jan von krogh Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I believe there are more than 2000 Arri cameras around worldwide. i thought it would be more - however i was speaking of sales now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted August 22, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 22, 2007 I believe there are more than 2000 Arri cameras around worldwide. Absolutely there are. Look at the serial number on the newest IIC you can find, they're well into 5 digits. The first II was # 2000, I believe they went over # 17000. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Hello Mark, first of all i would recommend to try to learn the "quote" feature of this board. It helps people who actually are trying to read your post and it isn´t hard to master. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this a debate about the red or a refereral to my lack of intelligence and need to be taught by you? Lesson in well it seems everything? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Correct. And be it David Fincher, Robert Altman, the Wachowski Bros, Michael Mann, Mel Gibson, Bryan Singer etc they have produced many excellent movies. Resolution. Any mid-class photographer should be able to explain you how CMOS Bayer-design works. I am not sure to what you refer to with "your cinemas". Test have been conducted in the USA, EU and Asia. ITU-R tested several of the best cinemas on different continents combined. Read this: http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- British cinemas and why would I read about your tests? I already commented on them and I dont believe them because the implication is that the cinema has a resolution by the time you get the film on the screen of about 1.1k ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Independent from country, Arri or Panavision gear - in the typical distribution chain, the 35mm film process doesn´t resolve 2k at the end on the screen. We left 16mm (and S16mm) years ago. We wanted better images. The remaining 16 and S16mm lenses will be put to new use on the Red. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So the Lenses are OK then? Those same lenses evolved for 16mm can be used on the much higher resolution red with no loss of image quality? How cool is that? My zeiss primes make the picture sharper and clearer on film tham standard lenses? But if the film has less resolving power than the red then a standard 16mm lens will mean the red will be less than my film camera with zeiss lenses. So therefore your statement of the 16mm lenses being put to use on a red must mean the red can only resolve equivlent to a 16mm lens? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are in a hurry: Attach drive (or SSD). Edit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So can you use AE? Or Vegas? Or any number of compositing programs? Or colour correction? Or do you have to buy expensive programs to do anything other than basic editing? And what would you show it on? If you were going to project it then what other equipment would you need? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are more the guy who likes security: backup first, then edit from the disc. directly. If you prefer to digitize from a hdcam vtr in the field or wnat to have a portable lab at the set, ok. Furthermore, if you already think that FCP/Apple or PPro/Windows are expensive, then Red is clearly to expensive for you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No I dont think so but could you really grade a movie using it? After watching a professional grading on a Million dollar setup with a pro colourist using a calibrated 2K projector I guess you could but would you have a professional result? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even before delivery, academy award winning directors disagree. You did notice what productions are actually shooting on red already now i suppose? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes but how many are using the red because of behind the scenes deals like free use of or other stuff? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For us film is becoming a rare exception. To compare, in 1999, i think that > 75% of all the stuff we did was film - and the rest was broadcast or animation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Your entitled to do what you want and good luck with your venture but in case you hadnt noticed the red is a video camera. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In case you didn´t notice: With over 2000 order in their books, red has become the marketleader in the 35mm camera manufacturer segment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How could it be the market leader? Its not a 35mm camera? And even if it were the marketing has been exceptional many are basing assumptions and ability from what they are told which is the Viper and HD cams are an alternative to film and this supercedes them because it has a single ccd and can resolve 4k only thats not true becasue resolving power is about the ability to resolve the real life image to a quantifiable resolution AND THE RED doesnt do that what it does is fill in missing information by guessing and that would be like line doubling which is doubling or guessing missing information information that fills in the blanks that actually is a compressed format being put back together with copies and guesses. How is that 4K? Just because it does a good job its still not 4K and as such should not claim to be. You can say it contains 4K of information some copied but not 4K of true information because it doesnt and is a prime example of the sort of advertising that is misleading. Progressive scan and Canons film mode and other magic tricks are not the real deal. However thats not to say the red is not going to be a cracking video camera that will do well in the HD market maybe but then maybe not. Its just all the other claims that are not by any means proven or even right or true. I think the problem for me is not that I dont like the Red or think it has a place its just the outrageous claims and the way its being done to undermine the film format is bad form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 In case you didn´t notice:With over 2000 order in their books, red has become the marketleader in the 35mm camera manufacturer segment. We argued over this one elsewhere. Pre-orders are not how market share is measured. 