Mr. J, any chance of a non-4k Red?

Zig_Zigman

Zig_Zigman

Well-known member
Don't know if you feel compelled to answer, but since no one on this board could probably afford to edit uncompressed 4k video, is there a chance that different versions of Red might come down the pike?

4k Red 4:4:4: RAW - "The Hollywood"
2k Red - 1980 by 1020 4:2:2 - "The Sundance"
1080p 4:2:2 - pistol handheld only (no rails) "The Guerilla Doc"
720p - "The Porn Guy"

Just kidding on that last one. Kind of.
 
Zig your question is answered on the red website and in numerous posts here on this and other boards.

The RED ONE, will deliver all common resolutions from SD to 4K, shoot what you like, if you want 720p, you got it!
 
Eirik, Zig is probably implying with his question that a 2K-Red would cost less than a 4K. So I think the question is valid - what about all the guys who are interested in a $8k 16mm-digital-film cam?

If there is one planned, I'm not sure Red&Jim would talk about it now, though: it would detract buyers from red1. Just my 2 cents.
 
I wonder how much cheaper a 2K camera would be in terms of real material costs. You could see the traditional camera vendors offering 2K and 4K models at wildly different prices to maintain market segmentation even if they cost about the same to make, but RED doesn't strike me as being very likely to play that kind of game.

It's possible the manufacturing costs wouldn't be all that different, and it wouldn't really be worth it for RED to bother with a 2K camera. I mean, who would buy it if it was only, say, $2500 cheaper than the 4K model? Probably not enough people to pay back the costs of designing a 2K sensor, a new body, a second set of lenses (since the 2K sensor would presumably be s16-sized), etc.
 
I would suspect that the profitability of such a camera would not warrant it's development. There is just too much competition in that price range. HVX, H1, V1 and A1 to name a few. Granted those are all 1/3" chip cameras but they will still draw many sales away from a "Baby" Red that had essentially a 2/3" or S16mm chip. It's the 35mm chip in Red that is really differentiating it.
That and the Redcode RAW workflow.
A smaller chip Red would also not cost $8000, because it's not nessesarily the chip that's costing all that money, it's the processors, data management and R&D that have set the price point. My best guess is the savings that could be extracted would be $6000 or a sale price of $11,500. For that much i'd tighten my belt and buy Red1.
 
It has been stated earlier that they will not "remove features to make it cheaper" as the development costs are about the same for a full featured and a low fetured camera.

Gunleik
 
I agree with Chris and Evan. However, I think we have been conditioned to a degree to expect different "models" at different price points, and thus I can hardly blame the original poster either. Take a look at the new XDCAM HD cameras - they're identical except the one that shoots variable framerates costs $9,000 more. $9,000 for a software tweak? It's pretty insulting. Even consumer products see this kind of trend - the black version of the MacBook carries a $200 premium over it's white-colored counterpart. What does the extra cash get you? Nothing but a whopping 20GB of extra hard drive space (oh yeah, and that nifty black paint!).

I think the importance of RED has just as much to do with the way they're running their business as it does with the quality of their camera. Zig, think of it this way - what if they had announced two versions of their camera - a 2K model for $17,500 and a 4K version for $25,000. People would probably still be tickled with what they'd be offering. Instead of playing games, though, they're giving us everything in one package for a heck of a deal. And while I do realize that this deal is still out of the reach of many people who would like to get their hands on it, it's a fraction of anything else even remotely comparable.

If it's too rich for your blood, hang in there. Technology always comes down in price over time and I have the feeling that RED is going to create some waves.
 
Here's what Jim said in his interview with Steve Gibby...

STEVE: "Which raises the observation that the camera hasn’t been dummied down or disabled from any functions. The camera box itself seems to be capable of everything, rather than having strata or levels of camera that do this, this, this, and this, RED’s approach seems to be to not dumb down the camera, but make it capable, depending on the accessories that users put on it. Correct?"

Jannard: "That is correct. We’re not trying to create a pricing program with different tiers for different capabilities. Quite frankly, the cost to manufacture this is about the same whether its dummied down or fully feature-enabled, so it seemed artificial for us to try and package different price point cameras just by disabling features."

I just love Jims way of looking at things.
 
While I totally love what the RED team is doing and love the philosophy of not dumbing down the camera, I think there is a difference between dumbing down a camera and releasing a different camera that fits a different market segment. And I think that's what the first poster is asking about.

Personally I don't really care for any of the cameras in the prosumer price range right now. They are usable but not wonderful. Either they have fixed lenses, small dials, cheap plastic parts or complete logic flaws when it comes to usability.
I'd love to see a little 1/3 inch super-8 style pistol grip camera with big dials, made of aluminum with a c-mount lens mount or something nice and open like that where you can find a lot of cheap used lenses on ebay. Even if just a 720p camera that did it right with good color. A new icon camera for cheap indie cinema. A modern day digital super 8 camera.

Ah well. Maybe in the future.
For now I'm glad to see RED doing what they do. I know it's not about building the next DVX/HVX replacement for those of us on the low end. I know it's more about building the industry shaking camera for the high end at a lower price. Maybe not something that will affect me but I see the good in it either way and I'm glad it's coming.
 
roxics said:
While I totally love what the RED team is doing and love the philosophy of not dumbing down the camera, I think there is a difference between dumbing down a camera and releasing a different camera that fits a different market segment. And I think that's what the first poster is asking about.
Click to expand...

I thought and still believe that Jim has stated the cost of a 1080P or 2k sensor/ camera would be about the same as the Red One. I may be wrong, but I could swear I read post by Jim stating just that. Rather than spend hours trying to find that post, I just went to Steve's interview for convenience. If I am wrong, my apologies.

roxics said:
I know it's not about building the next DVX/HVX replacement for those of us on the low end. I know it's more about building the industry shaking camera for the high end at a lower price. Maybe not something that will affect me but I see the good in it either way and I'm glad it's coming.
Click to expand...

I think it's going to have a very positive affect for everyone. We all know as technology progresses, it brings improvements and better pricing. I believe the price point for the new 1080P cameras of the near future are going to be a bargain by todays standards. Yes, it would happen eventually. But thanks to Red, I believe it will happen much, much sooner.

That said, I too am really looking forward to all the cool smaller cameras we will be seeing, and using in the future. Amazing times, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top