hpx vs. red - which one will win?
- Thread starter eddavid
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Different products aimed at different customers.
Mr. Blonde
RED Advocate
Apples & watermelons.
Flintstone
Well-known member
What about grapes and grapefruits? lol
Hydra 4:4:4 beats HPX500's 4:2:2..... but 2/3" beats 1/3" in many ways!
Solution? Get both! ;-)
Hydra 4:4:4 beats HPX500's 4:2:2..... but 2/3" beats 1/3" in many ways!
Solution? Get both! ;-)
Flintstone
Well-known member
Yeah! No kidding!JitCam said:
Of course, the HPX is cheap at $14K (body only), but you could easily spend as much for a lens. :beer:
Shiloh Arts
Well-known member
This is a silly dicussion altogether; just focus on generating quality content. 
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)dougster77
Active member
Lol, maybe the news and ENG needs to be more cinematic... It might make the Anna Nicole Smith story interesting....
evinsky
Well-known member
Despite all the flaping the Red really is in competition with the HPX. Most will not be able to afford both. The real difference is in the flexabiltiy of the Red, even if you never used the full imager or 4K you would still be able to buy a good cheap used 16mm zoom lens and have 2K RAW 4:4:4 data for the same price. The HPX500 is a wonderful camera but it's built on an aging paradigm. For some it certainly will pay the bills but it's not a camera to grow with. Now if it were the same price as the HVX we might be talking, some may say that's not reasonable, but the same people would have said Red was impossible for it's price. Welcome to the brave new world.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Evinsky,
I think this is a little naieve. I do not see that for the price of a cheap used 16mm lens and a Red that you are in the same place. You still need something that will record your signal. And the image starts with the lens. Is that something you want to cheap out on? Are 16mm lenses outside the laws of physics and therefore CA won't be a part of the picture in a cheap lens as it is migrated to a different type of imaging system(film vs sensor)?
The "aging paradigm" as you call it is actually a very useful paradigm, it is a self contained package that allows for a easy movement with access to controls in a manner that it can be virtually second nature. This is not something that you want to have go away. You don't want to have to be concentrating on where you are putting your hands and where the controls are, you want to be able to concentrate on the picture story. I wouldn't call it aging, I would call it tested, tried and true.
As far as growing with the HPX, I question that as well. It may not be a growth camera for you, but many it will cover them for the next 5-10 years, which by that time everyone will be delivering in HD, and not SD and HD. You can buy it with the CAC lenses, if you need to kick it up a notch you can rent a 35mm lens set up or a cine style lens or a $30,000 lens like the one we had on one of the cameras at NAB. Point is a one piece camera-recorder is not a dead or dying idea, it is a need for a good majority of people that shoot and produce program material.
Best regards,
Jan
I think this is a little naieve. I do not see that for the price of a cheap used 16mm lens and a Red that you are in the same place. You still need something that will record your signal. And the image starts with the lens. Is that something you want to cheap out on? Are 16mm lenses outside the laws of physics and therefore CA won't be a part of the picture in a cheap lens as it is migrated to a different type of imaging system(film vs sensor)?
The "aging paradigm" as you call it is actually a very useful paradigm, it is a self contained package that allows for a easy movement with access to controls in a manner that it can be virtually second nature. This is not something that you want to have go away. You don't want to have to be concentrating on where you are putting your hands and where the controls are, you want to be able to concentrate on the picture story. I wouldn't call it aging, I would call it tested, tried and true.
As far as growing with the HPX, I question that as well. It may not be a growth camera for you, but many it will cover them for the next 5-10 years, which by that time everyone will be delivering in HD, and not SD and HD. You can buy it with the CAC lenses, if you need to kick it up a notch you can rent a 35mm lens set up or a cine style lens or a $30,000 lens like the one we had on one of the cameras at NAB. Point is a one piece camera-recorder is not a dead or dying idea, it is a need for a good majority of people that shoot and produce program material.
Best regards,
Jan
smelni
Veteran
I agree with most of what Jan is saying. Having attended NAB I saw both cameras - and I saw the amazing footage that red showed.
However, I know exactly what I am getting with the HPX for 24,000 (camera, lens, batteries, cards) - and exactly how it will work. With Red, the 17,500 body will frankly i think cost closer to 30-35K when all is said and done to take advantage of it. And since it is on the bleeding edge there will be multitudes of workflow and user issues. i am not saying it isnt an amazing camera. But if I am spending a small fortune on a camera and want to sell the concept to clients I would prefer the predictability, supportability and usability of the HPX. This may change in a few years after RED is tried and proved. But it is not right now. The amazing footage by Peter Jackson - was done by someone with unlimited resources. That is not what most people have at their disposal.
I was one of the first HVX buyers in NYC - and there was plenty of growing and bleeding edge pains - but it was only a 10K investment so it was worth the risks. For 30K that risk becomes heavier.
Hence, I am getting an HPX. In a few years maybe a RED. But for now i think the HPX is the superior choice when all is taken into account.
just my 2 cents
However, I know exactly what I am getting with the HPX for 24,000 (camera, lens, batteries, cards) - and exactly how it will work. With Red, the 17,500 body will frankly i think cost closer to 30-35K when all is said and done to take advantage of it. And since it is on the bleeding edge there will be multitudes of workflow and user issues. i am not saying it isnt an amazing camera. But if I am spending a small fortune on a camera and want to sell the concept to clients I would prefer the predictability, supportability and usability of the HPX. This may change in a few years after RED is tried and proved. But it is not right now. The amazing footage by Peter Jackson - was done by someone with unlimited resources. That is not what most people have at their disposal.
I was one of the first HVX buyers in NYC - and there was plenty of growing and bleeding edge pains - but it was only a 10K investment so it was worth the risks. For 30K that risk becomes heavier.
Hence, I am getting an HPX. In a few years maybe a RED. But for now i think the HPX is the superior choice when all is taken into account.
just my 2 cents
The most important thing for me is a camera that works properly whenever and wherever it is required to. Being a brand new company, I can't assess how reliable any of Red's gear will be yet and have heard nothing about support in the UK.
Also, I think people are getting a little excited by the idea of 4K. Where and when is all this resolution going to be seen? Are they planning Imax releases for their indy films? I'm sure many will find a use for it - for example if you what to shoot hi res stock footage, but generally, the simplicity, track record and the fact it is actually a real camera I can buy today makes the HPX a lot more appealing.
If all I shot was single camera drama, I would hold out for Red to be released but for the wide range of work that I do, Red One would be a less convenient tool than the HPX.
Picture wise, I'm sure both would be beyond adequate.
Also, I think people are getting a little excited by the idea of 4K. Where and when is all this resolution going to be seen? Are they planning Imax releases for their indy films? I'm sure many will find a use for it - for example if you what to shoot hi res stock footage, but generally, the simplicity, track record and the fact it is actually a real camera I can buy today makes the HPX a lot more appealing.
If all I shot was single camera drama, I would hold out for Red to be released but for the wide range of work that I do, Red One would be a less convenient tool than the HPX.
Picture wise, I'm sure both would be beyond adequate.
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
Wow... someone else gets it... yes I've been feared of saying such things and being banned...
Please no nasty pm's either....
Once the Red hits the market and has proven itself... I think it'll be an awesome camera that will do some great things... in the hands of talented filmmakers...