Eirik Tyrihjel Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Still not many details on specs, but its a whole range of things... http://red.com/pricelist.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Still not many details on specs, but its a whole range of things... http://red.com/pricelist.htm RED ONE POWER PACK$1,650Includes: 2 x RED BRICK&trade 140Ah Batteries RED CHARGER Camera - Charger LEMO Cable (10 ft) RED BRICK 140Ah Battery $450 RED CHARGER $750 Includes: Camera - Charger LEMO Cable (10 ft) A 140 A/H battery pack? Chrissake; what does it weigh? And you get TWO plus the charger plus a LEMO cable for $1,650?! F*ck the camera; when can I order some batteries! :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) A 140 A/H battery pack? Chrissake; what does it weigh?And you get TWO plus the charger plus a LEMO cable for $1,650?! F*ck the camera; when can I order some batteries! :blink: Heh. I'd assume that's a typo for 140 Wh (presumably at 14.4V). Still pretty good pricing. Edited March 13, 2007 by Chris Kenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 And if the viewfinder is 720p as previously mentioned, Red might sell a decent number of those to non-Red owners, assuming it's not proprietary. Anyway, it looks like if you're a reservation holder, you can get a nice package (sans lenses, of course) for under $22K: Camera ($17,500) Basic Production Pack ($1,250) Power Pack ($1,650) EVF ($2,950) Red Drive ($900) $24,250 - $2500 (bonus for reservation holders) = $21,750. Add the $500 Nikon mount and a couple of Nikon primes, and you could be shooting 4K for under $25K. Yes, we've been over all of the downsides to a setup like this vs. accessorizing with an set of Master Primes, a $4K matte box, etc, but it's still pretty incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Heh. I'd assume that's a typo for 140 Wh (presumably at 14.4V). Still pretty good pricing. You could be right. Graeme Nattress thinks it is meant to be 140 Watt-hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Carl, they've corrected the page to 140 Wh. More viewfinder details: switchable color or B&W, has "SurroundView" (see outside of frame like an optical viewfinder when shooting 4K or below), does not work with other cameras (it's integrated with the on-camera image processing hardware). The options for using various types of off-the-shelf flash memory are great. Anyone who has been buying P2 cards at 6x the market price for flash memory will certainly welcome that! You'll have to be careful to buy stuff that's fast enough, though, because only some of the newer stuff is. Red also plans to sell Red-branded flash at competitive prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) Carl, they've corrected the page to 140 Wh. Damn, I really thought Jannard had something there :rolleyes: I'm glad everybody here has beem able to restrain their excitement over the the publication of a price list! Anyone would think it was Windows 95 or something. To read the posts on reduser.net you'd think Jesus was coming for the second time, and I don't even think he's breathing heavily yet. You'll have to be careful to buy stuff that's fast enough, though, because only some of the newer stuff is. Red also plans to sell Red-branded flash at competitive prices. I think what would be a really nifty idea is a module with a whole lot of USB sockets on it so you you could use whatever flash drives you had to hand or could get cheap. Or a module with standard ATA hard drive sockets so you could do the same thing with whatever second-hand hard drives you could rustle up. And I know this is blasphemy, but a plain old HD tape interface would still make a lot of sense. Edited March 13, 2007 by Carl Brighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunleik Groven Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 And I know this is blasphemy, but a plain old HD tape interface would still make a lot of sense. Can't you connect that through HD-SDI? Both Panny and Sony's decks + a multitude of HD-solutions can. Or did I miss something? Gunleik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Add the $500 Nikon mount and a couple of Nikon primes, and you could be shooting 4K for under $25K. Yes, we've been over all of the downsides to a setup like this vs. accessorizing with an set of Master Primes, a $4K matte box, etc, but it's still pretty incredible. Spending only 10% of your camera purchase on lenses isn't a good a good idea unless you're planning to mostly to rent - it's way out of proportion. You'd spend a higher proportion on lenses for a stills camera purchase. In the UK the high end Nikon lenses with wide apertures cost £850 to £1000 each and you'd usually get a set of 4 focal lengths. Of course, nothing to stop you buying second hand lenses off e-bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Spending only 10% of your camera purchase on lenses isn't a good a good idea unless you're planning to mostly to rent - it's way out of proportion. You'd spend a higher proportion on lenses for a stills camera purchase. Sure, you'd be using stills camera lenses on a body that costs more than a stills camera body, so it stands to reason. In the UK the high end Nikon lenses with wide apertures cost £850 to £1000 each and you'd usually get a set of 4 focal lengths. Of course, nothing to stop you buying second hand lenses off e-bay. I can't speak for pricing there, but the most expensive F-mount lens in the