The RED full-meal-deal?

[Chris Kenny]

Your "short" list doesn't include many basic needs for any professional.

Viewfinder and lens control for one.

The lenses you talk about do not have the needed controls for focus and zoom which raise the price up very quickly. Four K shot through cheap lenses is no different than HD shot through cheap lenses. You lose quality before it even gets to the recording device. A basic HD lens costs upwards of fifteen grand! You speak of still lenses as if they will do the job when the truth is they fall way short.

This is pure nonsense. Anyone who has ever used a good dSLR knows that even relatively cheap still lenses easily have the optical quality for 4K. Yes, they breathe. Yes, they're harder to focus. But the raw optical quality is there. 4K shot through a still lens isn't going to be blurry (assuming you focus correctly, of course), it isn't going to show horrible barrel distortion, or vignetting (still lenses cover an area larger than s35), or unacceptable chromatic aberrations. The lens doesn't care whether you're capturing a single frame through a dDSR or 120 frames a second through RED -- it still focuses light on the sensor just as well.

While cinema lenses do cost somewhat more to make, a very large part of the added expense is due to the fact that they sell in very small numbers. Someone mentioned in another thread a few weeks back that Cooke only sells 250 zooms a year (if I'm remembering correctly). Less than one a day!

There is no way this camera, ready to shoot, will sell for less than twenty grand. That is a pipe dream which will never come to reality. Raise your price to start up to the thirty or forty thousand dollar range, and that's still for "basic", then you will be dealing with reality.

You better add a quality monitor to your list of basic gear for this camera apart from any viewfinder. Again, the price for the needed monitor is not something you are going to find at Circuit City for a couple of hundred bucks.

$20K is probably too low. $24K, though, according to my research, is plausible.

Keep in mind, a lot of the people who are looking at cheap packages already have experience making movies with far greater constraints. Maybe a pro who typically works multimillion dollar movie shoots would have trouble using RED without a $60K cinema lens, an $8K tripod, a $6K remote follow focus, a $5K monitor in a light-sealed tent, a camera operator with a couple of assistants, a dolly, a crane, a steadicam rig, a quarter million watts worth of lights, a nice food spread nearby, and a PA to run to Starbucks.

On the other hand, I really don't think using a budget RED package will be quite so painful for the folks who've shot a movie on a DVX100 with a couple of friends as crew, with no external monitor, using a couple of worklights and a cheap tripod.

Dreams of cheap storage and editing devices also ignore the shear size of storage space needed to do any project.

$800 buys you enough hard drives to shoot a 120 minute feature in REDCODE RAW at a 7:1 or better shooting ratio. You'll need a bit more for proxies, your finished product, etc. but, well, hard drives are getting cheaper every day. And RED will offer recording options other than 4K.

 

[Gibby]

In any case, look -- yes Jim five months ago said "sure, ENG, everybody." But how many times has he said "things have changed"? How many times has he said "things are different"? How many times has he said "yeah, that was last month, wait till you see what we've gone and done now"?

Hmmm…if that’s your position, can you point us to any quotes by Jim since my interview with him that clearly infer that peripheral, non-digital cinema uses of RED have been eliminated from the design of RED One? You completely side stepped the facts I pointed out that RED’s Stuart English placed a post affirming EFP/ENG-style use of RED on this forum just 3 weeks ago (9/9), and that the current RED web site refers to users being able to accessorize RED One for “ENG style Use”. These aren’t “five months ago”, but rather in the last 3 weeks and currently in the case if the web site.

But the fact is that all the evidence points to this philosophy: they're making the best digital cinema camera they can (or anyone can). They are not making the best ENG camera they can. They are not making the best news camera they can.

Obviously the camera is pointed at the digital cinema industry, as I acknowledged in my post, but RED’s own statements, and their current web site verbiage affirm their intent for the camera to be easily accessorized for ENG-style use.

I don't expect Jim to come out here and say "now hold on a minute, of course you can't use this for news or for home movies." Why would he? Why would he turn away potential market?

OK…now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve acknowledged that there is potential market for RED One in non-digital cinema industries. As for Jim, he is very up front and to the point. I’ve known Jim since long before the formation of RED. You seem fond of lumping ENG-style shooters (sports, news, etc.) in with home movies into the “other guys” camp, in what reads as a Bourgeoisie (digital cinema) attitude toward the Proletariat (everyone else). I’ve never suggested RED for home movies, RED hasn’t suggested RED for home movies, and nobody else I can remember on this forum has suggested RED for home movies. It’s offensive to those of us professionals that include ENG-style production in our business model to be categorized in with the home movies shooters.

But look -- you could use an F900 for ENG if you wanted. I would call it massive overkill and a misuse of the basic purpose of the product (just like I'd say that using a school bus as your daily transportation would be massive overkill and a misuse of its basic purpose). Doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Sure you could drive a school bus to and from work every day, but that ain't what it's designed for, and that's most certainly not what it's optimized for.


Ever seen any Japanese-market made-for-TV movies? They're all 1080i. We on this side of the pond don't care for the look, but that's the way it is. And let's not forget that the leading digital cinema camera out right now, the F900, also does 1080i.

And why does the F900 include 1080i in its image formats? The same reason that RED One has – versatility in genre of production it can do. I don’t think your school bus analogy works for analyzing RED and F900. The F900, yes, because it is a large, unibody, camcorder that has use-limited, pre-planned form factor. RED is a 7lb body that is capable of being accessorized into whatever kind of vehicle you want to morph it into. The RED body is simply the engine – then you place the form factor of body you want around it for each particular driving situation you need. RED can be a sports car or a bus, in size, form factor, and because of the broad range of lens formats and image formats. Large, unibody camcorders like the Varicam and F900 are the ones stuck being buses, not RED.

Trying to be all-things-to-all-people is a recipe for business failure. I do not see RED failing. They're way too smart. They know exactly what they're doing, and how they're doing it. And who they're doing it for.

Hmmm…multi-use devices have historically sold well in many markets (SUVs, Swiss Army Knives, Leatherman multi-tools, etc.), and yet they won’t in the motion media business? There are certain functions every multi-tool does best, and RED will do digital cinema best – but like other multi-tools, it can be effectively used for multiple uses, thus maximizing the investment of the user. I agree. RED is smart. That is exactly why they have included such a broad range of lens and image formats in their spec sheet – so that the camera has the broadest use-base possible, not just digital cinema.

Look, I'm a defender of ENG/EFP/Wedding uses on this board; sometimes people really seem to think that the only purpose of a video camera is to shoot "movies". I am frequently the only voice out there saying "excuse me, but there are lots of very valid purposes for video cameras, and "movies" is only one of them, and probably the least financially rewarding."

I’m obviously a defender of those same issues…

But I'm saying that I don't think the RED is being optimized for other purposes. It is optimized to be a digital cinema camera. Regardless of what public figures say, just look at the product and realize that it is what it is.

I agree, and have stated such, that RED One is being optimized as a digital cinema camera. I have looked at the product and realized what it is: a 7lb body that has the lens formats and image formats included that enable it to be accessorized quickly into whatever kind of camera system you desire.

Now, with that said, will someone be able to shoot ENG on it if they really want to? Of course. Heck, news was shot on Filmo 16's for decades. Would anyone in their right mind reach first for a Filmo 16 to shoot news today? Of course not. It COULD be done, but there are other tools much better designed for the task.

I’ve said ENG-style, and the RED web site says “ENG style”. Both these references to ENG-style are referring to other genres of production than strictly ENG: sports, reality, certain documentaries, etc. In limiting it down to simply ENG, you’re obviously referring to electronic newsgathering. RED would obviously not be the best tool to use for newsgathering, but if a shooter did most of his shooting in cine-style and ENG-style genres, and occasionally had the need to string some footage for HDTV news, then RED in 1080i or 720p could be accessorized and used for that use. Nobody is going to buy a RED One just to shoot news, but some of use occasionally string for news, and as long as the camera can be quickly accessorized for such, and a delivery medium can be agreed on (inexpensive HDD, etc.), RED is flexible enough to be used for such.

Actions speak louder than words. Their words may say "sure you could use RED for home movies" but their actions are to eliminate auto-iris, eliminate auto-focus, and hone in with razor-sharp precision on the features that matter to cinema shooters. Appropriate for EFP? Of course; what is EFP anyway -- it's digital cinema on a budget! Appropriate for ENG? Maybe, but there are probably better tools for that. Appropriate for home movies? Heck, there are people who drive a Hummer as their daily car, so maybe they'll use a Red for home movies too.

When did RED of anyone else, including me, mention RED for “home movies”. Again, you seem fond of lumping all non-digital cinema shooters in with home movies shooters. An elitist position that cine-style shooters use razor-sharp precision, and ENG-style shooters are just auto-everything guys is insulting. In professional ENG-style work vast amounts of the shooting is done using manual iris (with zebra), and manual focus. Most 2/3” ENG-style zoom lenses, the mainstay of the professional ENG-style production industry, do not even have an auto-focus function. All focus is done manually, and racked continually in an ever-changing environment. Auto iris is generally only used for rapid light changing situations where manually racking the iris isn’t feasible or quick enough for the shots – period. So, if most ENG-style professional production is done with manual iris and manual focus, then traditional ENG-style shooters should readily adapt to shooting with an all-manual RED One, and RED is including an optional B4 mount precisely for that use. If they will include a power bus so that servo motors on ENG-style zooms can be powered that would complete the use needs. ENG-style (not ENG) and EFP and basically synonymous, so maybe we’re getting caught up in semantics here. If you agree that EFP is “digital cinema on a budget”, then we’ve found some common ground.

