The RED full-meal-deal?

mike the beginner said:
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!
Click to expand...
I meant look at the specs and the design methodology. But you're right, it certainly doesn't look like anything else. I had occasion to work with the studio division of a major broadcaster a few days ago and one comment the shooters made was "well, it sure would help us accept it if they'd make it at least look like a camera!"

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.
Click to expand...
Yes you'll have to add a lens and a recording medium, as Haakon and Evinsky point out that could get you something operational at as little as $2500 over the base cost. Of course you could build and build and build, but part of the point of the thread was to decide what it would take to get a functional system. At the minimal cost configuration we've come up with so far, that can be around $20k. And in that you'll have something that can be used for digital cinema work. Not really appropriate for any other type of work at that configuration, but it could serve as a digicine camera.

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!
Click to expand...
I don't understand that though. Big league Hollywood will be one of their most fervent customers, if the unit delivers the expected results. If anyone is truly a doubter of Red, it centers on two things: 1) the company has never built a product like this before, and 2) they're charging 1/8 of what the other companies do. I hope to dispel those concerns through education, which is 1) sure they haven't built cameras before but Jim's a very successful entrepreneur who has put together a team of top-notch professionals and besides the thing is already working, and 2) it's not truly 1/8 the cost -- they've just prioritized what they're going to include for the dollars they're asking.

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.
Click to expand...
I expect several more miracles from them. These guys are living the mantra of "work smarter, not harder." They've moved away from proprietary video hardware like tape decks and are using intelligent software design and computer storage devices. They're taking advantage of software to give us stuff like waveforms and histograms, which other camera companies aren't, and once that software is written it becomes rather easy and quick to recoup its cost; it's not like that element requires custom hardware manufacturing. The type of design decisions they're making so far has me quite optimistic that further "miracles" are on their way!
 
Barry_Green said:
Part of the reason people think Red is "vaporware" is because "the other companies can't do it, so what makes him think he can?"
Click to expand...
their only reason is the profit.. that's why what gibby has been supporting is in behalf of the indy movement..

we want a suitable shooting camcorder not what it is known as a cine-style camera..

i've a film background and i hate the film hassles.. they're goodies for the industry not for the art itself..

it speaks who has been shooting from a super16 or a F900 24p setup as a EFP or ENG-style with results allover the major film festivals around the world.. and i didn't need for a cine-style setup in order to get it..
 
Okay, I thought I'd just go on the RED Digital Cinema Camera Company website and see what they claim about the RED camera. Click on "about RED" and it says:

The idea behind the RED camera system is simple. to design and build a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and convenience of pure digital. RED delivers unmatched image quality with no recording system limitations.
Click to expand...

And with that, I rest my case.
 
yes, barry.

but the point is how this cam can work in the field environment..

as a heavy setup? no thanks!

we want a versatile form, a real indy form factor: lightweight (7lbs) handheld, really run n gun.. we want the video form factor with 35mm quality.. i believe that's what red one is offering!

so, as EFP or ENG-style as well, like the red's owner said to gibby when he interviewed him in last april.
 
The camera is a tool. It's up to you how you use it. We're going straight after the digital cinema market, but there's more ways you can use the camera than that, and we're facilitating them the best we can. I guess I'm saying that ENG / EFP should take on a more cinematic aesthetic :)
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
I guess I'm saying that ENG / EFP should take on a more cinematic aesthetic :)
Click to expand...
if really run n gun, lightweight, handheld in order to a modern cinema language, we all will be there! :thumbsup:
 
The camera is a tool. It's up to you how you use it. We're going straight after the digital cinema market, but there's more ways you can use the camera than that, and we're facilitating them the best we can. I guess I'm saying that ENG / EFP should take on a more cinematic aesthetic :)
__________________
www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera
Click to expand...

Well i don't really think we can ask any more than that can we? It kinda confirms what i suspected, that red are making sure of their core market they want to be in AND at the same time realise they potentially have a great product for uses other than cine. As i mentioned some of the big hollywood guys think red is neither one or the other (looks wise) but when that camera ships they will be buying into red without doubt.

Graeme all we ask is for red to give us the capability to use a lightweight lens and apply a deeper DOF thus allowing a more flexible run and gun style to be more easily achievable.

Red looks to have covered the 35mm lightweight set up with the use of relatively cheap still lenses. BUT there are severe limitations on using 35mm lenses with such a shallow DOF and run and gun with!

Red can also compete with other ENG style cameras, all they need is a lightweight set up that allows for a more run and gun style. That set up could easily be with a 2/3rd lens that allows for a deeper DOF BUT to get the "best out of that style" red ought to have the right connections to facitlitate that re rs232:)

Lensmith. You have a point with regards the finer details such as you mention (like getting it all to work well and properly tested without faults etc). I have little doubt with the talent red have that getting all the cool features on the camera in time for late spring is possible. Getting it all tested individually and working properly is going to possibly end up being the most difficult part! Talent alone might not help that part of the production and therefore we could be delayed somewhat. I still think the camera will ship sometime in the early summer to mid summer.

