Troy Warr

$17,500 is for the camera body, and that's supposedly just the price that current reservation holders will pay (i.e. it will probably go up once they're for sale to the general public). You'll need lenses on top of that - anything from 35mm SLR lenses (with adapter) to PL. The camera body also doesn't include a viewfinder/monitor or recording hardware, but the latter looks to be reasonably priced at around $1000 for 320GB - several hours worth of RAW footage. I believe that they're supposed to announce prices for all of the accessories in about 2 weeks. So, I'd guesstimate anywhere from about $20K for an absolute bare-bones camera with a 35mm SLR lens (e.g. Nikon 50mm f/1.4) to $30K for a decently equipped camera if you own or plan to rent PL or other cine glass.

That's what is known in the industry as a "lie." B) Read the posting by "Nuke_LaLoosh" in this thread - if you don't believe him, that's one thing, but I would tend to think that someone who's going to go to the effort to post in detail about his bad experience with a particular company is not inclined to make stuff up. He also specifically mentions the same line from the ZoomMania warranty page that you do. Hey, I'm a penny pincher too, and I don't think that *anybody* wants to spend more than they have to. Some people are willing to pay a premium to have a local camera store to rely on (I'm not one of them - I used to work in one and I realized it's usually a false sense of security). Other people look for the absolute lowest bargain-basement price, which often ends up costing you more in the long run because it's simply not profitable for anyone to sell merchandise without a fair markup. For that reason, there are going to be at least a few shady things about the deal. I make most of my purchases from large online retailers like B&H Photo, and I've never been dissatisfied. If something goes wrong, I have the manufacturer's *authentic* warranty to rely on, or a repair shop. If you want to take a chance and buy from a company like this, that's your business, but I think you'd be wise to rely on the experience of others and go for a legitimate source of hardware. Otherwise, you're bound to make the same mistakes that thousands of other people have, and are destined to have the same bad experiences, as well.

Hi Stuart, It's actually not as complicated as you might think. I would go so far as to say that this system is in some ways *easier* to work with than most digital cinema cameras, because the components are modularized and the camera head is so small and lightweight. You can use C-mount lenses on the camera, but as Cesar suggested, 35mm SLR lenses may be the better choice. You can either use a straight adapter (such as C-mount to Nikon F), or, as I'm hoping to do, use a 35mm DOF adapter like the Cinevate Brevis35 or SGPro for even more "cinematic" shallow DOF. There are a number of affordable follow focus solutions out there for 35mm SLR lenses. Obviously those aren't quite as practical as a cinema lens follow focus, mainly due to the shorter focus pull of modern 35mm lenses, but they can still be quite usable. As for the recording PC, that does need to be "hardwired," but that doesn't necessarily imply reduced mobility. Depending on the camera's interface, that cable can be as light and flexible as standard Ethernet cable, and in some cases up to a few hundred feet long. All that a camera operator would need to worry about would be the camera head (as small or smaller than most consumer miniDV palm-corders) and lens assembly. The cable would need some protection from getting snagged, but I don't see how that would be any more detrimental than lighting cables that are usually scattered around a movie set. As for monitoring solutions, you can use everything from a huge HDTV on a table next to you (in a studio setting - in fact, I think they did that in some scenes with Zodiac, shot on the Viper) to a 7" monitor hung with an arm off your camera or rails. The latter is used every day in film shoots and can be quite versatile and even preferable to a viewfinder. There is a good blog that details the use of an early version of the Silicon Imaging SI-2K, and they have several examples of how versatile and portable the camera can be, even handheld or with a Steadicam. Obviously it's not ideal for all solutions - documentary work, for example, could become a nightmare - but for studio work or narrative shooting on a set, it really doesn't seem that limiting to me. It will take some study, hard work and a little ingenuity to set up a system like this from scratch, but that's why I'm doing my research to see if it's feasible, or if my money would be better spent on a ready-to-run camcorder. BTW, how the hell did you come across that link? :P

