Worth looking at again

I agree the zealots probably do more harm than good for the RED image. To me this are all tools that allow me to put my vision out and put food in my son's belly. Beyond that I don't care which one is better or cannot compare but I am biased against Jvc :)
 
My point is not bashing RED at all. If you read it again, I said I'm tired of the people comparing this camera (or any camera for that matter) to the "s35 scarlet" when in fact its NOT A REAL CAMERA. It just a bunch of specs on an internet website.

I can make up my own camera right now and price it out and people will then compare it? No, so whats the point. Image is GOD specs don't matter unless its paired with great image.

My new "BLUE Two" camera that I am inventing:

5K sensor with 14 stops of real dynamic range
shoots RAW and has on-board recording to both CF cards and SSD laptop drives
Compact Shoulder mount design
wireless control via bluetooth with iPhone app
68db noise level
Variable frame rates from 1-100 fps at full resolution
4 full size XLR audio imputs with 24bit 96k recording
Comes with PL mount AND Nikon and Canon adapters
Uses standard AB mount batteries
2 HD-SDI outs with 4:2:2, 1 HDMI out, and a Dual Link 4:4:4 out
TC in, Optical Audio in, USB for firmware upgrades, firewire 800 for additional future upgrades
standard 4pin XLR power input

All for $16,000 standard with all.

See I can do that too, those are the specs and a price. Now I have to say the prices could change, and it could not come out for another 3 years, but please feel free to compare a real camera with this.

THAT is my point. RED is not the issue, its the people comparing real cameras that are coming out in the next few weeks to a camera that is vaperware.

by the way, if anyone would like to go into business with me to take pre-orders on those specs listed above and make that camera reality, please contact me! ;)
 
Last edited:
polfilmblog said:
"But my young son who is a movie nut, prefers the original 70's/80s originals because in his word's, "they look more real.""
Click to expand...
That's because they are more real. Back then they actually pointed the camera at something, instead of at a greenscreen. I'd take models & miniatures and sets and art direction, over a green screen, any day.

We're 33 years later and digital cameras have just begun to catch up to film in terms of dynamic range and color -- the stuff that keeps you engrossed and not thinking about how they shot the damned thing. Digital has been a giant leap backwards for the past couple of decades.
Click to expand...
In some ways, maybe. But that doesn't hold up to the Star Wars argument. Episode I was 35mm film, Episode II was F900. They look basically the same; both used the same techniques (all greenscreen all the time) and both have the plastic fakeness that's associated with that, as compared to the gritty realism that the originals had.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's because they are more real. Back then they actually pointed the camera at something, instead of at a greenscreen. I'd take models & miniatures and sets and art direction, over a green screen, any day.


In some ways, maybe. But that doesn't hold up to the Star Wars argument. Episode I was 35mm film, Episode II was F900. They look basically the same; both used the same techniques (all greenscreen all the time) and both have the plastic fakeness that's associated with that, as compared to the gritty realism that the originals had.
Click to expand...

I said basically the same thing on the previous page. It's not a film vs digital issue. It's the extensive greenscreen and the CGI. Also the ships in the originals (before the special editions) were actual physical models, not computer generated. It has nothing to do with not being shot on film.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's because they are more real. Back then they actually pointed the camera at something, instead of at a greenscreen. I'd take models & miniatures and sets and art direction, over a green screen, any day.


In some ways, maybe. But that doesn't hold up to the Star Wars argument. Episode I was 35mm film, Episode II was F900. They look basically the same; both used the same techniques (all greenscreen all the time) and both have the plastic fakeness that's associated with that, as compared to the gritty realism that the originals had.
Click to expand...

I love practical effects, sets, miniatures....they are so....REAL....now where is that AF-100 footage Barry hahahaha..... I would also love to know who named this camera line AF, it's like auto focus....and that's one of the most difficult things to do with this camera....
 
ilauzirika said:
I love practical effects, sets, miniatures....they are so....REAL....now where is that AF-100 footage Barry
Click to expand...
Gonna be shot on a practical actual set. With actual effects, not CGI. Booyah!

Where is it? Sorry, that stuff is gonna be a couple of weeks before it's shown. But there will be some intermediate stuff leaking out sooner, I'm arranging for something else before the big bang hits.

