Jump to content

Grip's impression of the Red one.


robert duke

Recommended Posts

So I had my first shoot using the Red Cam. I was really kind of taken aback.

I knew it was bigger than a HVX, but D@#$%N! That thing is HUGE with all the bells and whistles on it. The Dp had Ordered a New Oconnor head but was still using his older Satchler head and it was more than the Head could really handle. I am not sure all of the Digerati out there were really expecting this camera to be so big and HEAVY. I was worried that when this thing came out all my full size camera gear would be mothballed, but No not anymore. I am actually worried that my ballhead may not be big enough( not really). But really most people expecting to be able to use a Bogen head will be in for a serious upheaval in that it wont work. All the lightweight DV heads will not cover this thing. We had to strip off the mattebox and some of the rail system to use the satchler head the DP had been using since beta SP's were the poop.

 

As for the camera I was impressed the image and managablity of the controls. I liked that the look settings ( white balance etc) were more or less metadata not applied to the recorded image, leave that for those pesky editors and CC guys. ( more like film work flow). I was impressed at the range when dealing with F-stops. We shot in a school hallway using a single Diva, the overhead practical Fluoros, and some windows. we looked straight at the windows and had an image beyond that was legible and still could see details in the shadowed faces. Pretty Darned good!

 

I can't wait to see this thing run through the paces in a much more studio style narrative setting.

 

Overall the camera was great, we had a couple small glitches, the camera would kind of stall if you pushed the record button and another button too fast. It would give a POSTING message and stutter between a couple frames. we discovered that if a little patience was given it operated just fine.

 

I think that this tool is a Professional Device, The price, size and workflow requirements really do push this above the DV range. The Dp was stunned at the sheer data Volume that was being recorded and had to be dealt with in Post. More than your standard NLE and CPU, so more than a person who has a FCP system. I think that we will see a lot of new owners having to shell out more money for heavier duty sticks and heavier duty computers ( another Hidden cost to the $17000 camera).

 

There is some room for improvement. The cage for the harddrive (reddrive) was lacking in some areas. It didnt seem to fit the drive securely. I would worry about the drive on a feature shoot falling out. The v-lock battery had some play, and didnt feel secure either.

 

I was impressed at the LCD screen and its functions. although it had a really narrow field of view. That made it hard for the client to see the screen. It seemed like going back in time before Video assist, which is odd for a new technology. It was awkward having the client watch over my shoulder while I did dolly moves. I am so used to the client having their own monitor far far from the set.

 

I think once all the bugs, software upgrades and some of the long term usage hardware (mostly the periphials) problems are sorted out this will be a great tool for shooting.

 

I have a Warning to all the DV guys who ran out and bought one. If you think hauling a HVX around all day was tiring just shoulder this thing all day. No more Glidecam shots using those cheap steadycam systems, no more cheap Jib arms, no more suction cup car mounts. It is time to use the professional stuff.

 

hope to use the camera again soon,

 

A grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Robert,

 

How does fully built package compare weight-wise to a fully loaded Sony F900R with on-board monitor, rods, mattebox, on-board battery, etc.?

 

 

Think ARRI 235 kind of weight. Or if you are not that familiar with a 235 as it is fairly new think just slightly lighter then a 435 set up. All in all it is actually quite light as far as profesional cine cameras go.

Edited by Daren Findling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Think ARRI 235 kind of weight. Or if you are not that familiar with a 235 as it is fairly new think just slightly lighter then a 435 set up. All in all it is actually quite light as far as profesional cine cameras go.

 

 

Yep smaller than a fully loaded F900. That thing's as long as the QE II. It's more awkward too. They have all these bolts that can only be undone by allen key...

 

Want to shorten your rails while the cage is attcahed ? You're looking at undoing 4 bolts with an allen key, then the baseplate, then the FF, blah blah...

 

Yes, it is surprisingly heavy for it's small size...body only that is....

 

The 235 is a good comparison.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,

 

How does fully built package compare weight-wise to a fully loaded Sony F900R with on-board monitor, rods, mattebox, on-board battery, etc.?

 

 

I had the chance to compare the F900 side by side with the RED a while back, so my memory might be a little wishy washy. But as I recall, the camera bodies were fairly similar in weight. The RED was a touch wider than the F900 but a little shorter. Just about the same length I think. The "denseness" really surprised me too when I lifted it. In photos, it looks like it's going to be a smaller and lighter thing to run around with, but it they managed to cram a lot of heavy stuff inside that body. This is definitely not a high quality MiniDV level camera in terms of use. And yes, just to get up and running on the EFP 2K level, you're likely to spend at least $35 grand just for the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think fully loaded you are somewhere is the 45lb range. We had the reddrive on the back, with batteries mounted as if it were a Mag. The top and bottom rails, matte box LCD, 18-50 lens, ff nobs.

 

It was pretty close to a f900 fully loaded.

 

I think this thing might be more dense than the 235. It has been over a year since I worked with the 235 but the naked body is comparable to a Panavision platinum naked.

 

I think the dp said the bodie was 28lbs of love. We didnt put a handheld rig on the camera so...

 

I think If I were to buy one ( as if I wouldnt try to use it as a hammer... grip joke...) I would have gotten Carbon fiber rails.

 

I might look into them as a gift. Are the rails 18mm or 15mm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think fully loaded you are somewhere is the 45lb range. We had the reddrive on the back, with batteries mounted as if it were a Mag. The top and bottom rails, matte box LCD, 18-50 lens, ff nobs.

 

It was pretty close to a f900 fully loaded.

 

I think this thing might be more dense than the 235. It has been over a year since I worked with the 235 but the naked body is comparable to a Panavision platinum naked.

 

I think the dp said the bodie was 28lbs of love. We didnt put a handheld rig on the camera so...

 

I think If I were to buy one ( as if I wouldnt try to use it as a hammer... grip joke...) I would have gotten Carbon fiber rails.

 

I might look into them as a gift. Are the rails 18mm or 15mm?

 

The standard rails are 19mm but you can use 15mm rails with the camera (depends on which baseplate you get).

The camera isn't even close to being as heavy as the CineAlta. My red with the ET arri style baseplate, two top mounts, top handle, battery, CF module, red cradle, 18" steel rails on bottom, and 6" CF rails on top weighs just over 16lbs (I just put it on the scale)...Mind you that doesn't include the FF4, the MB20 or the glass (the glass make a huge difference).

 

As a general note I have an OConnor 1030HD which handles it no problem. BUT on my Cartoni Focus with a Cooke 18-100mm zoom its at the top end of the range for the head (the sticks are the T622/2C which candle close to 100lbs.).

 

~Marque

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
It rendered the pinkish overhead discharge lights as bright, screaming yellow, no matter how carefully we balanced it.

 

Was this the sodium vapor line pair, 589.0 and 589.6 nanometers? The human eye-brain combination handles these things quite differenly than silicon and silver halides do.

 

Red takes a different approach to color than traditional video cameras. They don't try to do it all in the field, as is necessary with tape recording. Their idea is to just compress and store what comes from the sensor, and correct color in post.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm pretty sure it was high pressure sodium, a salmon-pink light.

 

And let's not make excuses for the thing. If it has a white balance function it ought to get it a lot more right than it did. Bright yellow sodium light, resulting in greenish skintones shading to pink-magenta where tinged by tungsten light. I have never seen anything else get it that wrong.

 

I could go into how clippy and unpleasant the picture was, but that could have been the monitoring (though every Red picture I've seen has had the problem).

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was high pressure sodium, a salmon-pink light.

 

And let's not make excuses for the thing. If it has a white balance function it ought to get it a lot more right than it did. Bright yellow sodium light, resulting in greenish skintones shading to pink-magenta where tinged by tungsten light. I have never seen anything else get it that wrong.

 

I could go into how clippy and unpleasant the picture was, but that could have been the monitoring (though every Red picture I've seen has had the problem).

 

P

 

 

User error :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thus far one of the major user complaints has been about the monitoring output. As it stands, the output does not accurately reflect whats being recorded in terms of exposure or color. I would imagine that fixes are on the way, but I too was horrified by some of what I saw on the SDI output, only to find that the files themselves turned out nicely.