Thanks, Cesar - no problem at all! I appreciate your help and there's no rush. I'm eager to see the footage but I still have a lot of research and testing ahead of me before I'm able to make a purchasing decision. I'm also starting to think that 720p may be good enough for my purposes, at least for now. I wish there was a more affordable way to get 1080p, but I would assume that these cameras will gradually come down in price as tech products do. 1080p would give me the most options in terms of project output/distribution, but 720p still leaves a lot of options open, too. 720p allows for some niceties like higher frame rates, lower cost, less data to work with (as you mentioned), quicker editing, etc. It may be best to get my feet wet with a 720p setup for now, and then upgrade to 1080p once I've gained some experience with this type of setup and can afford to build a higher-end system. Thanks again!

> Let's just put it this way...I've never seen a digital SLR produce results that soft. Have you ever viewed a non bayer-captured image at 100%? Take the Sigma SD10 for example, it's images are very sharp at 100%. These images quite obviously are nowhere near the claimed 4520 resolution. Naturally, they wouldn't be due to the use of Bayer pattern filtering. There seems to be more to it than that, though. Maybe they're using an anti-alias filter which is too strong. The "4.5K" resolution is definitely a controversial claim, and I don't dispute that. I tend to look at the camera's promised specs in terms of a *very* capable 2K or 1080p capture device, which is still quite remarkable given its alleged capabilities and price. Still, the comparison to the Sigma SD10 is unproductive. The Sigma SD10's capabilities are a lot closer to a 3-CCD video camera, not a single Bayer pattern sensor as you mentioned. Whether that disqualifies the camera's resolution as 4K seems to depend on whom you ask, and I tend to agree that at best it's a very stretched 4K. Those images were also shot several months ago with a prototype camera and beta-stage demosaicing algorithm, both of which have since changed extensively. If they do look soft, it's not really saying much as the camera isn't in a finalized form yet, and the image is not straight off the camera. > I agree that it's not hugely smaller, but it is still significantly smaller. It is generally accepted that pixel size is a good way for the end user to determine the contrast handling capabilities of one electronic sensor compared to another. The fact is that Red has pixels smaller than those of the typical digital SLR (which aren't too impressive in the contrast range department to begin with). That is indeed a fact, but that doesn't mean that it's a significant comparison. If you can get 60fps, or even 24fps out of a digital SLR, then maybe there's some value there. Still, I would assert that the Mysterium sensor's pixel size is as large or larger than digital video cameras costing several times its price, and those cameras certainly deliver more than acceptable picture quality, at least in my opinion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as that's an educated guess - I honestly don't know the typical pixel size of a CineAlta-tier camera, but judging by sensor size and resolution, it seems logical to me. Also keep in mind that Red is capable of pixel binning, which increases the effective size of the pixels. Using binning, you can still shoot 1080p with *huge* effective pixels. > The Origin at least exists in a "production" version that has been tested by numerous people. It's specs are very nearly identical to Red's proposed specs and therefore should be capable of being parallel to Red. In fact, I know of one test which shows the Origin's contrast range being much greater than Red's. Of course, the Red camera was a prototype. Even at that, the Red team has got a long way to go if they ever intend to get up to speed with the Origin. You can't judge a camera purely on specs. Granted, a camera with identical or better specifications generally has the *potential* to outperform another, but whether or not it actually does is a concern of engineering, design, and implementation. You seem to be faulting Red for being in an earlier development phase than the Dalsa Origin. Just because they can't deliver a production version yet doesn't inherently mean that they're hiding something or have an inferior camera. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have they even claimed to match or outperform the Dalsa Origin? The "unparalleled fidelity" quote is just marketing hype, but even taken literally, it isn't necessarily inaccurate. "Unparalleled" could be qualified to mean unparalleled for the price, unparalleled for Red's position in the community of camera manufacturers, etc. Also, it's apples and oranges again. The Dalsa costs $3000/day to rent, while the Red costs $17,500 to buy. A week of shooting with the Dalsa will buy you a Red. If the Red can even come anywhere remotely close to the performance of the Dalsa, I'd say it's one hell of a camera for the money. > Hmmm...I guess I already listed some of them in my first post. I guess those allegations sounded more sinister than I think they deserve to be. I don't think that they've ever outright lied, but most people that I've heard from do think that the marketing comes on more than a little strong, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Still, that's just marketing, and I think we've all heard a ton of manufacturers' claims and assertions that are blatantly inaccurate. I don't think that following that same trail disqualifies Red's product. The proof is in the pudding.