B&H inventory (excluding large telephotos) is Nikon's 17-35mm 2.8 zoom, at ~$1500. Zeiss F-mount primes are $600-1200 each, a fair bit less than £850-1000 ($1600-1900). There's a forum over at Reduser where Nikon lenses are being reviewed with an eye toward using them with Red (using a Nikon D2X, which has a sensor of similar width and resolution). Some hold up pretty well, particularly if you can get away with stopping down to f4. As I've said, not ideal, but someone is going to go this route and probably get decent results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2007 Some hold up pretty well, particularly if you can get away with stopping down to f4. Hi Chris, That's a luxury I don't often get. Remember 1 extra stop is double the light, that extra stop may double the lighting budget, especially if generators are then needed! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 That's a luxury I don't often get. Remember 1 extra stop is double the light, that extra stop may double the lighting budget, especially if generators are then needed! We still don't know how far the camera's ISO can be pushed without unacceptable noise, so it's hard to say exactly how much of a problem this will be. Probably wouldn't be fun to do outdoor night shoots, but you can always rent some Superspeeds for a couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 US prices for camera gear are always lower than UK and the price I was quoting included the VAT, I'm not sure if B & H's prices include the sales tax. I was looking at lenses like the Nikon 85mm f1.4, which costs around $1.000 in B & H. Nice thing about the primes is being able to shoot at f2 to f2.8 (sometimes f1.4) and having sharp images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck colburn Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Oh Steven stop whining. Just shoot everything at 1.2 on an 85 or better yet a 135. Don't you know it's the way it's done nowadays? Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2007 Oh Steven stop whining. Just shoot everything at 1.2 on an 85 or better yet a 135.Don't you know it's the way it's done nowadays? Chuck Hi Chuck, I usually try to work wide open or nearly so, just the focus pullers I get to work with have slight problems with that! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 How did this once again get transformed into a discussion of still lenses on the RED? The price list is actually quite interesting to me. There prices are quite competitive and the package appears to be evolving into a complete system effectively. And by incorporating the drivers into the camera itself they were able to make the viewfinder much less expensive than I thought realistically possible. Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck colburn Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Stephen, Well you know what they say in Hollyweird, "If you can't do the job we can get someone in here who can" Oh by the way I'm not availble for those shoots. lol Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted March 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2007 Stephen, Well you know what they say in Hollyweird, "If you can't do the job we can get someone in here who can" Oh by the way I'm not availble for those shoots. lol Chuck Hi Chuck, There are only about 6 good focus pullers, and probably the same no of good Gaffers in Switzerland, so I'm screwed if I can't do it myself! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 How did this once again get transformed into a discussion of still lenses on the RED? The price list is actually quite interesting to me. There prices are quite competitive and the package appears to be evolving into a complete system effectively. And by incorporating the drivers into the camera itself they were able to make the viewfinder much less expensive than I thought realistically possible. Very interesting. It's the system aspect which does make it an interesting package. I expect people will decide on how they want to putting together their system and will compare prices and workflows with the other cameras in this price bracket. Interesting question on CML about the batteries and if they're too large a capacity for air travel because of the fire hazard. In reality, most people tend to shoot more with zoom lenses, usually driven by the production schedule and budget. I suspect quite a lot of REDs will be configured for 2k rather than 4k because of this, regardless of the 4k marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zakaree Sandberg Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 And if the viewfinder is 720p as previously mentioned, Red might sell a decent number of those to non-Red owners, assuming it's not proprietary. indeed it is proprietary.. red cameras only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Riese Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 RED ONE POWER PACK$1,650Includes:2 x RED BRICK&trade 140Ah Batteries RED CHARGER Camera - Charger LEMO Cable (10 ft) RED BRICK 140Ah Battery $450 RED CHARGER $750 Includes: Camera - Charger LEMO Cable (10 ft) I'm not sure what the other pieces of gear are worth but $450 for a 140wh is a good price but on average with Anton Bauer's Hytron 140. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) Can you believe that people over on reduser.net are complaining about the price of the RED! For f*ck's sake, what do they want? Even if the RED was only a quarter as good as they say it is, it would still blow anything else available out of the water, value for money wise. Oh well, it just goes to show what sort of audience he's collected. I really can't see how Jannard can be making any money out of this, but he's certainly held the price very well. Now all he has to do is deliver the actual goods! I still refuse to call it "4K", but it still should be a damned good camera, particularly for the money. I'm not interested in buying one, but I'm keen to see one in action. Look out for me, I'll be the guy wearing the T shirt with a zone-plate printed on it :P Edited March 14, 2007 by Carl Brighton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Kenny Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Can you believe that people over on reduser.net are complaining about the price of the RED! For f*ck's sake, what do they want? Even if the RED was only a quarter as good as they say it is, it would still blow anything else available out of the water, value for money wise. Oh well, it just goes to show what sort of audience he's collected. To be fair, only a few people are complaining, and they're being yelled at for it over at Reduser as well. Red has pointed out how much the specs have been upgraded. Hell, when we reserved Red #404 last year before IBC, we thought we were getting a camera which would mostly be shooting compressed 2K RGB from a 4K sensor. Then they managed to implement compressed 4K RAW recording on-board. I really can't see how Jannard can be making any money out of this, but he's certainly held the price very well. Now all he has to do is deliver the actual goods! I still refuse to call it "4K", but it still should be a damned good camera, particularly for the money. I'm not interested in buying one, but I'm keen to see one in action. As far as whether it's 4K... well, when you start getting into these kinds of resolutions, I think it becomes a lot less important to nit pick about pixel counts. I saw the Red test footage projected on a 4K projector at NAB in New York. The screen wasn't huge, but I was sitting in the front row, significantly less then one screen height back. With a 4K bayer sensor, as nearly as I can tell, resolution is basically a solved problem. A couple of years from now someone will probably do a 8K bayer sensor for producing 4K output, which might look a little better, if you're sitting up close, but I'd expect the difference to be pretty marginal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Flores Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 <snip>I saw the Red test footage projected on a 4K projector at NAB in New York. The screen wasn't huge, but I was sitting in the front row, significantly less then one screen height back. With a 4K bayer sensor, as nearly as I can tell, resolution is basically a solved problem. A couple of years from now someone will probably do a 8K bayer sensor for producing 4K output, which might look a little better, if you're sitting up close, but I'd expect the difference to be pretty marginal. Chris - I don't think it's likely you'll see an 8K CMOS Bayer sensor in the same 35mm format. Certainly the geometries are easily attainable, but the signal characteristics/parametrics of the circuit are not practically attainable in the prevailing silicon process. The difficulty lies in the cell signal which relatively proportional to its area. If you scale the process of the cell you can?t equally scale the control/sense amp circuitry without substantial degradation of signal integrity; not to mention the substantial loss in signal strength/sensitivity further degrading signal. I think what will improve is the tweaking foundry process and the optimizing of the sense amp, control circuitry and transaction/interpolation algorithms. The performance of the RED image render is very good. If their sensor foundry can reasonably yield the die then they will readily meet every claim and expectation they have made. Certainly the capital is there to make it happen. Those that continually rant about its technological viability are simply laymen who are completely unfamiliar with the technology. It?s an establish technology in a new application using all the improvements in processing and design; a matter of mathematics and engineering is all there is left to improve the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) Boy its been a while since I've posted. But there was this email in my mail box about Red prices so I thought I'd check it out... If some our upset on reduser.net... I think its due to the fact that everyone at the beginning kept harping on how the camera was going to be $17,500 and for a few grand more you could shoot with still lens... trust me I got some nasty pm's telling me I was a bad guy (putting it in nice terms) for not trusting the Red team. I think they just finally bought into the buzz and it became real... good marketing by someone there... Now they finally see how the higher end cameras have a set price for a body and then other costs for the add ons... I haven't added up the numbers... really it doesn't matter to me.. until the camera is on the market and tested and proven... I wouldn't lay down any cash... Not saying its bad or good... just saying I wouldn't lay down $30k to $40k on an unproven camera... Please no nasty pm's from any one on any side of this debate. :D Edited March 14, 2007 by Gary McClurg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts