Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 13, 2006 There are some pics with the Red in handheld configuration: http://web.mac.com/mikedcurtis/iWeb/Site/I...-RedConfig.html - If there is a cage around this camera, where will the operator's head go? Hi Max, Inside the cage? Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Hi Max, Inside the cage? Stephen Yes, the current cage design is bigger than it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) We did not do a good job of presenting the versatility of our rail and cage program. Next week we will post a much better representation on our website. Sorry for the confusion. It is our fault. We'll fix it. We were just so focused on getting the footage ready. Jim This is a bit smaller configuration. Edited September 13, 2006 by Jim Jannard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 13, 2006 Hi, I like the rods/cage idea; people constantly gripe that there's no flat surfaces to fix things onto (particularly using velcro, and particularly in a Steadicam sort of mode) on many contemporary cameras. Also, I think part of the problem you're having with people calling "bullshit!" may well be down to a certain degree of PR mismanagement, which is of course why the enormous companies have large departments which form a single iris through which such information must pass. The odd slip of the tongue by a trade show rep, leapt upon by everyone who's interested in the camera, seems to be enough. Perhaps time to take a slightly harder line on what's said in public - or be a lot more open about the thing. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Phil... with all due respect, there are 7 of us running with our hair on fire. We are just fine... mistakes and all. This is a garage operation showing the process, for better or worse. We are learning a lot from feedback from our open process. I'm sure others run their business how they want. This is the way I have chosen to do it. 8 months ago we had nothing. And everyone was a skeptic and thought this "RED thing" was a scam. Now we are down to mistakes one of our reps makes at a trade show? We have come a long way. I acknowledge that we are not perfect. And others can call bullshit all they want. One by one we are proving the skeptics wrong. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 13, 2006 Jim I realize that these pics are without a mag and a battery which would counterbalance the weight of the camera and the lens. Although it might be a bit premature, do you anticipate the camerabody to be be lightweight engouh that one can offset it with the mag and the battery and still keep the whole setup quite compact? I say this from the perspective of someone who's had to operate a Moviecam SL with a Hawk anamorphic lens up front, a setup which is exceedingly frontheavy and quite uncomfortable to operate. I know some people who prefer to operate hadheld with a 1000ft mag, which although it is heavier, at least helps the camera balance better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 The body will be under 7 lbs. And the camera can be moved anywhere on the rails you want. The back end telescopes rearward with the battery and drive extending as far as you want for balance. We see no need for anamorphic. Shoot 4520 wide by whatever aspect ratio you want. There is plenty of resolution to hold full cinema presentation. More real world configurations on our website next week. Sorry for any confusion we created with our IBC model. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 13, 2006 We see no need for anamorphic. That's a shame in my opinion. I really like the anamorphic artifacts, especially the reduced depth of field and the squeezed way that the out-of-focus background looks. It's much more painterly than spherical 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 13, 2006 That's a shame in my opinion. I really like the anamorphic artifacts, especially the reduced depth of field and the squeezed way that the out-of-focus background looks. It's much more painterly than spherical 35mm. Begs the question... does RED have a 4x3 or 16x9 sensor? 2X anamorphic lenses aren't very useful on a 16x9 sensor. For example, the Dalsa sensor is nearly 2:1, so anamorphic isn't really necessary to get 2.35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 16:9 sensor. Actually 4900x2580 gross. 4520x2540 usable. Scales down to 4k. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Lareau Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I already stated I work 35mm films all the time. I know how things work. Yeah 150 million dollar films too. I'm also a indie filmmaker. Any camera made today for indie movie work you can basically pick up load a tape or mag put it on your shoulder and start shooting. In 16mm more depth of field gives you the abilty to be a one man shooter. Remember those great Maysles films all shot on 16mm. By them. They did everything. Thats indie filmmaking. Their not going to spend half an hour dismantling something. You need to move man. I guess you really have no clue. The Red is a great concept camera but right now its not a pratilcle indie camera the way they designed it. Seems now if you want to record to their hard drives its attached by cable as an extension. Try doing car shots with the vibration that will mess up that drive. Oh okay I'll get the red flash but that for sure is going to cost a fortune.Go make a movie pal and see what time and little money does to the way you work. I bet you're the type that be screaming for the next setup. I'm done. You guys are pretty hostile over a camera that you've never used. What cameras do you use to shoot your indie films? DV cameras, HDV cameras, or the HVX? Those are the only digital/ HD cameras you can buy new that are cheaper in cost than this camera will be, even with accessories. Compare the prosumer panasonic HVX- 200 to the professional grade Red One. Price out a full panasonic HVX-200 package. It'll run you around $20,000. You'd consider that to be an indie camera, but it doesn't have the same quality that this camera is offering. You can't change the lense, you don't have nearly the same resolution, and I don't know if you've ever attempted to pull focus on the HVX but panasonic's system (MF numbers, or really inaccurate feet/inches) leaves a lot to be desired. The Red One has an immediate advantage with the PL mount. Any DP can appreciate that. The two cameras are both light weight, which makes them more indie friendly. They both offer higher image quality to lower budget filmmakers, which is really the point isn't it? It's an opportunity, assuming it works as they claim that it does, for indie DPs to create higher quality images for the budget that they are given. Yes, the camera has problems and, in the interest of making money, I'm sure the designers will fix those problems. It's a prototype. (comment above) If you want a camera that operates itself, one you can turn on and go, then go use the DVX. Any high-end quality camera has set up time. Just because it's indie doesn't mean you can't fight for quality. And like someone previously stated, if you don't have time to set up a camera, then you definitely don't have time to light. What kind of films are you making? If they are not docs, then they sound like home videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Price out a full panasonic HVX-200 package. It'll run you around $20,000. And a full Red package will cost you about double that. There is no basis for logical comparison between the two, either on quality OR on price. While it's true that the HVX is a "prosumer" device and the Red could be considered a "professional" device, their respective price tags also follow that pattern. Those who are straining to afford an HVX will not be able to afford a Red. They won't even be able to think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) I don't think most people here are comparing the RED to the prosumer cameras. It's taken that camera is in development (it doesn't yet exist) so people are reacting to the information that's been given to them (as part of the RED marketing campaign). Feedback from the market always includes the negatives as well as the positives. As long as it doesn't get personal, it can strengthen the final product. The $17.500 price given by RED is a base price, it doesn't cover the cost of the add ons needed to put together a shooting rig. Given the size of the camera in the pictures (so far), it actually looks closer to a traditional professional camera than any of the prosumer cameras. I expect that may influence how people will use it, never mind the increased make up and art direction requirements. The potential introduction of the RED and the Silicon Imaging cameras will add to the options available to low budget feature/drama productions. Also to the documentaries that have the budgets that allow you to shoot with higher quality cameras than the HDV kits. Edited September 13, 2006 by Brian Drysdale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Carney Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I don't mean to show any disrespct to any ones experience here, but it seems many can't see the forest for the trees'. Maybe too much experience is getting in the way. ergo...If you don't like the rails, call a machine shop, provide them with plans and some nice billet aluminum and customize to your hearts content. You want Ari style connections, make one. Smaller, flatter, lighter? Make one. This camera lends itself to that sort of customization. Don't like looking like a tie fighter flying down the street, change it. Shouldn't really cost that much simply because of the way it's designed. That fact the the rails are included in the base price is pretty cool in itself. Not fanboy and not, I repeat, not, trying to start a flame war. Joe C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Häakon Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) That's a shame in my opinion. I really like the anamorphic artifacts, especially the reduced depth of field and the squeezed way that the out-of-focus background looks. It's much more painterly than spherical 35mm. What's ironic is that the "stretched" look of anamorphic backgrounds (which I don't find aesthetically pleasing at all, personally) is the result of the optics, not something a painter trying to attain realism would have ever brushed onto his canvas. Regardless of opinon, however, the advantage of attaining 2.35 from the 16x9 chip via cropping is a little wiggleroom in post - something you don't get with anamorphic. As Jim has mentioned, there is sufficient resolution to hold detail in whatever you're shooting so losing chip real estate via cropping isn't the issue that it is with other digital cameras. From everything I've seen, their sensor has a very smart design - and it should be reiterated that this isn't a film camera - so differences in approach should be expected. Edited September 20, 2006 by Häakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now