I'm not saying you can't use it any old way you want. But I am saying that any additional uses are not their main focus. And I'll continue to believe that until Jim Jannard himself makes some announcement or other to clarify the company position in some way other than what the obvious direction they're taking the product in dictates. Until then I'll continue to look at his actions -- choosing CML (the Cinematography Mailing List) and DVXUser (the #1 filmmaking site on the web) and sites like that as his chosen venues of interacting with people. Unless I'm mistaken, I doubt he's been hanging out on ENGNewsShooters.com or some other site. The guy is an artist who creates incredible images. He's designing a tool for artists who want to create incredible images.

Jim Jannard has already clarified RED’s position as a digital cinema camera that is easily adaptable and suitable for multiple other genres of production. So has Stuart English, and so has the RED web site. How much more clarification do your need? CML? Jim has stopped posting there and at cinematography.com. He has stated that because of time constraints he would only be posting on DVX User and DVi. DVX User members strictly “filmmakers” (film being an anachronism because almost nobody’s “films” every see film in their workflow or delivery)? I beg to differ. The DVX, HVX, and RED each have multiple non-“filmmaking” formats incorporated, and can/are used in scores of non-“filmmaking” productions. I think you’re fond of maintaining nice little divisions in the production world. “If I’m a filmmaker I surely can’t claim to be an ENG-style shooter. I’ve got to be one or the other”. I don’t agree with that “one or the other” or “us and them” philosophy. The DVX, HVX, RED, and most other modern cameras allow shooters to shoot in multiple genres of production. The cameras will, but biases and prejudices keep many shooters from expanding their skill sets. In short, the cameras enable a lot more genres of production than some peoples attitudes can cope with. I was recently contracted for work on a national TV program covering a sports event, where we used DVX 100Bs in 24p for all show inbumps, outbumps, interviews, talent, and creative lookback montages, and then shot 480i for all sports action sequences. I was constantly switching from cine-style to ENG-style camera work all weekend. The network specifically hired me because they knew my skill sets matched what the camera could do and what the show needed. The very next week I was using a Varicam on a pure cine-style production. The days of the mono-genre shooter are essentially numbered. Today’s shooters need to shift gears between cine-style and ENG-style on the fly, and their camera systems are being designed to facilitate that business model – and I do mean business model. You’re right, Jim Jannard is an artist. But he is also the Founder and Chairman of a company (Oakley) whose pedigree is in alternative sports. As such, Oakley has produced and sponsored vast amounts of cine-style and ENG-style sports production. Will RED and Oakley use the RED one to get images of their sports-oriented subjects, in digital cinema and ENG-style configurations? I’d say definitely. In your initial post that I took exception with you lumped “sports shooters” in with news and home video shooters. Well, Jim Jannard, James Masters, and others on the Oakley/RED staff are, among other genres, great sports shooters, and I’m sure they will be using RED One for some of that.

If someone wanted to buy a Dodge Viper to deliver pizzas with, I doubt anyone would stop 'em. Certainly not Dodge; if a buyer said "could I deliver pizzas in this car?" the salesman would say "of course you could." And you could. But that's not what it was designed for.

The Viper was designed with the Corvette squarely in its crosshairs, and to nip at the heels of the 911. I sincerely doubt that the Chevy Aveo (an ultimate pizza delivery car) was on the target design sheet.

All those cars have fixed body form factors that limit their functionality. If you’re going to use the time-worn auto analogy to analyze RED one, then you simply have to say that the small, 7lb RED One camera body is the “engine and drive train”, and that that it effectively drives whatever interchangeable body you place around it. Depending on what body (accessories/lens) you place around it, you can use it for whatever you need, and drive it however you want. When you want a Viper, you put a Viper body on it (accessories/lens). When you only need an Aveo, you only out an Aveo body on it (accessories/lens). But you always have the horsepower to drive whatever body you put on it. Therein is the true utility and scalability of the RED One camera system.

The Red One is designed to obliterate the Dalsa Origin, the Genesis, and the Viper. I sincerely doubt the DSR400 (an ENG camera through-and-through) was ever mentioned around the design/discussion roundtables.

Why stop with the Origin, Genesis, and Viper? How about the F950, F900, Varicam, and many others? A DSR400 maynot have been specifically mentioned around the design/discussion tables, but based on the statements of Jannard, English, the RED web site, and the inclusion of 1080i and 720p (and 480p) for output in the specs, its quite obvious that EFP and ENG-style use of RED One was anticipated and planned for.

(Continued on next post)

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

 

[Gibby]

Nobody's saying you won't find it useful. All I'm saying is that it's not aimed at ENG genres. If it was it'd at the bare minimum have auto-iris, auto white balance, auto level control, auto picture gain, a servo zoom rocker lens, and all the other accoutrements that make for a great ENG camera. It doesn't. Why? The answer's obvious.

I disagree, as I explained above. It is primarily aimed at digital cinema, with additional features and planning that are meant to enable ENG-style use. I’ve addressed your “auto-everything” assumptions for ENG-style work above. The auto functions you name are not essential to professional ENG-style work. If RED does not include a simple multi-pin power bus on the camera body to enable power to servo zoom motors, there are external power workarounds. They’ve stated that the histogram will be accurate and available for quick use in the viewfinder and screen. I’ve pleaded for the addition of a simply zebra also, but if it isn’t included, and their histogram works as stated, it should suffice for ENG-style work. 1080i and 720p and a 2/3” B4 mount have been included. Why? The answer’s obvious – to enable ENG-style production with RED One.