2000 pre-orders is impressive, but the real market share is decided by how many cameras ship. Market share is how many of those using S35 type cameras, are using RED cameras... you'd agree that its not fair to try measuring that yet. But to claim pre-orders as definitive market share is deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 We argued over this one elsewhere. Pre-orders are not how market share is measured. 2000 pre-orders is impressive, but the real market share is decided by how many cameras ship. As i mentioned (also elsewhere) - boeing and airbus might disagree on that one. Anyhow, red said -knock on wood- that they intend to start shipping next week, so lets hope that we will be able to settle this within some weeks from here. Do you have any figures how many camera bodies aari, aaton and panavision manufacture together in one year? Market share is how many of those using S35 type cameras, are using RED cameras... Now, you should decide yourself. Do you want to measure marketshare in a) sales b) delivery c) usage? you'd agree that its not fair to try measuring that yet. But to claim pre-orders as definitive market share is deceptive. Daniel, no pun intended - but they could loose 75% of their customers and would still be delivering most of all 35mm camera manufacturers, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Ah Daniel, forgot to mention . it seems possible that we will shoot some 4k stock in oceania this winter. fiji & moorea would certainly on the list then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted August 22, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 22, 2007 I detect the descending hammer of thread closure. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Daniel, no pun intended - but they could loose 75% of their customers and would still be delivering most of all 35mm camera manufacturers, correct? Yes, for about the couple of months that it took to ship the pre-orders.. then the regular market forces would kick in. I think it will be most telling to wait till shipping + 6months, and the real market shares will be more evident. If you're going to be coming through Fiji PM me, I'd be happy to lend a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 It helps people who actually are trying to read your post and it isn´t hard to master.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this a debate about the red or a refereral to my lack of intelligence and need to be taught by you? Lesson in well it seems everything? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc, it simply helps for readers of this board. Everyone uses it. It is not only polite to use it, it also helps you to structure your text and allows the reader to identify quote and reply. http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- British cinemas and why would I read about your tests? I already commented on them and I dont believe them because the implication is that the cinema has a resolution by the time you get the film on the screen of about 1.1k ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *sigh* Its not -my- test. If you would read the tests - they have been conducted at panavision, stage 2, were monitored by senior members of several european national cinematographer associations and the itu is hardly suspicious of being biased in any direction. Independent from country, Arri or Panavision gear - in the typical distribution chain, the 35mm film process doesn´t resolve 2k at the end on the screen. We left 16mm (and S16mm) years ago. We wanted better images. The remaining 16 and S16mm lenses will be put to new use on the Red.So the Lenses are OK then? Those same lenses evolved for 16mm can be used on the much higher resolution red with no loss of image quality? How cool is that? In S16, and especially 16, the bottleneck is typically the stock. Furthermore, red shoots 2k with S16 coverage, not 4k. i suppose 4k would be a little bit over the top for our zeiss s16 primes. So can you use AE? Or Vegas? Or any number of compositing programs? Or colour correction? Or do you have to buy expensive programs to do anything other than basic editing? yes, yes and yes. You simply embed Redcode in QT (takes seconds) and then Quicktime-capable applications can directly access the images. No. Premiere handles 4k just fine. You will want a powerful computer (and raids) however. And what would you show it on? If you were going to project it then what other equipment would you need? For monitoring: If you are budget-sensitive: IBM T220 would be a good solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors We were thinking about an Sony SRX 4k, however, as red announced 4k projectors as well, we wil probably wait as the investment for the srx is pretty risky and high. For playback besides redcode: Budget: DVS Hydra, Keisoku Giken oder Quovis, a little bit more powerful Clipster, Quantel iQ/pablo might be good choices. Or you wait some months and use standard pc-graphics card. No I dont think so but could you really grade a movie using it? After watching a professional grading on a Million dollar setup with a pro colourist using a calibrated 2K projector I guess you could but would you have a professional result? If you go the cheap route, you can get professional results already with Adobe or Apple or discreets desktop solutions... However it will consume more time, especially for longform. For shortforms (as commercials etc) these inexpensive systems can be pretty powerful. For longform however, i would recommend to use facilities as ours - or even larger. Yes but how many are using the red because of behind the scenes deals like free use of or other stuff? You imply that Soderbergh and Jackson, Rodney Chartes or David Stump etc have been bribed? PJ made it very clear that he didn´t want and got -any- financial compensation. Wealthy folks as him or Soderbergh certainly aren´t lured by $17.500, btw. Your