Convince me.

donkathon

donkathon

Carbonite Member
The RED is going for about 17k, right? So why not just buy a VariCam HD? Same price, and it has cinema-quality video. The way I read it, the RED will have the resolution to make IMAX movies look obsolete. Do you need that much resolution? And it being such a versatile camera, how are there going be buttons on the tiny RED?
 
random tidbit on IMAX - it is 70mm SIDEWAYS, so biggest possible frame - it is 70mm TALL of film. Talked to producers of a cowbody IMAX movie, they said they had to get 11K scans for IMAX stuff, and do it 3 times (vacuum back calibration problems), and it STILL wasn't as sharp as the source film.
 
The current price for a Varicam is $65,900. (click). That's without a viewfinder and without any kind of external monitor. Oh yeah, and it has a max resolution of 720p.

Now are you starting to understand why RED is so appealing?
 
But Varicam doesn't even have 720p resolution, which would be 1280x720. Varicam records 960x720, which isn't that much for HD camera. Then there's the DVCproHD codec, which while was state of the art when it came out, is now quite geriatric, and looks it, especially after post processing. That said, it's a great camera, and we have one in the office for comparative testing.

Graeme
 
Haakon said:
The current price for a Varicam is $65,900. (click). That's without a viewfinder and without any kind of external monitor. Oh yeah, and it has a max resolution of 720p.

Now are you starting to understand why RED is so appealing?
Click to expand...

No no no

I know a place in NYC that can give it too me online for 17K. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Everyone seems to agree that 4K (Maybe 5k) is about the same info you could scan out of a good 500 ISO 35mm film negative under ideal conditions. Although a chip should be cleaner.
 
My mistakes. I meant XDCAM HD. Oh, I really feel dumb right now.

Staying up until midnight will play with my head.
 
"Everyone seems to agree that 4K (Maybe 5k) is about the same info you could scan out of a good 500 ISO 35mm film negative"

i'll disagree ... and would compare 4k more to ASA 100 ( movie format 18x24 not 35mm still 24x36)
 
pto2212 said:
My mistakes. I meant XDCAM HD. Oh, I really feel dumb right now.
Click to expand...
That's even worse. While the retail price of a PDWF330 XDCAM HD is roughly the same price as RED (B&H sells it for $15,999 without lens), you get a 1/2" CCD, 1080-only camera with no variable framerates. Additionally, the XDCAM HD records in a less-than-mediocre 4:2:0 codec very similar to HDV that tops out at 35mbps, and has extremely limited ability to capture shallow DOF. Compare that to RED, which costs nearly the same amount but gives you a 4K+ sensor (with the option to lay down everything from 720p all the way up to full 4K), VFR up to 120 fps (!) in 2K windowed mode, a superior codec that can record in 4:4:4 at MUCH higher bitrates, and true S35mm DOF and field of view.

Trust me my friend, there's nothing else like it - and that's why more than a few of us are just a little excited.
 
Im excited for the RED, but-

17k is far from a 14year older with no greencard. Sure, I could get some money. But 17k is a year's budget for the kid at Taco Bell...

or an airline pilot at American Eagle Airlines.
Thank you Michael Moore for "Stupid White Men", my #1 Reccomended read.

About the red, you can just drop the entire thread. I didnt do enough research about it, so I guess I shouldnt have asked.
 
It's okay. :) And it's good to be asking questions and learning!

You're right, 17K is far from what a 14 year old kid can afford. But you weren't talking about affordability, you were asking for comparisons for it to other cameras. And XDCAM HD is far from what a 14 year old kid can afford too. :)

RED isn't going to be reachable by everyone (and to a degree, I think that's a good thing). But shooting 35mm isn't reachable to everyone, either. You start off small (whether it's DV or anything else), and work your way up. And by the time you're really serious about filmmaking, you've had some experience and you have a few pieces of work under your belt, you can take bigger steps and work with better equipment. Maybe that means renting the gear, not owning it. I've shot lots of film, but I don't own a film camera. The exciting thing about RED is that it seeks to level the playing field immensely - whereas shooting digitally was certainly an option before, in most cases people would still prefer to shoot 35mm if they could because of the quality differences that it offers (and even after RED's arrival, some still will). But now we have a digital option that very closely rivals what we can expect from shooting film and considering the workflow difference, that's a huge concept to behold! So all these things being said, RED may still be out of the reach of many people for now, but it has made a considerable difference for a lot of us. And eventually time will make even this technology cheaper and cheaper. The cool thing is that we're always progressing! By the time a 14 year old today turns 18 or even 21 and is finishing up college, who knows what we'll have at our disposal. But I give Jim and Co. major props for kicking the camera manufacturers in the butt and getting things going at the speed they ought to be going. A 1/2" XDCAM isn't a whole lot of progress from where I'm sitting. A 4K tapless solution that is modular and can grow with me? Now you're talking.
 
Has anyone pointed out whether the Red Camera is going to have the wide contrast range of film negative? I am curious about this because resolution is only one part of the film vs. dig. issue. Also, is it going to be as easy to light for as film? I'm just curious if anyone has heard.
 
Although I obviously haven't seen any images captured by RED yet, I think it's safe to say that RED won't quite match the dynamic range of high quality film stock. But capturing 12-bit RAW from the sensor you should have a lot more room to work with than we're used to when working with video. For instance you could probably underexpose RED One by one or even two stops, to preserve more detail in the highlights and still have a decent shadow detail. As long as you're capturing RAW of course.

I'm not sure what you mean by "as easy to light for as film"... How is film easy to light for?
 
"I think it's safe to say that RED won't quite match the dynamic range of high quality film stock"

i'm not so sure that it is "SAFE" ... all depends on control of that dynamic range ...
there is the dynamic range on the NEGATIVE .. and then there is the dynamic range of the release print ( which is less) ... the release print is what we see and that range i don't think is so SAFE from RED ... AND we'll see how/if safe in a month !!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top