Price...

I have a funny feeling, the camera itself is not going to be that expensive, but the peripherals are going to be what sepreates the boys from the men. (financially speaking) I dont think it will have its own recording system built in. he seemed to suggest it will be computer capture. Therefore, they dont have to worry about all that technology. they just have to focus on a Chip, a lens and a Digital Signal Processor.

That shouldnt really be too much.
 
From Jim:
I have seen many people speculate about the price of the RED camera. None are correct.
Click to expand...
From Jarred:
I think the current guess most people agree on is somewhere between 20k and 50k.
Click to expand...
I would have to conclude that 20k-50k is not it then.

ha ha...it's fun to speculate.
 
Actually if you want to talk about 8k, NHK broadcasting of Japan has already built a 32 megapixel 8k camera which is 7680 x 4320 pixels or 32 megapixels and has 16 HD-SDI outputs. Such footage has already been broadcasted uncompressed over fiber optic cable using a 16 wave multiplex. However the system is still experimental and is not ready for delivery yet. If you want to talk about 3D, holographic 8k video cameras have been proposed that have 20 layers of 32 megapixel video capture for a total of 640 megapixels. Since the Red codec uses about 10 megabits per secound of bandwidth for each megapixel a fiber optic cable that has a bandwidth of 6400 megabits per second or 6.4 gigabits per second is needed. If your office is wired with this much bandwidth you will not have to tear out the walls for another 20 years.
 
The red will cost i think more then $115000,-
it is the future cam for S.Spielberg and G.Lucas
Think, it is one of the furst 4k cams ever.
 
This is really going to be interesting, especially now that Silicon Imaging have announced there new camera.

If SI's ballpark prices are realistic, and Red are aiming to be a flexible and expandable system, we could see a 10K camera from Red with really basic options for us low end guys. Basically just a body with 4:2:2 only and we need to supply our own HD, EVF/Monitor and Lens (Hopefully with a 35mm SLR mount).

At least I'm pretty sure I'm not going to have DVX100B buyers remorse when i get my cam in a few days :)
 
As long as people are speculating, I think it's a given that the RED product will be at least $20k, body-only. And fully configured with lens, viewfinder, power supply, and everything else, a full-fledged production package will likely come in around $30k to $35k.

Still obscenely affordable for what it is. Half the price of the Varicam body-only, 1/3 the price of an F900 body-only.

If it's anywhere near the prices I just guessed at, then XDCAM-HD will be XD.O.A.-CAM (or, XDCAM-HD.O.A.?)

You're not gonna see a $5,000 RED. Not this year. Maybe five years from now, but not this year. But when you look at the $20k-$30k price bracket, that's where all the action is this year at NAB, and when you look at what's coming out in that price bracket (Thomson/Grass Valley Infinity, JVC GY-HD7000U, XDOA-CAM, HPC2000, etc), Red really could be a total revolutionary winner-take-all in that price bracket.
 
grapes are sour taste

grapes are sour taste

Thanx...

you know if the camera costs more than 20,000$...just forget about the camera..there is one more camera coming up with 2k from silicon and been exposing at NAB, and the price is below 20,000$. As an independent filmmaker i feel 2k is enough for digital editing, and that is also out of budget price, i know red might be giving 4k , if it is targeting indi film makers its price should be lower. if it is targeting high class budget films...no importance at all..already there are panavision, dalsa, and also from arri. digital..and one more to the list is RED.

"There is a story..once upon a time there used to be a fox. and it likes grapes..it usually goes to a farm and tries to get grapes..everytime the fox goes to farm it comes empty handed.because its not possible to the fox to grab the grapes which are on greater heights.. it tries to jump ..but cant make it...fox get wexed up and thinks...the grapes are sour taste."

First of all the fox shouldn't try for the grapes that are not possible to get.
secondly, its waste of time thinking about it.