If you want to use it for whatever purpose, feel free. Go right ahead. But just like the XLH1 -- people want to think it was designed for indie filmmaking. That's about the last thing it was designed for. That thing is designed as a live feed news-studio camera, with HD-SDI, TC/IN and TC/OUT and GenLock. It's obvious what it's designed for. Pressing it into indie cinema circles and trying to record the HD-SDI output (which doesn't even have embedded audio or timecode, fer cryin' out loud) is certainly a stretch and is not what that camera was designed for. Put the XLH1 in a live switched HD-SDI news studio or game show or talk show, use the Console software to control it remotely including all sorts of remote CCU functions, and it'll shine. Put it in an indie filmmaking environment and you'll curse it more than praise it. It'd be a fish out of water. It could DO the job with its 1080/24F, but that ain't what it's made for, that's not where it shines.

The XLH1 is fairly versatile. Just last week I was DP for a national television series featuring professional golfing, and we used the XLH1. Was it the best camera for the job? No. Did it perform well? Yes. Did the 20x lens, with a 1.6x give us long focal length coverage down fairways? Yes. With an interchangeable wide-angle lens, would it have performed well for creative b-roll around the clubhouse and greens? Yes. Since you mentioned the XLH1 in hardlined use, how about RED? RED is projected to have the fiber and dual HD-SDI outs that would enable it’s use in hardlined production. Did the RED design team just happen to throw those features in for the fun of it? Obviously not. RED could be easily adapted for trucked shoots of network HDTV sports – the largest demand portion of HDTV programming. Hmmmm… so here we have a digital cinema camera with all the outputs, lens formats, and image formats that enable hardlined television production. Happenstance? No way. Just one more example of the RED One design team anticipating the multiple genres of production that the RED One camera can be easily and quickly adapted to.

I don't disagree. There are reasons the HVX shoots 60i and has a tape drive, even though the filmmaker guys here complain about it. There are reasons the DVX offered 60i. The non-cinema shooters are the guys making the bucks -- weddings, events, sports, VNR, etc.

Almost none of the “filmmaker” guys here are making films. Their entire workflow is video, but for some reason, even though they are using video technology with a century old frame rate (24p), they sometimes feel the need to display the traditional Bourgeoisie attitude of film establishment toward their supposedly Proletariat associates whose career path to convergence has come from the TV/video world. Wise shooters of this century, who are interested in succeeding fiscally, will leave the old divisions and prejudices of the past (film vs. TV/video) behind, and spread their skill sets and business offerings to match what their camera systems enable. If that involves swallowing their cine-centric pride, learning new skill sets, and “lowering” them selves to work in non-cinema projects, it is fiscal wisdom. In today’s competitive marketplace you can’t pay the bills and keep the lights on by maintaining a compartmentalized “I’m just a filmmaker” stance. DVX User as a board has now outgrown its “I’m and DVX user and I just do indie films” utilitarian value. Today’s members of DVX User have a much broader, multi-genre approach, as do the cameras represented on this board. Old attitudes are hard to let go of, but its for the good of this board and the convergent indystry as a whoel that we set aside the old divisions and head into this century with a “let’s work together and keep an open mind” attitude.

But RED isn't DESIGNED for that. It's designed for digital cinema. You can press it into those services if you want, but just because that's what you want it to be, that doesn't mean that that's what it *is*. Just look at what it is. The answer's obvious.

RED One is being designed for primary use as a digital cinema camera, but can be easily and effectively accessorized for a multitude of non-digital cinema uses – EFP, ENG-style, etc. I’m looking at what it is: a 7lb camera body with a broad range of image and lens formats, that enable it to be quickly changed into an effective camera for almost any kind of production genres in a convergent production world. That’s the obvious answer to me.

And hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But I'm not.

I think you are wrong, and I’ve illustrated my reasons for thinking that. It’s OK to be wrong. When you drive into a dead end street, it’s a good idea to put it in reverse and get back onto the highway.

We’re longtime friends and I intend to maintain that friendship. Friends often disagree, discuss it, and move on. We’ve both stated our case. For the sake of this forum, perhaps it’s time to let this breath and move on.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

 

[AshG]

It doesnt matter who you are, someone will always come along and make something better and cheaper than you at some point.

You guys fighting over the mattebox being $200 are missing the point.. you need to compare a $1200 mattebox that lasts 200 uses to a $200 one that lasts 1200 uses.... yes wrong kinda.., but more along the lines of what Red is doing.

I agree with you... my point is that if RED does charge more for the cage, viewfinder, matte box, etc. than people are expecting or think they "should" then so what? I am sure, as with any new tech product, there will be a much higher margin with the "extras" And as with anything, if the price is indeed TOO high, it will come down to meet the market...



ash =o)

 

[Barry_Green]

"The profit-maximizing price for a product is not necessarily the highest price at which anyone is willing to buy one. If a product costs $50 to make, selling 500 units at $75 each puts you ahead of selling 200 units at $100 each"

Ah, but like everything, that depends. It depends on what the product is and what the seller's involvement needs to be.