entitled to do what you want and good luck with your venture but in case you hadnt noticed the red is a video camera. So are Genesis (B. Singer, M. Gibson etc), Viper (M. Mann, D. Fincher etc), Sony HDCAM (G. Lucas, Wachowski Bros, J. Cameron, R. Altman etc). The times are changing Mark - digital aquisition instead of film is usual. Not only in the A-budget world. How could it be the market leader? Its not a 35mm camera? Hm. It records through 35mm lenses. It records on a S35mm sensor. Its optical systems are compatible with standard 35mm gear. Its workflow is designed to co-exist and integrate in todays 35mm D.I. Its users in the field use it instead or together with film (35mm, that is). Hm. I remember when, ~7 years ago, the -exact- same discussions surrounded nikon, canon and hasselblad. "Its not an SLR, its digital!". Now look where this market is today. Nikon and Canon only develop new SLRs basing on sensors instead of film. Panavision latest camera - S35 sensor. Arris D20 - S35 sensor. For me the writing on the wall is crystal clear. Your opinion might be different, but i recommend you: don´t be shocked if you see how surprisingly fast the translation from mechanical/analogue to digital goes once a market is beginning to transform. I saw multitrack audio and DAWs, i saw steenbeck and NLE, i saw Photocameras and DSLRs, Vinyl and CD, typewriter and wordprocessor... to many examples to list. I never saw the opposite. And even if it were the marketing has been exceptional many are basing assumptions and ability from what they are told which is the Viper and HD cams are an alternative to film and this supercedes them because it has a single ccd and can resolve 4k only thats not true becasue resolving power is about the ability to resolve the real life image to a quantifiable resolution AND THE RED doesnt do that what it does is fill in missing information by guessing and that would be like line doubling which is doubling or guessing missing information information that fills in the blanks that actually is a compressed format being put back together with copies and guesses. I think the problem for me is not that I dont like the Red or think it has a place its just the outrageous claims and the way its being done to undermine the film format is bad form. First of all, it has no CCD. It has, as Arris or Panavisions cameras a CMOS Sensor. Then - debayering isn´t linedoubling. All top-photographic brands use exactly that system on all of their top-cameras. Moving or still image. Japanese, American or European. The 12 MP sensor in the Red indeed resolves more than 4k. That is necessary to obtain a debayered 4k image. The red is simply another tool. I someone says, as Peter Jackson, that it surpasses 35mm and would rather challenge 65mm, ok - but that isn´t why we bought the camera. For us it simply solves many problems we had on hdcam or on film and offers creative possibilities we had on film or hdcam. Just one example - we had overcranking on film, but runtime, noise and monitoring was problematic. These problems were solved with hdcam, however hdcam only offered so-so overcranking. The quality we saw doesn´t need to be compared to whatever format - the images are excellent. Its much better than good enough. And with that pricepoint we can use it on smaller productions as well as on our best productions - which simplifies workflows quite a bit. Furthermore i really like the possibility to actually -choose- DOF between 16 and 35. For documentary, wildlife, sports etc 35 DOF can be pretty problematic, especially if your focuspuller doesn´t have its best day or the critter to be recorded is deciding to do one 180 degree turn after the other. I think it is always good to embrace new possibilities and to put them to creative use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 (edited) [EDIT lockout] Now, you should decide yourself.Do you want to measure marketshare in a) sales B) delivery c) usage? I'm happy to measure market share by any one of the above. Either of them will give a more truthful picture of the market than the 2000 pre-order figure. Sales - pre-orders don't all equate to sales, so that figure is fluid... I for one can't guess a % there. Delivery - yet to happen (coming very soon I hear..) Usage - again yet to happen, there are (as far as I know) no production models out there. Edited August 23, 2007 by Daniel Sheehy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Good Lord, another useless, meaningless RED discussion thread! In answer to the original question: We don't know; when the camera is released we can test to decide. In answer to just about everything else: Tech specs and stats mean only so much. In the real world, we have seen time and time again that there are many factors which blur lines and that there are no absolutes. But there are comparison tests on a variety of performance isues, and quantitative measurements as well as qualitative judgements can be solidly made from them. But until we have a camera in hand to est, EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEANINGLESS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Michael Corey Posted August 23, 2007 Author Share Posted August 23, 2007 How has VIPER compared to 35mm film in independent testing? In what image quality areas has VIPER equaled 35mm film? In what image quality areas has VIPER surpassed 35mm film? And, in what image quality areas has VIPER fallen short of 35mm film? Does RED promise to bridge any gaps/issues that may exist between VIPER and 35mm film? Are there potential image quality areas/issues that remain a stiff challenge for RED? Is it ever likely that traditional film cameras will be able to capture low light shots and distant night time skyline shots and such with the clarity of digital cameras? Is some new breakthrough in celluloid needed in order to capture such low light shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 *sigh* Its not -my- test. If you would read the tests - they have been conducted at panavision, stage 2, were monitored by senior members of several european national cinematographer associations and the itu is hardly suspicious of being biased in any