Here what i mean to say is instead of spending a lot of money on production only on cameras to buy. its better to improvise the talent on story, music and screenplay under the budget of 20000$. After all "28 days later " is made with dv 720*480, which looked great on big screens where the camera cost only 3000 $, Till now is also inspirational.At the same price there are many hdv's are coming , with better resolutions and has 24p scan.Well who cares , its all the visual view that counts to make a good film.

What i feel from my point of view.If Camera prices exceeds $5000, then its very hard to make a budgeted film .So what i mean to say is better be in our financial budgets as low as possible and at times not to say "GRAPES ARE SOUR TASTE".

hail inde film makers.

vamshi
 
vamshi.. it makes perfect sense what you just said.. we all should be able to make oscar winning movies with a $400 handycam.

Problem is, well first that has never happened, but second, we all know the guy with the fastest car USUALLY wins the race.
 
People want this camera to be $5000 because that is something that people can afford to own. Personally, if this thing lives up to the expectation then it is really a Varicam killer. So even if it costs $20,000-$30,000 or even $40,000 fully outfitted, then it is taking out a camera that costs twice as much. That is a huge leap forward.

It would be like Farrari coming out with a new car at $50,000 that replaces the $100,000 model in style, function, speed, and use.

Or in simpler terms, it would be like Panasonic releasing a DVX100 that did all the things that the DVX did but shoot in HD, 16x9 native, and be customizable for $1500.

When you look at the market, true, it might be expensive, but look at what it has the potential to replace. That is a huge leap forward. I haven't really been paying a lot of attention to these threads because regardless if this camera comes in at $50,000 or $5,000 I am still happy with my DVX and it works great for me right now. The Red or the HVX will be a step for me in 2 years at the earliest, until then I just watch with a gear dork fascination.

-Jeremy
 
TheYankee said:
until then I just watch with a gear dork fascination.
Click to expand...
May I quote you on that? I love that line and fully intend to steal it for a story sometime...:thumbsup:
 
most of what you said isn't wrong, but if you think 28 days later looksed great on the big screen, i know a lot of ppl who would disagree with you.

C'mon, give me red for $400, you know you want to. lets make this happen! ;)
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
most of what you said isn't wrong, but if you think 28 days later looksed great on the big screen, i know a lot of ppl who would disagree with you.)
Click to expand...

I didnt think 28 days later looked that great on the small screen.
 
Jarred Land said:
I didnt think 28 days later looked that great on the small screen.
Click to expand...


That's funny...

The truth is you can make a movie on anything, but pure and simple, a better tool really does allow you to do more. You can't dispute that, right?

-Jeremy
 
true true...

admit it people. we're all addicted to digital cinema. seriously... this moment lasts only until it goes mainstream.
I'd rather shoot with RED than shoot with 35mm, why? because the thrill of achieving the look close to 35mm with something that isn't 35mm - and being able to show it off to people who have none. that's exciting.
on that note, 20k is too much. can we finance it?
 
TheYankee said:
Angels and demons... 2nd mortgage and Red or... well what's the alternative?

-Jeremy
Click to expand...

alternative? Red of course.

red%201.gif
 
Jarred Land said:
I didnt think 28 days later looked that great on the small screen.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I think people are right when they say the camera isn't the most important thing but anyone who thinks it's not important is dead wrong. It's a tool and one can do more with better tools. It's that simply.

For me, anything over 15k would put me out of the ballpark. I suppose I could always rent but we all know it's not the same. What makes the HVX200 and the other under-10k HD cameras so amazing is that we can now actually own HD cameras. We can take them home with us an experiment untill the cows come home. I've never felt really comfortible renting. I know I'll have to get used to it (and I have in film school since all my stuff comes from out equipment room) but it's not the same as owning a camera and I know really being able to own one would make all the diffference. Imagine if an artist had to rent his brushes.
 
when the camera is the price of a new sports car, its too much. I'm not saying tis not worth it, but if its $20,000 no one here can afford it and im not sure why Jim and Jarred would spend so much effort here, so lets hope that's wrong, even if it's silly.

i was more interested in 4:4:4 and veriable frame rates than 4k anyway. Any of the new HD camera have this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top