I agree that if we're talking about a "box house" that just ships product and doesn't have to maintain and support it perpetually, then yes, volume trumps other concerns. If you can put up a sign that says "all sales are final", then sure that business model works.

But if there's intensive service and support involved, then discounting = a one-way trip to bankruptcyland. You're much better off with fewer customers who paid more, even if total revenues are less. Not just because of the numbers, but because of the nature of customers: cheap customers are almost always more hassle than expensive customers are. It's much better to have a few expensive customers who need little support than it is to have tens or hundreds of customers who are all complaining and clamoring for support that you can't afford to give them (because you sold the product cheaper).

 

[Haakon]

There is no way this camera, ready to shoot, will sell for less than twenty grand. That is a pipe dream which will never come to reality. Raise your price to start up to the thirty or forty thousand dollar range, and that's still for "basic", then you will be dealing with reality.

All I can say is that I completely disagree. And that's ok.

Ironically, on the last film I shot, I didn't use a viewfinder and I used Nikon still lenses (the very same ones I could use with RED, if I wanted) and I haven't had any complaints. Extra things are always nice to have, but they aren't mandatory. Much more important is the ability to tell a good story well, be it through a combination of skilled direction, lighting, and camerawork.

I also already own a Chrosziel mattebox, a set of rods, a Steadicam Flyer, and other accessories which will be applicable to RED, but aren't a cost of getting into any particular camera. As someone else already pointed out, you need a tripod whether you're shooting on a DVX or a Varicam. And fortunately, RED is also lightweight, so most of the equipment people already have (even for smaller cameras) will work just fine here. I maintain my stance - all that is essential to get into 4K shooting with RED is a lens and a recording device. The rest is frosting.

Incidentally, I am just starting to get things together for my next feature, which will shoot in mid-2007 and use RED, assuming it's ready. I will set the camera budget at $20,000. Come back next year and I'll let you know how my "pipe dream" works out.

 

[Barry_Green]

Steve, you have apparently completely missed the point, and are so set on proving your point that you don't even know where the discussion began. The discussion began because there was an assertion that other manufacturers were "raping" their customers by pricing their products at a certain level, and that Red was coming in at 1/4 to 1/7th the price.

I pointed out that Red is not just a philanthropic organization, but that they've made very specific design decisions which allow them to hit that price point. And that they've done so by focusing on the features that their target market needs.

Those other cameras feature things such as highly-accurate frame-discrete top-quality tape decks for longform recording; HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD decks sell for $25,000 to $50,000. Red One doesn't have one. That's a cost-saving move. Red One doesn't have three sensors, that is also a cost-saving move.

They were able to make those decisions, about what the minimum acceptable feature set would be, by clearly targeting who their customer was. The Red One body is not attempting to be all things to all people. Just look at it -- it's obvious what they've done and what they're attempting to do.

If you want to accessorize a Red One to be an ENG-style camera, you will be able to do so through adding a whole bunch of appropriate accessories. Nobody's disputing that. But the cost will no longer be $17,500. Add an HDCAM-SR deck on the back and guess what -- you're going to be a lot closer in price to the F950. Would that mean they were now "raping the customer"? I don't think so.

And that was the point. Streamlined functionality has allowed them to create a product that is ideally optimized for their target market, at an unheard-of price point. But this is not an act of philanthropy. This is not a case of a billionaire finding a new and creative way to give all his money away. This is not going to be a loss-leader. This is going to be a profitable business.

And something, somewhere, has got to give. And where it has given, in Red One's case, is that the existing unit is not designed to be all things to all people, at $17,500. It may be accessorized for more widespread use, surely. But it isn't going to cost $17,500 when configured for those other uses.

That is my point. I think it is absolutely correct, and like Tom Petty, I won't back down.

And you seem to really want to be "offended" or talk like what I'm suggesting is "offensive". If you want to talk about "offensive", I find terms such as "elitist", "proletariat", "bourgeousie", and the other inflammatory incendiary language you've been using to be offensive, combative, and completely unnecessary. I'm talking about allocation of dollars for resources on a strictly technical level, and you're taking things personally, trying to impugn my credibility, trying to paint me as some sort of elitist snob dictator or whatever else. I've never implied any such thing, and my use of "home movies" was an extremist exaggeration to stretch the concept of "one camera for all purposes" to its limits, to show the extreme in order to illustrate the point. It really sounds like you're having some other argument with someone else, and just chose me to lash out on. As I look through many of your statements out-of-sequence, I see that you're saying the same things I am in many cases. So why bring up flame-bait to make your point? Let's dispense with the incendiary language please.

The core of the discussion was (and is) this: Red is able to offer a digital cinema camera at $17,500 not because they are bad businessmen, not because they are philanthropists, and not because the other camera companies are rapists. It is because they have carefully optimized the design to meet the needs of their target market, eliminating expensive elements and streamlining their business model to serve the needs of that target market.

Nobody, anywhere, (and certainly not me!) has ever said you couldn't use (or accessorize) Red One for ENG or EFP or sports or news or studio configurations or event or convention coverage or any other valid image-gathering purpose. But I have said that out-of-the-box it is not designed for those purposes, and I believe you (and the Red website and Stuart English and Ted and Jim) would all agree that in order to make it appropriate for those uses it will need accessories.

And it is my humble guess that those accessories will not be free.

As an example: we laugh at the XDCAM-HD lineup (because it is, frankly, laughable, which is why the BBC took one look at it and said "no thanks"). $17,000 for a base-level 1/2" 1080i-only product? Same price as the Red? Is Sony "raping" their customer here? But look -- that thing includes an XDCAM-HD recording deck in it. What does that deck sell for separately? The cheapest XDCAM-HD playback-only deck is $10,000. Let's pull that deck out, the same way Red One comes without a deck, and the XDCAM-HD head is now $7,000. Not so ridiculous against the Red body-only of $17,500 all of a sudden.

That was my point.

So now it's your turn. What would a fully-ENG'd RED kit cost? What would it take to accessorize it so that it's capable of the multipurpose workhorse capabilities that you talk about? I would not be surprised, at all, to find the price doubling or tripling by the time it's fully kitted out to do the same job and same workflow as the others. It's business. Things cost money to make, and they cost money to support. Panasonic and Sony and Thomson and Ikegami spent their money making all-purpose tools; as a result they do things that digital cinema users will likely never even use. Red took a different tactic -- they designed and honed their camera to be the ultimate digital cinema camera and charge only for that. If you want to kit it out to be wide-ranging like the other guys default to, that's possible but it's not going to be free.

Of course, Red will be doing it at 4k and 2k and VFR, whereas Sony would do it with 1/2" interlaced CCDs @ 1080i (XDCAM-HD 350) and Panasonic would do it on 720/1080 DVCPRO-HD (HDX900), so Red would still have a big advantage. And Red will probably likely still maintain a cost advantage because (AFAIK) they're not going to have a dealer network, so that cuts out a big middleman. On the other hand, VariCam/CineAlta buyers have dealers like Abel ready and able (hah!) to stand behind them, whereas Red will have a central sales office, yes? Having a local dealer brings value to the customer, which is factored into the price tag. (And Jim has rightly discerned that most DVXUsers are willing to forego that value by buying over the Internet, buying HVXs from B&H etc, so why should he establish that dealer network and ask customers to pay that price?)

This discussion is not about, and has never been about, whether Steve Gibby can shoot ENG-style stuff on a Red. It's been about this: you don't get something for nothing. There is no free lunch. There is just the best possible, most optimized way to put your resources to work. Red has done that.

 

[Lensmith]

I love that people keep saying "the RED ONE will cost a lot more than $17,500 once you've bought all the lenses / tripods / lights / mics / filters / mattebox / follow focus / batteries / recording medium / cables / case / viewfinder / shoulder mount / steadycam, etc..."

How about a reality check: You'd have to buy all those accessories for ANY camera that's a step above a DVX100. Really. A SONY f350 XDCAM-HD body costs $25,000 without any accessories.

I completely agree with you with a only a few quibbles about a "shoulder mount" and viewfinder not being standard on most other high end cameras...but the main point is the same.

Red seems like a fine step ahead and I look forward to seeing it in action. However it seems the people who are the most excited are not the high end camera users but those who are in the DVX-100 crowd. Many who may mistakenly believe they are going to get this new technology for a similar price difference as they did the DVX compared to Betacam technology.

Red is a natural step forward and the frame grabs are exciting to see.

I appreciate the discussions here and am happy to see others, like me, know what this camera is truly going to cost...and the end result product will be worth every cent.

 

[Lensmith]

Incidentally, I am just starting to get things together for my next feature, which will shoot in mid-2007 and use RED, assuming it's ready. I will set the camera budget at $20,000. Come back next year and I'll let you know how my "pipe dream" works out.

I look forward to that time with a confident smile on my face.

 

[robroysyd]

Let's also not forget that an ENG style camera is way more than just an imager with a recorder bolted on the back. The camera is a system. All the vital data the shooter needs is in the EVF, battery condition, amount of media available, vital lens data, audio metering etc.
The question really isn't what you could do with XYZ, it's what you would do with XYZ.
Furthermore adding a recording system to a camera involves a LOT of engineering no matter what that recording system is, be it P2, XDCAM or Rev. All these things use power and generate heat, they have to be protected from and withstand a lot of environmental abuse, heat, dust, getting banged around inside vans and still deliver. The outside of the unit needs to be smooth, not just to look good but so things don't get snagged, cables ripped off etc.

 

[Haakon]

Steve, you have apparently completely missed the point, and are so set on proving your point that you don't even know where the discussion began. The discussion began because there was an assertion that other manufacturers were "raping" their customers by pricing their products at a certain level, and that Red was coming in at 1/4 to 1/7th the price.

Just so we're on the same page, Barry, I wasn't inferring that other companies are raping their customers because of what their cameras cost in comparison to RED. If that's how you interpreted my post, I can see why it would seem harsh.

What I find insulting is how companies price their own cameras in relation to each other. Take the new XDCAM HD models from Sony. The "higher end" model costs $9,000 more and all you get are variable framerates and a pair of HD-SDI jacks. To me, that's a slap in the face. It's obvious that the VFR are just a tweak to the software, and unless you know something I don't, charging $9,000 for a pair of output jacks is ridiculously unjustified. Yet, they do it because they can; if someone finds either of those features important and wants to stick with XDCAM, they have no other choice but to cough up the extra dough. So, as far as the bottom line is concerned, maybe that makes good business sense for Sony. But I think you can run a successful business without constantly sticking it to your customers. Apparently Jim feels the same way, and I think his approach of not "dumbing anything down" or creating models with uneccessary price hikes is commendable - so I choose to support the Red team both vocally and by means of my wallet.

Additionally, I think the end result will definitely have an impact on the market whether Red gains "mass market share" or not. I truly can't see how a company like Panasonic is going to be able to command $60,000 for a Varicam any longer when they're still using 2/3" chips and topping out at 720p - even if it's costing them that much to make it. Like you mentioned previously, perhaps Jim is able to keep costs down by only using one chip, by doing away with prisms, whatever. And again, I will say that if his product can maintain superior quality by doing those things, then he's just building smarter. The other guys are going to have to play catch up.

 

[Haakon]

Lensmith, the problem I have with your posts is that you are making blanket statements as if they apply to everyone. As much as a reality shock as it may be for you, the truth is that we all have different needs and have different ways of addressing our individual situations.

When you say something like,

I appreciate the discussions here and am happy to see others, like me, know what this camera is truly going to cost...

you're not only being pompous and condescending, but declaring your opinion as fact - which is problematic, especially when it doesn't hold much validity in the first place. I've already shown how the camera can be perfectly usable without needing to spend ridiculous amounts of money, so your opinon really is irrelevant to me anyway. I just think it's good to inform others that they do have options, and that RED will be effective within a wide variety of budgets. You can customize to taste.

Perhaps you'd find better results if you spent more time shooting material and less time pointing fingers and waiting around for others to finish their projects "with a confident smile on your face." When the time comes, I think you'll find that your smile is going to fade rather quickly.

 

[D_and_G]

However it seems the people who are the most excited are not the high end camera users but those who are in the DVX-100 crowd. Many who may mistakenly believe they are going to get this new technology for a similar price difference as they did the DVX compared to Betacam technology.

Nope. Those are only the most vocal. Besides, most pros will wait to field test a camera before evidencing excitement on a public forum. Do you know how many reservations that professionals have made ?

It ain't hard to figure out what one's going to need for ones particular use of RED - dvxuser or not. All it takes is some basic reading. The difference is some people are excited despite the compromises, while some want people to believe they're untenable.

I appreciate the discussions here and am happy to see others, like me, know what this camera is truly going to cost...and the end result product will be worth every cent.

That's great. Big price knowing cookie to you :thumbsup: :beer:


RED# wish I was higher

 

[gunleik]

And something, somewhere, has got to give. And where it has given, in Red One's case, is that the existing unit is not designed to be all things to all people, at $17,500. It may be accessorized for more widespread use, surely. But it isn't going to cost $17,500 when configured for those other uses.

Ouch. I'll chime in here.

When was the "base setup" ever getting you off the ground. In my current setup the HVX is only a fraction of my total cost.

So what?

It would be like that with any other camera, too. The camera is just a part of the total cost... in the Red reality, too.

And the news are?

Love your book BTW!

Cheers!

Gunleik

 

[mike the beginner]

They're not concerned about ENG or news shooters or home movies or any of that. They're making a Digital Cinema Camera. Not even a camcorder, just a camera head. And they've identified the compromises we're willing to live with (we don't need three chips as long as we get 1 massive chip with S35 DOF, for example) and they've done away with things that we don't need or even want, and as such they've honed in on exactly what we do want. And they're making a special-purpose product that fits our needs, and primarily (and perhaps only?) our needs. And doing so they've found that they can target our market quite effectively.

Barry i think your a superb guy hugely knoweldgeable and helpful person. FWIW i thought the (and perhaps only?) part suggested you felt red was more or less a cine camera.

Red as it stands cannot be used for either cine or eng style use until you put a lens on it. Then that particular lens might suggest the type of use/work you intend to use the camera for. The cost of the cameras goes up either way.

I am neutral in this debate in the sense i lack experience full stop. But that does not mean i can't observe! When you comment that the camera is for cine use by saying "you only need to look at it" i kinda wonder what the big hollywood cine guys would say to that? If we ignore the fact that the sensor on red appears to be very special indeed and just look at the red camera, as it is portrayed on reds own web site. How many big cine users would think that was a camera for cine use!

Red whether it is primarily as most of us all agree for cine use it still needs to have the extras added to it to make it a cine camera. For other uses it still has to have extras! The difference is that the extras for cine use will be different to the extras for other uses. I thought that was the whole point of red and Steve explains that very well indeed.

The cost to equip red for either use can be minimal or well $50,000 or more if you like.

You could sum up red quite nicely by saying red is something completely different. I dont think anyone thought the red sensor would perform as well (so far) as it did. When more tests are completed particularly tests done in windowed mode with different format lenses, we will know how strong will reds other uses be suited to it. If red can produce an image far superior to other cameras in 2k windowed mode 1080p then red surely is suited to other uses by standing entirely on those merits alone, not as an aside.

The other point that will be important is how easy will red allow the mixing of s35 images and windowed images in the same project. For non cinema use that should work fine and allow more uses for red to be utilized.

It is worth remembering that the alternative to red is no less expensive and often it is more expensive . You also get less value for money and probably not as good an image.

Barry i thought you made a great point when you stripped the xdcam and implied that without the tape deck it could cost $7,000. Canon is rumoured to have dissappointing sales of its xlh1 perhaps because it was priced too high for what it was a 1/3rd chipper. Canon are perhaps learning from that and are returning with something similar at well....half the price.

Red can achieve far higher sales by utilizing all that red can offer and merging both sides of the camp in a camera that is primarily for cine use but also makes a great "other use" camera as well. It has a head start on probaly all of its competitors by having a great sensor with superb image great lattitude and brilliant low light performance. Graeme Nattress has already stated he thinks red will produce a superb 1080p image.

Lets not argue over this too much because there are others in the big league hollywood that still think red is neither one or the other!

I wish red every success and i expect we will all be smiling when it finally ships. There is still an awful lot for red to do and work out. We have had one miracle so far (the sensor) we should not expect more miracles.

I feel i am way out of my depth here but i just want us all to adopt positive and helpful points rather than hinting red is one thing or the other. We all know it is what most of you guys dream about and that dream is getting locked down soon. We all know it will cost whatever you want it to cost. whatever the use. lets be happy that red is about to soon give you something very special.

Michael

 

[Chris Kenny]

Those other cameras feature things such as highly-accurate frame-discrete top-quality tape decks for longform recording; HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD decks sell for $25,000 to $50,000.

[...]

If you want to accessorize a Red One to be an ENG-style camera, you will be able to do so through adding a whole bunch of appropriate accessories. Nobody's disputing that. But the cost will no longer be $17,500. Add an HDCAM-SR deck on the back and guess what -- you're going to be a lot closer in price to the F950. Would that mean they were now "raping the customer"? I don't think so.

Uh, this is a slightly screwy way to reason about this stuff, as it assumes that the $25-50K price for the deck is itself reasonable. IMO, it's not. If you look at LTO-3 tape drives sold to the IT industry, you'll see that a drive with significantly higher throughput and data density can be had for under $4K. Yes, obviously a video deck needs to do a bit more than just write bits to a tape. It needs to have analog inputs and outputs, for instance. But you can get an idea of how much the hardware to do that costs by looking at, for instance, the DeckLink HD card, which is $995. It needs to support timecode, but LTO-3 drives do something similar for locating data on the tape, just in a different format.

Basically, the deck vendors seem to be charging a $15-30K premium over what other vendors charge for hardware of greater technical capability. And the above-mentioned items are not exactly mass-market, which leads me to believe that while some of the difference is a result of the fact that deck vendors need to spread their R&D costs over a much smaller number of units, there's also a pretty huge profit margin baked in there, or else the operations that produce this stuff are seriously inefficient.

We live in a society where you can pay $50 for a $5 FireWire cable at BestBuy... is it really that hard to believe that maybe, just possibly, the vendors in this industry have gotten used to customers with extremely deep pockets and are setting their prices accordingly?

 

[D_and_G]

Neither fish nor fowl.

"It's an EFP camera! It's a cine camera !. No it's not look, it's a platamapuss ! "

I get where you guys are coming from. Allz I know is that it's cute as hell (in a daddy loves his kid kinda' way). And no matter what it is, it's a damn fine animal.



RED #'s rebel with a clue

 

[Emanuel]

Nice pic D_and_D but what can I say about your new avatar? Hot D_and_D...H_O_T ! :beer: BTW, is she my fellow native-speaker?

 

[D_and_G]

Nice pic D_and_G but what can I say about your new avatar? Hot D_and_G, HOT!... :beer: BTW, is she my fellow native-speaker?

haha. lol. Nope. It's just an inside joke between my ex-girlfriend (co-producer) and I. Although, my girlfriend is similar (dark hair etc...).

I'm going to get her on there as my avatar one of these days (it's a little tricky with the ex using dvxuser too) :beer:

Obrigado.

RED #'s rebel with a clue

 

[filmmaker1977]

hey D, if this one is your ex, i cannot imagine how your actual is..