I would also love to know who named this camera line AF, it's like auto focus....and that's one of the most difficult things to do with this camera....
Click to expand...
Put on the 14-140, and it autofocuses better than any SLR. But yeah, I think "AF" isn't quite good enough for it. I've been calling it the "AFX". :D
 
There is one camera in the equation that nobody is talking about and that can put a lot in perspective. It is the new sony nxcam. Even if it does not exist now, I think that we can be 99% sure that it is going to show up next summer with Sony. A 442 hd-sdi camera with that same sensor than the f3 at prices that could be in the $5k to $7k, could change a lot the price performance comparison in the s35 camera market. I myself was not expecting to buy a camera until next summer and I find it to be a very good candidate.
 
Barry_Green said:
Put on the 14-140, and it autofocuses better than any SLR.
Click to expand...

Sure, and this lens may find a place in my bag, just for those event shots where focusing the camera can't be your main focus.
Now, talking about AFX....... it sounds more like after effects hahaha... nice prefix though.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
My point is not bashing RED at all. If you read it again, I said I'm tired of the people comparing this camera (or any camera for that matter) to the "s35 scarlet" when in fact its NOT A REAL CAMERA. It just a bunch of specs on an internet website.

I can make up my own camera right now and price it out and people will then compare it? No, so whats the point. Image is GOD specs don't matter unless its paired with great image.

My new "BLUE Two" camera that I am inventing:

5K sensor with 14 stops of real dynamic range
shoots RAW and has on-board recording to both CF cards and SSD laptop drives
Compact Shoulder mount design
wireless control via bluetooth with iPhone app
68db noise level
Variable frame rates from 1-100 fps at full resolution
4 full size XLR audio imputs with 24bit 96k recording
Comes with PL mount AND Nikon and Canon adapters
Uses standard AB mount batteries
2 HD-SDI outs with 4:2:2, 1 HDMI out, and a Dual Link 4:4:4 out
TC in, Optical Audio in, USB for firmware upgrades, firewire 800 for additional future upgrades
standard 4pin XLR power input

All for $16,000 standard with all.

See I can do that too, those are the specs and a price. Now I have to say the prices could change, and it could not come out for another 3 years, but please feel free to compare a real camera with this.

THAT is my point. RED is not the issue, its the people comparing real cameras that are coming out in the next few weeks to a camera that is vaperware.

by the way, if anyone would like to go into business with me to take pre-orders on those specs listed above and make that camera reality, please contact me! ;)
Click to expand...

i agree with your intentions but your example does not work, as most of this is not vaporware, they have a sensor, most parts and components have been tested in the epic, so saying you making up a fact sheet and talking about it in comparison to others is the same as what other people are doing with red is not the same, as your list does not exist in the real world, where red does have many of the components and has tested and got working 95% of it in the epic. but I understand what you are getting at.

I agree comparing number sheets is dumb, and people who come in with those scarlet is better posts should be ignored yes, but then there are those people who feel the need to knock and take down red and their followers every chance they get, including moderators on this site.

I just see this red hate and perpetuating of it comes from both sides, but it does not matter what matters is it should stop and be squashed whenever it pops up.
 
S. Matthews said:
I agree comparing number sheets is dumb, and people who come in with those scarlet is better posts should be ignored yes, but then there are those people who feel the need to knock and take down red and their followers every chance they get, including moderators on this site.

I just see this red hate and perpetuating of it comes from both sides, but it does not matter what matters is it should stop and be squashed whenever it pops up.
Click to expand...

It's not Red hate. I don't think anyone actually doesn't like Red. Everyone probably wishes they could shoot with Red or even own one. You're confusing hate and dislike for being annoyed that people are comparing a $5k camera to the Red, especially when the Scarlet doesn't/didn't actually exist yet and no one has any idea when it will (as the Epic Light now). That's just ludicrous. The Red (One or Epic) is realistically and easily a $30-50k solution, and even more. Even when Epic Light comes out it will probably still be a $20k solution ($15k minimum when it was the Scarlet and all that's changed now). For a $5k camera the AF100 is a steal. It should be compared to other cameras in its class and price range. If that's done then there's no need to even mention Red in the same context.
 
I agree but regardless of what the intention is it comes off as red hate and does not help any discussion, but I agree it does not make sense to compare cameras from such drastically different price brackets, but that doesn't mean you can't and that it can't be interesting and informative, it's just we are the problem we can't seem to discuss these sorts of comparisons without resorting to ad hominem attacks/personal attacks on poster and the company itself.

oh and not sure weather you thought I did or not but just pointing out that I never said (till now) that we could compare these cameras, I agree with the poster I replied to I just though his example was wrong and potentially inflammatory in itself. I assume most don't actually hate red but the posts along those lines (red hate/assumed red hate) are just not necessary.

have a good one now back to editing.

P.S. I think this topic has hijacked this thread long enough how about we get back on topic of the af100?
 
to make my statement early with the specs clear is that the specs do not matter. It's the camera image. People keep making comparisons based on specs not IMAGE.

And just to let you know, I had been in development of a camera, and do work with someone on development, but its not a 5k camera its 1080p and its not called BLUE, its called "PUGCAM 35"

But that has been in development for a long time, and just haven't brought it to life because of the amount of $$ you need to start up a camera of those specs. I'd rather people be arguing image quality instead of what a camera does or doesn't have in its specs... You want the specs from the original panasonic Varicam?

960x720 sensor and records in a 3:1:1 space to tape... And the HD images from the camera are beautiful and you still see them in HD today on TV shows, especially on the Discovery channel and NatGeo which both have super high standards for their HD content.

Its about the image not specs

Thats all I had to say... Back on topic the images look no better in that video than they did the first time I watched the other one that was cut differently haha.
 
Thomas Church said:
Ryan, while I agree with everything you said and it's exactly what I want, you're gonna be waiting quite a bit for Scarlet S35.

Jannard just posted some new news about Epic. It will probably begin reaching people's hands in mid-2011.

Scarlet 2/3 will follow afterwards.

I wouldn't count on being able to buy Scarlet S35 before mid-2012.

RED has such a tendency of being late that I wouldn't rule out Scarlet S35 coming out in 2013.

Until then I expect to shoot so much material that I can't even begin to imagine.
Click to expand...


So much for them being released this year as he hinted to and almost promised. This company just sucks when it comes to deliver on it's promises. can you say?


WHERE"S THE BEEF?
 
Justyn said:
So much for them being released this year as he hinted to and almost promised. This company just sucks when it comes to deliver on it's promises. can you say?


WHERE"S THE BEEF?
Click to expand...

While I agree that Red is terrible at living up to promises of delivery dates, they are much more open than any other company and have always stated that you should expect things to change and emphatically has told everyone over and over and over again that things WILL change. Red is going to deliver a killer camera for the money, one that does things that no other camera does, even more expensive ones. Red also has added a ton of features and capabilities way beyond their initial specs when they first announced the Epic. So you're trading off on-time delivery for a more capable camera. Not a bad compromise when in the meantime they upgraded the Red M sensor to the MX sensor which made a huge difference. Everyone is always first thinking how Red has messed up and forgetting all of the great things they've done, are doing, and will do. Think about that for a moment... what's Red going to come out with next after they actually deliver the Epic and Epic Light?
 
Most people fall into the trap that you just exposed. They compare what Red will release in the future to what other companies are releasing now. In Red's case that is especially an issue since this is the second camera that they've announced and then cancled. (The 3k for $3k Scarlet and the S35 Scarlet.) For all the people that were waiting for that specific camera, they are never going to exist.

What has happened is that they've taken so long in development that the other companies are catching up with cameras that are on parity (not equal, parity).

When they deliver the Epic, what will matter is whats out to compete with the Epic then, not what's available now. Just like Sony, Panny and Canon haven't sat still in relation to their cameras on par with the S35, they haven't sat still with the high end cameras.

So next year, if/when the Epic is released I'm sure someone else will have a high end camera to release too. Parity comparisons don't just include price and resolution, but picture quality, ease of editing, storage size, color, etc.
 
Duke M. said:
When they deliver the Epic, what will matter is whats out to compete with the Epic then, not what's available now.
Click to expand...

In the interest of comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges and Reds to Reds, "When they deliver the Epic, what will matter is whats out to compete with the Epic" in the near/not-so-near/indeterminate future, not "then".

disclaimer: the preceding was just an attempt at humor, and should no way be construed as Red-bashing, Red-dissing or Red-baiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top