direction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tests can often be read anyway you want them to appear I would trust your use of these tests with a pinch of salt. The use of 16mm lenses are itself a limitation in film. A limitation that 16mm film can proveably supass by the creation of higher quality 16mm lenses for the film format. You yourself suggested the use of 16mm lenses and red makes them. Your idea for testing film against video is flawed and weighed to give the result you want. Defination is limited by things other than the format its recorded on. Lenses being one of them. Also the ability for the human eye to see it. Film will always be more fluid and truthful than video becasue of the rigid nature of pixels and lines Film is detemined by light actually affecting it through an organic representation that changes in size to grow or shrink to accomadate changes in real life lighted situations. Film has a look and feel that is created by the environment and by the work of the cinematographer and lighting and set design. These are working in the real world to create moments that we all from time to time know to be real because they are taken from reality. Digital is a different kind of look and not as acceptable by society in creating a real representation of the world. Yes many will say it does and ask if it doesnt then why? Because we dont understand something doesnt mean it aint so. Watching the news or video we all know and understand the video look. Watching the new star wars films many will say not as good as the originals or they plain dont like the digital look. Because digital doesnt look alive because its not capturing life its capturing boxes. Fine if people want to go digital then films like star wars will get a good audience for so long before people become disillusioned and cant be taken into the fantasy because it dont look real. Yes you can create great effects Planes high up and scary looking heights. Yes you can create a roller coaster ride and make people awed. BUT you cant replace the character and organic believability of lovable characters inhabiting an escapist universe with noughts and ones. You can. But for how long? will people stay enthused until switching off and watching youtube? My guess is the majority of people will unquestioningly accept digital because its scientific its clever and so must be better The next latest best thing the new stuff out with the old. ONLY it isnt better by a long mile. FILM is the best format today for film creation because of its look and lifelike representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 How has VIPER compared to 35mm film in independent testing? In what image quality areas has VIPER equaled 35mm film? In what image quality areas has VIPER surpassed 35mm film? And, in what image quality areas has VIPER fallen short of 35mm film? Does RED promise to bridge any gaps/issues that may exist between VIPER and 35mm film? Are there potential image quality areas/issues that remain a stiff challenge for RED? Is it ever likely that traditional film cameras will be able to capture low light shots and distant night time skyline shots and such with the clarity of digital cameras? Is some new breakthrough in celluloid needed in order to capture such low light shots? Look in a nutshell, for most practical film making purposes the Viper doesn't really work any better or any worse than any other of the currrent plethora of High End TV cameras trying to pretend they're movie cameras. I come to that conclusion not by doing expensive tests, not by soliciting the opinions of industry experts whose expertise doesn't really lie in the field of cinematography, and certainly not by blindly accepting the pre-digested propaganda of people with obvious and not-so-obvious vested interests. I come to that conclusion by the same means that the vast majority of Hollywood "name" producers who DO NOT use electronic cameras do: I find a cinema with decent standards of projection and go and have a look at what these cameras can do, the same way the intended audience does. That is the "Ticket, popcorn, soft drink" approach. Why the hell would anybody want or need to do anything else? But hell no, that would be far too unscientific for the sort of know-everything know-nowt airheads who tend to inhabit forums like these. And as for the RED, the pictures I've seen so far don't really look any different from what I've seen from other HD cameras, and there is nothing about the technology that would make me expect otherwise. It has the same 66dB or so of dynamic range as all the other leading brands and so is never going to equal the performance of film as far as highlight handling goes. The RED has one (1) overwhelming advantage: It's CHEAP!! "Is it ever likely that traditional film cameras will be able to capture low light shots and distant night time skyline shots and such with the clarity of digital cameras? Is some new breakthrough in celluloid needed in order to capture such low light shots?" It would be possible to make film than can do this, but it would then have the same limited dynamic range as HD cameras. If a movie really needs such shots, it will always be cheaper and easier to simply use some sort of HD camera. But the vast majority of movies made have no particular need for such extreme photography, so it's very unlikely anybody would want to go to the expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 First of all, it has no CCD. It has, as Arris or Panavisions cameras a CMOS Sensor. No, all the PV HD cameras (Genesis and CineAlta) have CCD sensors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted August 23, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 23, 2007 Hi All, I get the feeling that this thread has run it's course. I am sure over the next few months people will indeed do some direct comparisons with the Red camera, Thopmson Viper, Sony F23 and even film from Fuji & Kodak. It's in everybody's best interest just to wait and see how Red performs as a real product, remember images shown to date have come prototype cameras and may not reflect the shipping product. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts