RED Digital Cinema anounces small camera

What's really interesting is that while Movies overall lose money to video games and alternative media, everybody's sweating over the next 4k camera.

The youtube generation is growing FAST. Far more people watch youtube than PBS, and that is sad, but a reality. Podcasting... Blueray and HD DVD being the flops that they are, I think more people watch high def on their computers than anyone. That and cable TV.

So when are we going so see a Flash 9 camcorder?


So Barry really was right when he said that only the big boys will really be affected by RED, even though it seems to be a revolution for independant filmmakers. But with Sundance a Joke, (independant film? try cheap hollywood marketing for their "Smaller" films), and theaters being built about as often as a new nuclear power plant... what is this really all for?

I'm asking rhetorically because I personally believe, RED, hydra, si2k etc. are all super super awesome, with HVX being the awesomest because I own one :) haha

I guess what I'm leading up to is, would it suck if NAB 09 or even 08 rolled around with improved 4k cameras, other cams exceeding film quality for a fraction of the cost, and no one's around to watch any movies but the uber-Hollywood crap.... you know, the one's with Will Farrell in them?
 
You can't blame the Red team for all the fanboys.

Jim Jannard just followed through with the question alot of people were asking.
"If Canon, Nikon, etc. can put out hi-res still cameras for $1000 or so, why do motion picture cameras have to cost $150,000?"

I personally dislike all the fanboy vs. "anybody who didn't drink the coolaid" attacks.
But I completely understand the enthusiasm the low budget filmmakers have for this. Those who were stuck shooting their indie/festival film on DV now can at least buy or reasonably rent Red and push the "image quality" hurdle off their plate.

Unfortunately Red won't help those with no talent anyways, but here's to persuing the dream...
 
Hi all,
everyone just talkes about the camerabody. What about lenses. Word I heard from the NAB floor is that Peter J's film was shot with super-duper glass and not Red lenses. Anyone have any news on Red lens quality. Also, what type of filters (4x5.65 glass filters) was used on that shoot, if any? Other accessories used on that film? Wireless focuspullers, mattebox and so on?
Could someone elaborate on how much a "Peter Jackson Red System" would cost?

Interesting times we live in :-)

/Rob
 
Red lenses are professional cinematography lenses designed to take full advantage of our Mysterium sensor. They are ment to go blow for blow with the big boys.
E.
 
I believe they said PJ's film was shot with Cooke's and some other lens.

It was outrageously beautiful. Kudos to the Red Team for letting Peter Jackson play with your prototype cameras. So nice to see a short film and not just the typical test shots.

Evin--you did a great job demoing the Red workflow! Nice to see you again too.
 
How could a camera that when put together will cost more than 35K be for low budget filmmakers?

the prove is in creactivity. If you're a collector that loves to buy cameras or a rental house, then i could see this happening. But if you're a "low budget" director why dish out 35K or more?

You could give person "X" an HVX and person y"" a RED ONE but the person that comes on top in terms of filmmaking is the the best filmmaker not the one that holds the greatest and latest gadget. I'm talking story.

Plus, I'm a little taken by those that keep on promoting REd like it was a low budget camera. the thing costs, again, more than 35K.
17,500 only gives you the body with the processor. It doesn't even record for crise sake.

I'm looking forward in RENTING one. For now I rent and use my sweet ol HVX, which has won me some gusto.
 
Ey guys,

I keep hearing about Peter Jackson's extraordinary testshooting with the RED camera. I wonder where WE (non NAB attendants) can see this flick. I mean, if it was shown on NAB, it must be somewhere close. Any ideas, links, hints?

And for the general RED purpose discussion I simply want to add that 35k IS low budget. The rental price would even fit a no-budget project. And I think the reason why so many are excited is that so many believe they will soon get the dollar together to shoot the crazy way. Maybe many of them won't get there. But when you're shooting on the HVX, the RED isn't that far away anymore, and that's pretty exciting I'd say.
 
How would you expect to see it? It's at 4K resolution, projected from a 4K projector. That's the only way Red would be interested in exhibiting it, I'm sure -- I can't imagine they'd want to see it floating around on YouTube or whatever.
 
keep it moving Jay said:
Plus, I'm a little taken by those that keep on promoting REd like it was a low budget camera. the thing costs, again, more than 35K.
Click to expand...
4K for 35000 is low budget considering all the alternative options yielding the same quality.
But Low Budget is a type of production, you can shoot 35mm and still be Low Budget, you can have Tom Cruise in your movie and still be Low Budget...
Point is, if the RED holds up to its promises, you get amazing quality at a very low price tag, call it Low Budget or best bang for the buck or whatever you like...
 
Imho

Imho

I really believe that you need to look at the whole thing in context of what we know.

Apple announced support for RED in FCP 2 - it looks like there has been alot of collaboration. I am of the opinion that the user base will be mostly on the Apple platform.

Therefore it may be that RED are "REDdy" to deliver their product but this "partnership" is a key aspect of the business model since if they ship the camera without a strong platform to edit/ingest their product - there wil be a negative backlash.

Therefore I suspect the delivery of RED ONE will be very close to the FCP 2 availability and this would make perfect sense.

It is quite possible that RED is busy finishing assembly on the first 1000 units as we speak/argue/fight/debate about it.

The real test for this product is once it is in the hands of owners - will it meet expectations or at least provide a viable creative platform for the target market or is this product way of the mark in terms of build quality & reliability.
e.g. :
- Is the quality control/ build quality going to be high ?