I liked that comment by someone that, jim jannard has more business sense than the rest of us put together. That gives us all confidence and faith in red.

Michael
 
Thanks for the clarification Graeme. Exactly what I've been saying -- optimized for digital cinema use, accessorizable (at additional cost and with additional equipment) for other purposes. But clearly honed in on their target market, and even a hint that the ENG market may want to take a step towards you, rather than asking you to come all the way to them... :)


Graeme all we ask is for red to give us the capability to use a lightweight lens and apply a deeper DOF thus allowing a more flexible run and gun style to be more easily achievable.
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of windowed-sensor mode. You get 1080p or 2k res, but with S16mm DOF rather than S35 DOF.

If it allows windowed 720p mode you'd get about 2/3" DOF.
 
I think people agree with you to an extent Barry, it is simply that the way you wrote up your interpretation of the camera seemed slightly negative towards those who want to use it for ENG whereas many of those people see encorporating a superior image quality in their ENG productions as a huge positive - The loss of features is balanced out by a gain in quality and as Graeme said - ENG / EFP should take on a more cinematic aesthetic. Thats a big leap for the ENG world if it does.

P.S. I'm not trying to bash you, you obviously know more than I do about cameras... just my ten cents :)
 
Also, we're a small company, so we're going after one market first. That's the market that's demanding the highest quality, resolution and workflow. Once that's cracked, we can work on expanding the uses the camera can be put to.

Graeme
 
That's the beauty of windowed-sensor mode. You get 1080p or 2k res, but with S16mm DOF rather than S35 DOF.

If it allows windowed 720p mode you'd get about 2/3" DOF.__________________
Click to expand...

Barry that is an option for sure but IF you were to use a windowed mode with a 35mm lightweight still lens you might need that lens to be of a higher quality to resolve the greatly reduced image at its best. In other words it might not work out as well as we think because we are only using a small part of the sensor. Remember what Proteus said about extracting the max 70% from the bayer sensor at full sensor size compared to extracting a lot less % with a windowed sensor. He reckoned that would probably give a better image from a much cheaper still 35mm lens compared to a s16mm lens. Obviously we will not know until red tests with windowed mode to see how the image stands up! Same applies to 2/3rds lenses. Guys... Greg and Gibby have already stated these smaller format s16 and 2/3rd lenses are not cheap. That is why Barry is refering to the extra cost in doing ENG style (correct me if i am wrong Barry i am just learning all of this).

So Gibby was right then, red can be used for other uses and red are trying to faciltitate this as much they can:)

Barry was right to suggest that red is focusing primarily on cine use:)

If lightweight 35mm still lenses end up providing a great image when set at windowed 2k or 1080p then red is on its way to provide a ENG style of use at a very cheap cost. That would be fantastic, though i am keeping my options open until we see how tests go.

Just caught that post Graeme i think we all understand that. Charles Pappert (sort of?) stated that if you crack the cine market (so to speak) everthing else will filter down to other uses. That makes sense so all the best red we are with you all the way.

Michael
 
Last edited:
Barry,

I didn’t even enter into this thread until I reacted to your statement in your Post #88 saying that RED wasn’t “concerned about ENG or news shooters or home movies or any of that.” I addressed that and later statements like it in their own context, not addressing the complete subject matter of the thread. You accuse me of flamebait, when I simply reacted to your obvious denigration of ENG, news, and sports shooters, and categorized them in the same sentences as home movies? I call your statements flamebait, and I see that others later in the thread took your statements the same way. I don’t think sarcastic categorizations of genres that some members of this forum work on is an innocent gesture, and my reaction was triggered by your inappropriate comments.

OK, let’s methodically analyze your statements on this thread, and a previous related thread, concerning your position on what the RED team’s intentions are for the use of the RED One camera. I’d like to invite readers of this thread to follow this trail of links, post, and quotes, and then draw their own conclusions on what your stated position has been, and is now:

Thread: Any Auto Functions on RED? Focus or Exposure?
Link: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70801&page=4
Date: 9/13/06
Your post #37

“Look at the name of the company. It's not Red Do-Everything Camera Company. It's Red Digital Cinema Camera Company. Which implies that they're not aiming to make Red usable for run and gun, or ENG, or news, or anything like that.”

Your statement clearly defines your position – that RED is planning their camera for digital cinema only, no “run and gun, or ENG, or news, or anything like that”.

My reaction (Post #41) to your Post #37 follows on the same thread:

My post #41 (Page 5) reminded you of the ENG-style use of RED One acknowledgments of Jannard, English, and the RED web site.

After a brief acknowledgement from you (Post #44) to my post you mention that we need a clarification from Jim, that you felt RED was aimed at DC, and you exited the thread. The thread continued for 38 more posts without a post by you.

In my post #64 I acknowledge again that RED is aimed squarely at the cine-style production market.

Thread Summary
Anyone who reads that entire thread, which was posted only two and one-half weeks ago, will draw those conclusions:

Your stated position: RED for digital cinema use only – no other uses intended by the RED team.

My Stated position: RED primarily for digital cinema, but the RED team also acknowledges it is also being designed to be used in ENG-style production.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast forward to this current thread. Here are your statements in this thread on the RED team intended uses for RED:

Your Post #88

“They're not concerned about ENG or news shooters or home movies or any of that. They're making a Digital Cinema Camera. (Skip ahead in same paragraph) And they're making a special-purpose product that fits our needs, and primarily (and perhaps only?) our needs.”

Your post #92

“The other companies look at how they can cross-collateralize their product across different users -- sports shooters, ENG, whatever. Who needs a 4k news camera? This thing is aimed exactly where the company name says it is: Digital Cinema.”

(To this point you were maintaining your “RED is intended for digital cinema only” statements)

In my Post #98 I then disagreed with your stated “RED is intended for digital cinema only” position, posted a link to the previous thread where we disagreed on that, and affirmed my contention that the RED team is designing RED primarily for digital cinema, but that Jannard, English and the RED web site all acknowledge the RED team’s peripheral use plans for RED One – exactly my position.

(In your next post – #104 – you still essentially maintained your cinema use only intended position, but began to acknowledge that RED One could be used for non-DC purposes.)

Your Post #104

“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.”

“Nobody's saying you won't find it useful. All I'm saying is that it's not aimed at ENG genres.”

(Later in the thread you had morphed your position to more openly acknowledge non-DC use of RED One)

Your Post#133

“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.”

“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.”

In every one of my posts on this thread I have clearly stated that RED’s intentions for RED One are primarily as a digital cinema camera, but that they acknowledge the peripheral uses of RED One in EFP and ENG-style production - Posts #98, 128, 129.

(Your statement in the second paragraph in your Post #133 you then contradicts the record of your statements on the earlier thread, as itemized above, and your statement in your post #88 of this current thread)

Thread Summary
Your stated position: Your Post #88 denies that the RED team is “not concerned about ENG or news shooters or home movies or any of that.” By your Post #104, you were softening your position somewhat, and acknowledging that RED One may be accessorized for other uses. By your Post #133 you were fully acknowledging non-DC uses of RED One and denying that you or anyone else ever stated anything to the contrary.

My Stated position: Consistently throughout this thread, my stated position was that RED is being designed primarily for digital cinema, but the RED team also acknowledges it is being designed to be used in ENG-style production.

OK, the record is now straight on who said what and when. If forum members take the time to follow the links and posts I have itemized, you will find that my stated position throughout this thread, the earlier thread that I referenced, and in fact since last December on this forum, has been a very consistent and accurate trail of repetition of this statement: RED One is primarily being designed for use as a digital cinema camera but the RED team (Jannard, English, and now Nattress), and the RED web site verbiage, all acknowledge the additional use of RED One for EFP and ENG style work, as verified by those individual’s statements and the proposed RED One specs (1080i, 720p, B4 lens mount option).

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Okay, I thought I'd just go on the RED Digital Cinema Camera Company website and see what they claim about the RED camera. Click on "about RED" and it says:

“The idea behind the RED camera system is simple. to design and build a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and convenience of pure digital. RED delivers unmatched image quality with no recording system limitations.”

And with that, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Ahhh….before you go resting your “case”, why don’t you also read this passage on the RED web site that I referred you to almost 3 weeks ago on the “Any Auto Functions on RED? Focus or Exposure? Thread: (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70801&page=5 My Post #41)

Next example: the new version of the RED web site:
http://red.com/cameras.htm

Under “RED One Is a Modular Design”

“Shoot lightweight ENG style (body less than 7lbs, in rugged magnesium) or load it up to shoot a feature film”.

I also referred to this statement on the RED web site several times in this thread.

Add those two statements from the RED web site together and you have exactly what my consistently-posted position has been since last December on the nature of RED One: that it will be primarily a digital cinema camera but that the RED team has planned for and consistently acknowledged that RED One will be used for ENG-style production.

And with that, I rest my case…

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Barry_Green said:
Thanks for the clarification Graeme. Exactly what I've been saying -- optimized for digital cinema use, accessorizable (at additional cost and with additional equipment) for other purposes. But clearly honed in on their target market, and even a hint that the ENG market may want to take a step towards you, rather than asking you to come all the way to them... :)
Click to expand...

Graeme didn't say anything different on the intended use of RED One than Jim Jannard, Stuart English, or the RED web site, all of which I've been referring you to for the past three weeks and two complete threads. Let's analyze Graeme's statement:

"The camera is a tool. It's up to you how you use it. We're going straight after the digital cinema market, but there's more ways you can use the camera than that, and we're facilitating them the best we can. I guess I'm saying that ENG / EFP should take on a more cinematic aesthetic :)"

Now read the quotes of Jannard, English and the RED web site that I pasted into my post #41 on the previous thread three weeks ago, and referred to repeatedly throughout this thread:

Link: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70801&page=5

No new revelations. The same position on RED One that I have posted here since last December: that RED One is primarily a digital cinema camera, but that the RED One team acknowledges that it will be used for EFP and ENG style production.

As I just illustrated in detail in my previous post, that has not been your stated position, in fact you denied that the RED team was acknowledging planning for any EFP or ENG style use for RED here:

Thread: Any Auto Functions on RED? Focus or Exposure?
Link: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70801&page=4
Date: 9/13/06
Your post #37

“Look at the name of the company. It's not Red Do-Everything Camera Company. It's Red Digital Cinema Camera Company. Which implies that they're not aiming to make Red usable for run and gun, or ENG, or news, or anything like that.”

And in this thread here:

Your Post #88

“They're not concerned about ENG or news shooters or home movies or any of that. They're making a Digital Cinema Camera. (Skip ahead in same paragraph) And they're making a special-purpose product that fits our needs, and primarily (and perhaps only?) our needs.”

Before you comfortably act like you’ve always believed what Graeme, the other RED team members, and the RED web site said, I think you better consider what your written position on the matter was, as illustrated above. As I just itemized in my previous post, you later changed your position on the matter and then acknowledged that the RED team was considering EFP and ENG style uses for RED One.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Welcome to the don't piss Gibby off post!

I can understand his frustrations, however, because whilst naysayers often have their place around new technology such as RedOne, it's only good if they are actually adding to the discussion rather than making what can seemingly be flippant statements that don't take into account the facts that have been put before them.

As for Barry I think that it is your position here at DVX User and the respect that individuals obviously have for you that makes your statements seem out of place. I doubt if you weren't an integral part of the community Gibby would even bat an eyelid at the comments you've made.

Personally I think RedOne might be a bit of an overkill for typical ENG use, I mean the local news broadcaster going out to a few thousand people really doesn't need to be displaying incredible imagery for the sake of time and turnaround. But I do feel that certain events that occur would benefit intensely by being able to deliver a superior image quality. Historic events natural, political or other often deserve to be shown to the world in the best light.

For documentary making and the like I think RedOne would be incredible, alot of the UK documentaries have been at a very high standard for a number of years now, take March of the Penguins for example. Here in the UK it wasn't such a big deal because it offered little more than the weekly documentaries we expect on TV. Being able to produce such good quality footage for nature doc's or whatever would be stunning and also put RedOne as a prime candidate for future productions such as March of the Penguins which make the transition to the big screen.

But seriously though, this thread really has gotten off topic lol.
 
It's fairly simple really:

Steve G thinks Red One will make a great camera for the ENG purposes to which he obviously intends to use it. He acknowledges that the primary purpose of it is as a Cinema Camera, but feels that the Red Team have led us to believe that its capabilities extend far beyond the (fairly limited) "film industry" use and that, furthermore, ENG could benefit hugely from a cinema aesthetic.

Barry G on t'other hand is unconvinced of the Red One's ENG credentials and thinks Steve G is overstating his case and will end up with egg in his face.

Steve G thinks Barry G is wrong and wants everyone to know it.

Personally, I think the Red One will make a great ENG camera (though I have no desire to use it as one myself). It's light, it's portable, you can record large amounts to the onboard media and it's about time ENG had a significant step up in quality anyway! What's not to like?
 
Look at it like this - today, the RED ONE is mostly suited to digital cinema applications. The main thing holding it back for ENG / EFP use is the lens situation. Once that's solved - ie, we have a working B4 mount, we can advertise it towards that market more. However, there's nothing at all to stop you using it for that market when the camera goes on sale if you adopt a few changes to the way that you work. After all, news used to be shot on film :)

But really, it's a cool tool, and it's up to you to define how YOU use it.

Graeme
 
Good point, seeing as how news was shot (at least over here) on 16mm for years, it follows that whacking a 16mm PL mount lens onto a Red should let you do ENG fairly happily.
 
I think people are forgetting the outside variable:

3rd Party developers. We are all so focused on RED that no one is taking into account the MASSIVE influence that they are going to have on the camera and they are going to have it quickly.

If I know Jim he will most likely think about some hosting some sort of 3rd party "presentation" when the prototypes are finalized so that further development can continue. Allowing additions to the camera almost the day it's released.

I don't know about the mounts, but I expect there to be a lot of other things out there to follow. Gibby will get everything he needs. We all will

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top