Hi Ted, > Has anyone else noticed how soft the so-called 4k image samples are from the Red website? "Ultra High Definition" they are not! They look pretty good to me. What precisely do you mean by "soft?" If you're looking at a 100% crop on a computer monitor, it's never going to look razor-sharp. I agree that there is plenty of marketing hype in there, but to me, the images look comparable to a good quality digital SLR, which is impressive for a camera that's shooting 60fps at that resolution. > It is claimed that 29 sq. micron pixels are used. That's significantly smaller than the pixel size employed in all typical digital SLRs. It's not hugely smaller, and remember that the Red's sensor is 12 megapixels squeezed into a Super-35mm surface area, so the pixels can't possibly be as large as a full-frame digital SLR of comparable resolution. Also, the Red is not a digital SLR, so it's really apples & oranges there. I would tend to think that 29 square micron pixels are still similar or larger than those on most 2/3" 1080p sensors that dominate the high-end digital cinema market today. > Anyone noticed how ergonomically incorrect the camera appears to be? "Mysterium? puts pure digital Ultra-High Def in the palm of your hand." Ha! More marketing there, of course. I think that most major manufacturers are guilty of those outlandish claims, as well. When you add some of the shooting accessories, though, things seem to improve. > Why did they choose to make a 300mm prime lens as their first lens? It's impossible to say for sure, since they're the only ones with the inside information. It's definitely not the most useful focal length but I think it's commendable that they're choosing to make their own lenses (not to mention relatively inexpensively), which is no easy feat. > Hasn't anyone started to wonder yet why the Red website still doesn't have any real pictures of an actually existing camera? There isn't an actually existing camera yet. The reduser.net forum has shown images of actual prototype versions, though, and a prototype that looks identical to the rendered images on the red.com website does exist. > The Red web site claims the camera provides "unparalleled fidelity". I know the Dalsa Origin can easily parallel Red. Still more marketing. And, you don't know that, because you haven't shot with the Red camera yet. > What's up with all of these management mistakes (lies, poor choice of lenses, more lies, misleading statements, immature promises, etc., etc.)? Marketing hype is some of it, what lies, misleading statements and immature promises are you referring to?

I'd definitely agree with you. Unless I'm missing something, 35mm film has no inherent advantage to any other film format with regard to shadow detail or color vibrancy - the capabilities of a particular film stock, negative vs. reversal, processing, telecine and work of the colorist will determine that, all other things being equal. The way I initially read their words was that "regular Hi-Def" could refer to the submitted video format rather than the shooting format; in other words, they may want to evaluate the look of the video based on a Digibeta dub rather than in an HD format like broadcast 1080i60. That's just one interpretation, though, and I would still think you'd want to contact them to clarify before committing to a format. It does sound like any non-24p shooting format is out, though. The reason that I was curious about the film format is that I thought that might say more about their approach to the subject. At first it had sounded like they weren't particular about the film format, which would imply that Super-8 was just as acceptable as HD in that case. But, it sounds like they're reluctant about any film format but 35mm, but the question remains as to what HD format(s) is/are acceptable.

I could certainly be wrong, but this sounds contradictory to me, too. "High def" could mean anything higher-resolution than 480i NTSC, which would realistically include everything up to 1080p60. "HD24P" could be interpreted as 720p24 or 1080p24, which would fall well within the definition of "high def." I would guess that they're asking for true 24p content, i.e. shot with a progressive sensor, not 1080i60 with a reverse 3:2 pulldown or something like that. So yeah, I would assume that 29.97fps would be out and you'll want to shoot at 23.98fps. But, I think it would be worth it to ask them to clarify, if possible, since that seems less than specific. Just curious, did they specify what film formats they'll accept?

Hi Sven, I'm with David on the 310XL - I got one for the 1.0 lens, and it was cool to experiment with but I wouldn't consider it a good camera to grow and learn with. It may be convenient if you can find a camera with no need for extra light meter batteries, but I don't think that should weight heavily on your decision. I would personally recommend using a separate light meter anyway, maybe something like a Sekonic L-398 - you can usually find a good deal on those on eBay. If you're planning to rely on the camera's meter, you can usually find zinc-air replacement batteries if the old mercury cells are no longer available. Just be careful that the camera you get hasn't had a light meter battery corroding in its compartment for the last 10 years. ;) I owned a Nizo 116 and an S80, and I really like the Nizo brand. The cameras are built tough (mostly metal and some sturdy plastic) and are precise. The S80 had a good 8x power zoom (though a little slow at f/2.5), decent macro as I recall, a common size filter thread (49mm I think) if you want to add a close-up diopter(s), and good interval control. It also had a few filming speeds up to 54fps.

Hi Nicholas, What program(s) are you using to export the Quicktime file? Depending on your software, I would think that you'd be able to hit your file size goal by reducing the dimensions to 427x240 - that would be exactly 1/4 size, so I would expect your file size to drop to (roughly) 1/4 as well. That would most likely be something that's done before compression - somewhere in your project settings, for example.

Neither have true progressive sensors. HVR-Z1U HDR-FX1

Haha, didn't mean any offense by that, Dory, was just giving you a bit of a hard time. :) Seriously though, if your intent is literally to get a camera in your hands at the lowest possible price, you may be able to squeeze that out of a place like that if you're persistent and not easily frustrated. But you're not going to beat the system by any means, and keep in mind that you're sacrificing a lot for the price savings: - useful warranty of any kind (at best you'll get a "USA warranty" through a questionable third-party repair shop) - resale value (not many people in the used market want hardware with questionable origins; if it breaks, they're out of luck, since the manufacturer won't service it) - factory accessories and documentation (you'll almost certainly get sub-standard replacements, and/or will be missing components) Not to mention, you're doing everyone in the industry a disservice by contributing to the flow of gray market equipment into consumers' hands. You very well may get a functional camera from such a place, but if I'm spending that kind of money, at least, I would want some more security than that, especially if I ever plan to use the equipment for professional work. In my mind, it only takes one report of that kind of experience to turn me off from a company. A legitimate factory authorized dealer would *never* do such a thing. That's why you pay a price close to MSRP - because you get a factory-fresh, sealed box with everything included, and an actual factory warranty.

Thanks, Cesar! That's pretty much what I'd guessed. I'm glad to hear that you were actually able to test the F-131c in comparison to the F-145c to make the comparison first-hand. Since I tend to shoot a lot in low light, it sounds like I may need to avoid CMOS if possible. I really wish that I could afford the F-210c (assuming that the video looks as I'm hoping it does), but that would be stretching my budget, so the F-145c might be a good way to compromise if I can't quite finance 1080p. If I shoot 720p in 2.39:1, it looks like I'd be able to achieve 60fps, which would be fantastic.

