce wonderful low light images, of that i am sure, and i have the tests to show for it ;-)
d/
I too had a similar decision, producers were OK with any of the choices, (renting RED or Alexa or buying a small camera) if i was comfortable and coinfident that we will get great images on screen.
My choice was driven by the script, and the scheduale.. the script is 70% night exteriors, and the sched has a 3 month break while an actor bulks up (he's currently losing 20Kilo for the first part of the film where he is sick)
I have chosen to go out on a limb and buy a pair of FS100's (Acam/Bcam) and the Sony/Zeiss stills zooms - 1 short zoom (16-35 t2.8), 2 midi zooms (24-70 t2.8 ), and a Nikon long zoom plus some misc primes and some day rentals of special glass like a 1200mm for one scene, and a pair of Nikon super wide zoom's for another scene.
Almost all of the film will be shot on the midi zooms tho
The camera gear budget is about the same by the time all is said and done, around 25K.. the crew is the same with any of the camera's looked at.. i tested the F3 (before 444 & Slog) and found very little between it and the FS100, i think if i re-tested with the current F3 might have tried to work the budget towards the F3
The huge ecnomic/artistic value is the low light capabilities, and the wonderful and dead cheap Zeiss zooms
The camera is going to produce wonderful low light images, of that i am sure, and i have the tests to show for it ;-)
d/
Last edited: