Jump to content

Will the RED kill the Dalsa, Kinetta, just about every other high end high def camera?


Guest Greg Moulton

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
It's a video camera that's why.

Richard,

 

I have only one question for you. Have you ever worked with a Canon EOS-1Ds digital still camera for any length of time? That's a yes or no question. If you had, you would see why professional digital cameras have gained respectability as serious image making tools. When you make comments like "RED is just another Betacam" that's like saying the 1Ds is "just another cellphone camera" Any logical person would dismiss it immediately. Not here to cause any trouble with you, just to point out my concern for your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Richard,

 

I have only one question for you. Have you ever worked with a Canon EOS-1Ds digital still camera for any length of time? That's a yes or no question. If you had, you would see why professional digital cameras have gained respectability as serious image making tools. When you make comments like "RED is just another Betacam" that's like saying the 1Ds is "just another cellphone camera" Any logical person would dismiss it immediately. Not here to cause any trouble with you, just to point out my concern for your statements.

 

Brian, have you ever worked with Velvia? That's a yes-or-no question too ;-) As a semi-pro still photographer, I STILL am not satisfied with DSLR quality. I've seen very good photos taken with it, but nothing that couldn't have been done with 35mm film. If it isn't better than film, then why use it? However, I don't consider 35mm a professional still format. You're throwing away 20% of your image information on motion picture sprocket holes. Does that make any sense to you? I'm doing my best to make 6x4.5cm my smallest shooting size as soon as I get enough money for a Mamiya.

 

Cinematographers aren't selling prints to people with no compositional or photo quality knowledge whatsoever, they're recording (usually) highly staged, coordinated events where the production cost of these events is often on the scale of money necessary to construct a mall, or several malls. These images have to satisfy some of the best and most knowledgeable executives or producers in the world. Do you think that, with that type of pressure, they're going to be eager to cost-cut, especially when faced with those who DO shoot film? Anyway, the people that have gone digital the most in stills, are the businessmen of the industry, not the innovators and artists.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I STILL am not satisfied with DSLR quality. I've seen very good photos taken with it, but nothing that couldn't have been done with 35mm film. If it isn't better than film, then why use it? However, I don't consider 35mm a professional still format. You're throwing away 20% of your image information on motion picture sprocket holes. Does that make any sense to you? I'm doing my best to make 6x4.5cm my smallest shooting size as soon as I get enough money for a Mamiya.

 

[snip]Anyway, the people that have gone digital the most in stills, are the businessmen of the industry, not the innovators and artists.

 

That may be tha case in a perfect world where money isn't an important factor. We used to shoot 35mm slide, & 6x4.5 medium format, but now no one is willing to pay for them any more. The switch to digital in most areas is motivated NOT by any superiority of digital over film, but by simple economics.

 

As much as the purists hate it, it is inevitable that compromise between 'the pure artform' and the harsh realities of economics will happen... as I'm sure you will discover when you get your Mamiya.

(If you had said so earlier we could have sold you ours :) )

Ultimately the world of cinematography and production is driven by money, so yes, people will compromise eventually. The question will probably become, not "If it isn't better than film, then why use it?" but "if the general audience can't tell the difference, why not?".

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing one medium as better than the other, simply playing devils advocate. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

 

I have only one question for you. Have you ever worked with a Canon EOS-1Ds digital still camera for any length of time? That's a yes or no question. If you had, you would see why professional digital cameras have gained respectability as serious image making tools. When you make comments like "RED is just another Betacam" that's like saying the 1Ds is "just another cellphone camera" Any logical person would dismiss it immediately. Not here to cause any trouble with you, just to point out my concern for your statements.

 

Brian,

 

I think you mis-understood, I was trying to relate the overall design of Red to some thing I am familiar with, I was not implying that Red was another Beta Cam. I was using the BetaCam example to try and relate to what Red looks like, and how it works from a physical design perspective. From reading the threads on this forum I can't even picture what Red looks like in a basic form.

 

I mean is there a "camera" and "deck", is the "deck" sold separately from the camera? The lens it appears is sold separately. If the deck is separate how much is it, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a video camera that's why.

 

On a serious note, a poster mentioned earlier about the "recording device". What does that mean? Does this thing shoot onto tape or hard disk? When people say $17,000.00 for just the camera does that mean only the camera body, like a Beta Cam minus the deck behind the camera?

 

On the lens front what is this 300mm stuff people keep mentioning? You mean it will come with a 300mm zoom lens like a BetaCam style set up?

 

Will this camera be in PL Mount so that film shooters who own nice glass can use their existing lenses?

 

R,

To answer some of your questions to the best of my knowledge, yes, RED will allow for a PL mount lens. That has been stated many times on many different forums.

 

The recording units will range from external drives to RED flash arrays amongst other possibilities. Pricing has yet to be stated for these device but has been hinted at being in the $1,000 range.

 

The $17,500 is the price for the RED-ONE camera body alone.

 

The 300mm RED lens is sold seperately at the cost of $4,995 and can be seen here...

http://www.red.com/product/lenses/300mm-2....41da01b28f8f11e

 

All of this information can be found on the RED.com website. Also Richard, for someone who spends soo much time being a RED antagonist, you could spend a little more time visiting some websites to find out the details on RED.

 

There are detailed and continuing talks about RED going on at DVXUSER.com in the RED dedicated forum...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=58

Edited by Alexander Nikishin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer some of your questions to the best of my knowledge, yes, RED will allow for a PL mount lens. That has been stated many times on many different forums.

 

The recording units will range from external drives to RED flash arrays amongst other possibilities. Pricing has yet to be stated for these device but has been hinted at being in the $1,000 range.

 

The $17,500 is the price for the RED-ONE camera body alone.

 

The 300mm RED lens is sold seperately at the cost of $4,995 and can be seen here...

http://www.red.com/product/lenses/300mm-2....41da01b28f8f11e

 

All of this information can be found on the RED.com website. Also Richard, for someone who spends soo much time being a RED antagonist, you could spend a little more time visiting some websites to find out the details on RED.

 

There are detailed and continuing talks about RED going on at DVXUSER.com in the RED dedicated forum...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=58

 

Thanks for the info.

 

How am I a Red antagonist? I said I hope people buy the camera so there are fewer film shooters in this world.

 

Well it is certainly the most bizarre looking thing I've see, did they get the designers from Star Trek in on this?

 

A 300 mm is their first lens? Sorry but that is looney tune, how often does one use a 300mm lens?

 

The only time I would use a lens like that is for wildlife. I mean come on for TV and film the wide lenses get the most amount of use, I barely ever take the 24mm off my camera, I use it so much.

 

Try shooting a simple dialogue scene with two people using a 300mm lens! The camera would have to be quite a long way away just to get a medium shot, you would only be able to shoot it outside, a small room would be impossible.

 

It's clear the 300mm lens idea was developed by a bunch of egg head engineers who have never actually shot any thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have stated several times that we know the 300mm is an odd choice for the 1st lens to be released, but it was the 1st one done. Please get a bit more informed before you trash us. We have a zoom that will be announced at IBC and several other lenses on the board. We have also stated that what we are showing on our website will change. Look for the new body and cage system on our website as IBC opens. BTW, we have many reservations for the 300mm lens. Must be a lot of wildlife shooters out there.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have stated several times that we know the 300mm is an odd choice for the 1st lens to be released, but it was the 1st one done. Please get a bit more informed before you trash us. We have a zoom that will be announced at IBC and several other lenses on the board. We have also stated that what we are showing on our website will change. Look for the new body and cage system on our website as IBC opens. BTW, we have many reservations for the 300mm lens. Must be a lot of wildlife shooters out there.

 

Jim

 

Well at least you admit the 300mm is an odd choice for a 1st lens, so you can hardly say I'm trashing you for a decision you made and agree is "odd."

 

Now seriously I'd like some other pros to chime in here, particularly those paid to shoot drama. How often would you use a 300mm lens? I'm willing to bet money than in an episode of The Sopranos a 300mm lens is brought out 0-1 times per show.

 

Maybe David Mullen can tell us how often he'd use a 300mm lens shooting an episode of Big Love?

 

Any kid taking film school 101 knows that a 50mm lens is considered to be "normal." It really wasn't good planning your part to start with a 300mm when you're trying to convince professionals you understand the film industry.

 

As for people that ordered the 300mm I can only suspect that a lot of them don't have much shooting experience and don't really have a concept of how close a 300mm will get them to their subjects. When they try to shoot an actor with it they'll have to put the camera on the other side of the street. And then of course there's the very small amount of DOF you get with such a long lens, many will have trouble holding focus.

 

Skip the 300mm and the zoom, offer a nice set of primes with the package. 12mm, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, that will do for most people.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well it is certainly the most bizarre looking thing I've see, did they get the designers from Star Trek in on this?

Actually the version on the RED webpage with the "Cage One" on it looks real practical to me. With no need for magazines on top/back, external motors, etc. the packaging looks pretty sensible to me.

 

Jim,

 

Just out of curiosity, is the backfocus distance standard? It isn't explicitly stated that one can use standard PL lenses on a RED. I'd love to get an Arri standard mount to PL adapter and see what one of my Cooke Speed Panchro II's and III's would look like shooting with a RED. With the RED's specs one should get that nice, old school look - using bleeding edge technology!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the version on the RED webpage with the "Cage One" on it looks real practical to me. With no need for magazines on top/back, external motors, etc. the packaging looks pretty sensible to me.