- Is after sales service and warranty claims viable on an international scale or even in Northern America.

- Are replacement parts readily available or priced reasonable?

Going by Oakley's reputation I would say the warranty will be well serviced but let's face it things break/fail and need repair. Sony and Panasonic have built industry following on this in broadcast and film markets. RED is still unproven on this front regardless of how nice the 4k image looks in a controlled environment shot on a controlled set with lots of very experienced technical people under Peter J.

I want to see what RED can do in the hands of a young indie filmaker who is shooting on a budget with no frills support by the seat of his pants.............let's just hold our breathe a bit longer 2007 is going to be an awesome ride!!!!
 
Spartacus said:
4K for 35000 is low budget considering all the alternative options yielding the same quality.
But Low Budget is a type of production, you can shoot 35mm and still be Low Budget, you can have Tom Cruise in your movie and still be Low Budget...
Point is, if the RED holds up to its promises, you get amazing quality at a very low price tag, call it Low Budget or best bang for the buck or whatever you like...
Click to expand...

Your response is out of context. yes, i could make a low budget film, unlikely, on 35mm BUT i'm not buying a 35mm camera. I'm not trying to antagonize just going for a reality check.

for 35K

why don't you rent a viper, hvx as a secondary
spend a few thousand on lights and location
few more for misc.

shoot a short. enter festivals. get noticed. make another great short. then if you're persistant as hell get noticed and make money to make a hig budget film. then with the cash buy whatever you want.

this is just my opinion. just saying renting the red and shooting to get noticed is the way to go. UNLESS you're so good as a filmmaker that whatever you touch turns to gold. then by all means pt down the cash immediately.

make some great shorts with your hvx. you'll be surprised have much notariety you'll receive if done right.
 
Barry_Green said:
How would you expect to see it? It's at 4K resolution, projected from a 4K projector. That's the only way Red would be interested in exhibiting it, I'm sure -- I can't imagine they'd want to see it floating around on YouTube or whatever.
Click to expand...

My guess is that most people, despite all of this chest thumping and hair splitting about tech stuff, want to see it because we like captivating footage that's shot well, and tells a story well. You know, good ol' fashioned good filmmaking. And experience says that Jackson can deliver that. That's why.
 
keep it moving Jay said:
for 35K

why don't you rent a viper, hvx as a secondary
spend a few thousand on lights and location
few more for misc.

shoot a short. enter festivals. get noticed. make another great short. then if you're persistant as hell get noticed and make money to make a hig budget film. then with the cash buy whatever you want.
Click to expand...

You could do that. And you could also just buy a RED and make a film with what you have.

But I think a lot of the people who are buying RED ONE's actually have more money than thirty five thousand. That's why they can afford lights (maybe they already have them) or a location.

It's the futureproofing of 4K, REDCODE RAW, Mysterium and so on.
 
snowleopard said:
My guess is that most people, despite all of this chest thumping and hair splitting about tech stuff, want to see it because we like captivating footage that's shot well, and tells a story well. You know, good ol' fashioned good filmmaking. And experience says that Jackson can deliver that. That's why.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not what it was made for, nor is it what Red would be interested in showing. Think about it -- if it's put on YouTube, how many people would say "phsaw -- I've seen stuff from my PD150 that looks better than that." So it's not gonna happen, voluntarily. It's a marketing tool. I'd wager that they'll gladly show it around the world at Red exhibitions and shows, but until there's a way to make for practical 4K distribution (or at least 1080p distribution) you're not gonna have a way to see it.
 
I'm still having a good laugh looking at the pricing rationalizations... 35K for Red Kit... assuming you have something other than a DV tripod, a swing away mattebox, follow focus, batteries, chargers, cases, oh yeah some lenses too. A set of Red primes list for more than the camera last I checked.


Assuming you have that stuff, Maybe 35 K works, but what about after you factor in the the accessories that you need but can't transfer from your DV camera kit.
 
"you can have Tom Cruise in your movie and still be Low Budget..."

Not sure if I would want Tom in my movie... LOL! Kidding. I couldn't resist.
 
whachusay said:
"you can have Tom Cruise in your movie and still be Low Budget..."

Not sure if I would want Tom in my movie... LOL! Kidding. I couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

I would take him... even if he isn't my favorite actor... if only 20% of his fans go to your film that might make it win at the box office... plus all the free press "TOM CRUISE DOES LOW BUDGET MOVIE."

On a funny note... a producer friend did send me a script that someone sent her... the writer had a cameo for Tom Cruise to play himself... the writer said it was no problem getting him because he was his cousin...

My producer friend and I read the script and both said even if this guy was Tom Cruise's cousin there is no way he'd to the film... because the script wasn't that good... it was still a rough draft...

The guy never called back my producer friend... after we asked him to show us the money... gee no pun there... even though that's a famous line from a Tom Cruise movie...
 
Barry_Green said:
if it's put on YouTube
Click to expand...
I think it's funny that you jump from 4K to YouTube. The internet is a big place, I'm 100% sure there's someone able to upload a 1080 version to the internet somewhere.

Yeah, it would be awesome to see at 4K, but I certainly don't know anyone with a 4k projector. It'd be awesome to see even at DVD quality! It would be awesome to see for any reason really, because it's footage from RED by Peter Jackson. You're acting like the only way to watch it is 4k, but it'll be a while before that's commonly used, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top