 

Back to the subject at hand, physically there are some obstacles to be overcome, and after a visit to Element Technica today, I'm confident that very smart people are working on clever solutions. Currently, RED's accessories are pretty quirky,,, the equivalent of "outsider art." Interesting ideas on how to shake things up, but they require a leap of faith from established methods of camera rigging and building...i.e. some reinvent the wheels that work. Element Technica comes from a film background, and they seem to understand that the best and quickest way for RED to become established in the industry is to offer methods to integrate it into what we find comfortable and efficient. Right now there are a few nits to pick usability-wise, but having now seen many of the immediately upcoming 3rd party accessories, I can say honestly that I'm finally relieved and looking forward to shooting a project with the RED. Obviously "help is on the way" is not terribly comforting to those who need these items yesterday, but in the bigger picture companies like Element are helping all of us so that when we show up on set and find RED instead of whatever camera we expected, there won't be any panic, it'll handle just like it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played briefly with one of these at Videoforum yesterday. It rendered the pinkish overhead discharge lights as bright, screaming yellow, no matter how carefully we balanced it.

 

Horrible.

 

Come on Phil... you can do better than this. Less than 2K resolution, scam, something!

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well, thus far one of the major user complaints has been about the monitoring output. As it stands, the output does not accurately reflect whats being recorded in terms of exposure or color.

Exactly the same could be said of the video tap output from any Arriflex or Panavision film camera. What we have here is a clash between the video and film mindsets regarding the nature and purpose of monitoring.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Exactly the same could be said of the video tap output from any Arriflex or Panavision film camera. What we have here is a clash between the video and film mindsets regarding the nature and purpose of monitoring.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

 

Maybe it's because of those old fashioned optical viewfinders and 100+ years of knowledge of how film exposes.....

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's the problem - it's not really video and its not film. It's something either in between or something else entirely. There is no optical viewfinder, so you must rely on some kind of electronic finder. Right now people are still trying to figure out how to expose this camera - again, it's not film and it's not video. You can't use a waveform off the SDI output because it would be completely wrong, and you can't use a light meter the same way you would film, because the camera responds differently. So the fact remains, the camera has the capability to show a more accurate picture on it's monitoring outputs, and possibly custom LUTs. Right now, sure you could just consider it a video tap, but we don't have to settle for that kind of quality. I'm just saying - I can and do work off of taps for steadicam, but if I were given the option of a picture that actually reflects the final image, I can't see a reason not to take it, or at least have it as an option.

 

And as for mounting, in the most simple sense it can already be mounted to just about anything - dolly, crane, steadicam, sticks, cable rigs, etc... Not necessarily the fastest integration into those uses right this second, but it can certainly be done securely. In its most elemental form, RED is basically a video box camera with a bunch of threaded holes all over it. But again - third parties are coming up with more traditional pieces to make it quicker and more comfortable. It CAN be done today, but it will all be getting easier as time goes on.

Edited by Jaron Berman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You can't use a waveform off the SDI output because it would be completely wrong, and you can't use a light meter the same way you would film, because the camera responds differently. So the fact remains, the camera has the capability to show a more accurate picture on it's monitoring outputs, and possibly custom LUTs. Right now, sure you could just consider it a video tap, but we don't have to settle for that kind of quality. I'm just saying - I can and do work off of taps for steadicam, but if I were given the option of a picture that actually reflects the final image, I can't see a reason not to take it, or at least have it as an option.

 

Red looks like a DSLR that can shoot and store enough frames fast enough to do motion. That's the closest approximation for exposure and dynamic range. It's also more like reversal than negative film, it doesn't like overexposure at all.

 

The issue with making a prettier monitoring output is that it would require a lot more on-board processing. That means power consumption, heat, size, and most of all, delay. Digital isn't like old fashioned video either, where the final output was there in real time. Maybe they could improve the monitoring output, but if it was 4-6 frames late, it would be useless for operating. It would look like the operator was very very stoned, and couldn't react and follow the action. The best would be a "pretty" output for video village, and an immediate output for the operator, even if it was monochrome. Come to think of it, doing it that way, the "pretty" function could be offboard at video village where the video assist could tweak it.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes and no - it's already doing some kind of processing to show the picture it does. I'm guessing they'll either change the variables or allow the user to change them, requiring the same processing but applying different final "grading" to the image.

 

As for the delayed pretty picture... it's a good idea, but I know from experience that a lot of people can't deal with the delay. I have a wevi system that I was using to transmit a picture from my steadicam rig - absolutely amazing clarity, but it had a sizable delay..maybe 10 frames. I got a behringer audio box to delay the comtek feed as well, so everything lined up, but still - the majority of places I worked preferred my analogue video trans with it's breakup and no delay to the perfect picture with delay (because within earshot, the "echo" from the live audio to the delayed audio was distracting). As it stands, doing a wireless feed from the RED will be tricky, as the AJA box has a slight delay as well. If only they'd integrated a downconverter...or come up with an inexpensive, compact transmitter for HDSDI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
And that's the problem - it's not really video and its not film.

 

Well, workflow aside, it LOOKS like video. :P

 

Here's my impression of working with one for 2 days, upsides first.

 

UPSIDES:

+ Helicoils and tapped holes galore. Also the rod system they have going on. You can seemingly mount anything anywhere to it. Really versatile.

+ The "HD" onboard monitor. Haven't read up on it so I don't know what sort of compressed image it's getting at whatever res., but it's sharp enough to relatively judge focus and it weighs about as much as the 12 inch cable you run to it. However, any off-axis viewing of it is horrible.

+ The logo. It's so cheesy it makes me smile, so guess that's an upside. I mean... a sawblade? lol

 

DOWNSIDES:

+ IT'S A COMPUTER that takes around 2 minutes to boot. This has to happen with any battery change of course. Really unacceptable IMO. EVERYTHING is menu-based, which can work, but I've never been a fan of it. I like buttons and knobs. :P Also, non-selecatable shutter terminologies AFAIK. So if you're used to shutter angles, get used to 1/30, 1/48, 1/96th, etc. Lastly, it SOUNDS like an xbox360. Very loud exhaust fans, which drastically lower their RPM once the roll begins. The sound seems fine at that point, but I wonder why they need to waste so much energy spinning like crazy when it's not rolling. Any danger of overheating on a really long take?

+ Random glitches. Experienced a few like not booting correctly, looping the last few frames on the monitor after recording, the word POST hanging on the screen after a take, all needing another 2 minute reboot. Still, unacceptable.

+ The RED lens. We had the 18-50 short zoom, which is apparently an f/2.8 - T/3. It looks cheap, feels cheap, breaths a LOT, has a physical focus range so short that marks are practically useless. Also, it has no actual lines next to distances to line up with the witness mark. Why are you making your own lenses, RED?

+ The PL lens mount itself is aluminum and feels incredibly non-precision to lock and unlock. No big deal, but it just feels cheap again.

+ Looks a lot like regular HD video from a first impression. Bad looking highlights, and skin tones having the tendency to get into that no-detail orangey area. This from whatever proxy file playing off a macbook and in relatively low light. (Also for whatever reason, the guy who owned the camera felt that it was always best to record at 5000k white balance. This confused me so I left him to it.)

+ A lot of features simply don't work yet, which is a retarded concept to me. Why not wait until all of it works first to release this camera? The name item in this list was the ability to output to both onboard monitor and separate HD-SDI at the same time. Phasing was a useless option also.

+ PORT PROBLEMS: Only two 12v accesory ports, located in a bad spot at the rear of the camera. 4 Mini-xlr ports, which means you need a mini-to-regular adapter if sound is entering the camera. No big deal I guess, unless the adapter lives with the camera, making another unneccesary piece of gak to get in the way. The CF slot i'm indifferent about, but why not include a way to close it? I feel like this whole thing will need to be taken apart and cleaned for dust clogs every half a year or so.

 

Overall seems like a good camera for how cheap it is, but not worth all this attention lately.

And why can't a company nowadays just work out all the kinks and problems in a product before unleashing it to the public? I'm trying to be unbiased about my opinions on this thing ,but this is really just a BETA version of their product. I would be embarrassed to be RED right now.

Edited by Matt Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And why can't a company nowadays just work out all the kinks and problems in a product before unleashing it to the public?

That's what I've been asking myself as well. If you have your design locked in too early then you will only be playing catch up, trying to correct problems that you overlooked first time around and the finished product will suffer. People have been complaining that Arri doesn't sell the D20, but really what they have been doing is test the camera to get all the bugs sorted out and get the most out of the camera so that when they do sell it, the customer gets a finished product. Saves on expensive recalls for sure.

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

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...