 

Jim,

 

Just out of curiosity, is the backfocus distance standard? It isn't explicitly stated that one can use standard PL lenses on a RED. I'd love to get an Arri standard mount to PL adapter and see what one of my Cooke Speed Panchro II's and III's would look like shooting with a RED. With the RED's specs one should get that nice, old school look - using bleeding edge technology!

 

We have a pretty innovative way to accommodate a number of mounts with the master mount preset at the factory with tolerances of less than .001.

 

The cages shown on the website amount to "sketches" we did a few months ago. I think you will be quite surprised at the changes made since then. The one thing we are doing different than others is exposing our development so that we can respond to feedback from the users. We are listening. Except to those who think we shouldn't be doing the project.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now seriously I'd like some other pros to chime in here, particularly those paid to shoot drama. How often would you use a 300mm lens? I'm willing to bet money than in an episode of The Sopranos a 300mm lens is brought out 0-1 times per show.

 

I used a HAWK 150-450mm zoom twice and occasionally have an Optimo or a Cooke 25-250mm on board. But using them at the long end of their range is a rare situation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sports, action sports and wildlife group are the ones that are ordering the lens. The intersting thing is that you get 4k stills along with the video.

 

Jim

 

Well....Jim that is exactly what I said in an earlier post, "the only time I'd use a lens that long is for wildlife." Even then a 300mm is tricky trying to line up the shot and keep it steady even with a tri-pod, getting a small bird into view is always a challenge. But that is not the fault of the 300mm lens, it's just the facts of "lens law."

 

Further to wildlife and your product, and all video gear in general, taking video gear deep into the woods is always a challenge it just doesn't hold up as well as film gear. It is far more susceptible to problems because of moisture and rain, it's just not as rugged. Actually one of the best cameras for field work is the lowly 16mm Russian built K3. It's very small and very light weight, you can pack it any where. You don't even need batteries, just wind it up, a big plus when you're isolated in the woods or jungle. You can also get a number of decent lenses for it in the after market via a web search. Then of course there's the cost, brand new for under $400.00. It's so well built that you can drop it and it will still run fine, some thing video cameras tend to have a bad reaction to.

 

The action sports people would be a good group for the camera and 300mm lens, it's a good combo for them. They stand off to the side on fields in stadiums. And yet NFL Films still documents games on film in the year 2006, even though there is right now a lot of HD options for them. You see the film stuff in their promos all the time, nice slo-mo.

 

As for getting a 4K still, that's great, very handy. Every frame of 35mm is at least a 5K still :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

I think the issue here is that if you're making a PL mount camera, the last thing the world needs is another set of really super high-quality, very expensive primes. Such things already exist and you're unlikely to be able to take on Cooke at their own game. What you need to create is a decent-but-affordable range, yes not as good as the best stuff, but something that'll allow people to use the camera reasonably at HD resolutions.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a still 35mm is 8 perf , not a super 35 mm about 3 pref , thats why effects houses used Vistavision for years ,and in some cases still do . Execs . at Warners or any other studio arnt that smart . [ Superman Returns $250 ] just as an example . John Holland London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jim, out of curiosity: who is providing the glass for the lenses?

 

As the other thread is locked, where you stated that you were looking for constructive input from the forum, i'll post my thoughts here: have a close look at Arriflexes and Panavisions and the accessories available for them. Build the body of your camera in a way it can accept those. There have been some discussions about the handle system of the RED. To me it doesn't look practical. I really like the handles on the Arricam ST/LT.

Mount the sensor and lens mount in a way that the set flange focal depth stays the same. I hate shooting with all those HD cameras that were designed for ENG but don't work for scenical shooting. I need to trust my machine. When i set the lens focus to 12ft i need to be sure the image 12ft away will be sharp.

And an optical viewfinder system would be great...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

 

Thanks for the input. Most lens companies won't give details of their product. As mentioned before, everything has changed from what is now posted on our website to what will be posted on the 8th. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. We agree that making our program compatible with Arri is a good thing. This is a digital cinema camera. It will be built much more like a film camera than most eng camers available now. No optical finder for our first camera. We will have a very high resloution EVF as an option.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Most lens companies won't give details of their product.

I believe what Daniel is asking is where you got the lens from, not where the company that put the lens together had their glass manufactured.

 

Since I don't think you designed and manufactured the whole lens in house (à la Zeiss), that leaves 2 options: either you designed the lens and had an outside company build it as per your specifications or you took a stills lens and adapted it for motion picture use (the simplest and cheapest option). Either way I too would be interested where the lens comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think that Red is going to kill every high definition camcorder. Even if Red proves to be superior technology it does not mean that everyone will accept this technology. Affordable high definition cameras exist and the question was asked that "if you could get high definition for the same price as standard definition wouldn't you want to go high definition?". Suprisingly the answer for most people was they refused to buy high definition and actually paid more money for a standard definition camcorder boasting that these SD camcorders were the low light kings. When affordable ultra high definition camcorders are realeased naysayers will find a million reasons not to buy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...