I watched Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" for the first time the other day, and really loved it. I noticed that the editing employed a trick that I also noticed in "Goodfellas" - a deliberate freeze-frame effect on gunshots, collisions, flashes, etc. It isn't used all the time, but I noticed it a few times in a row during the climax near the end - where Nicholson is cornered in the warehouse by the cops. At first I thought the DVD was skipping, but I freeze-framed through and it still occurred. It's very subtle, but at the very least you'll likely notice something odd if you're watching closely. In "Goodfellas," it happens during flashbulbs when Karen & Henry get married and break the wine glass on the floor. There are even a few missing frames that create a mild jump cut. I think it might even be present in "Raging Bull," though I'm not sure. Has anyone else noticed this? I actually find it kind of distracting, but it seems to be a signature of either Scorsese or Thelma Schoonmaker.

Yeah, don't listen to Dory, he obviously doesn't pay attention. B) http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-55870.html The AG-DVX100B is a great camera, but buy it from a reputable dealer - someone like B&H Photo here in the States, don't know what the equivalent would be in the UK. B&H should do international shipping and I (as well as many here, I'm sure) can attest to their reliability and good prices. If you get the camera before March 31, there's still a $500 rebate going on.

720p, 1080i nor variable frame rates are available on tape with the HVX200. It only records miniDV to tape, so it's not really worth getting the camera unless you're planning to use it with P2 cards (i.e. there are *much* more affordable cameras out there that will give you equivalent quality miniDV). There are higher-capacity P2 cards on the way (up to 32GB), but expect to pay an arm and a leg for those. Even a modestly-equipped HVX200 package will easily run you $8-10K street price. Here's a FAQ that may be helpful.

Hi Robbie, It's always easier to recommend equipment when we know more about what kinds of projects that you shoot, and what the output is intended to be. Will you be aiming for standard-definition (e.g. PAL/NTSC) broadcast, or HDTV? If HDTV, 720p or 1080i? As far as your projects, what kinds of goals do you have? Do you want a "filmic" look, or are these more ENG-style, or documentaries? Do you have any special needs (e.g. slow-motion shooting ability, unusual focal lengths, unique subjects) that need to be considered? The more detailed you can be, the better. There are a lot of people on this forum that are very knowledgeable about equipment, but it's difficult to make a good recommendation unless we know more about your needs and goals. Regarding your old Hi-8 material, many digital camcorders these days have analog inputs and can digitize your footage for capture to a PC. If not, a decent-quality "breakout box" with composite or S-Video inputs is not expensive - probably $100-200.

Very nice, and thank you, Cesar. I had actually been using that same math to guesstimate the maximum frame rate, but I hadn't realized that it really was that straightforward! I'm curious, why did you decide to go with the Pike F145C over the Marlin F131C for your 720p package? Since the F145C is significantly more expensive, I would assume that the image quality has to be higher, and the higher pixel depth is definitely a plus. But, I was looking at the specifications for the F131C, and it seems to have some things in common - obviously it's CMOS vs. the F145C's CCD, but the pixel size, sensor size, and resolution are roughly comparable, plus is has a global shutter so there shouldn't be any image skew. Would something like the F131C have potential as a lower-cost digital cinema camera? I came across a PDF that lists its specifications, and I think (if I'm interpreting it correctly) it should be capable of 47fps if I'm shooting at 1280x535, which would be in the 2.39:1 ratio.

It mostly causes issues with portability. The camera has to be tethered to a PC, since that's where all of the data is going. There are only two ways that I can imagine doing it - either setting up the PC in a nearby location (like on a table in the corner of a room that you're shooting in), or building a very small form-factor PC and using it as an actual part of the camera. The latter approach is what Silicon Imaging does - their SI-2K is basically an industrial camera head with a small PC attached; together they form the whole camera body, and it's surprisingly not any bigger than many professional 16mm or 35mm motion picture cameras out there. Also, though I haven't used frame grabber or other live recording software before, I don't think that it's designed with a filmmaker's workflow in mind. Many of the better industrial cameras do include ample controls for image adjustment, and some even work with LUTs. But, they're mostly targeted for industrial use, so an engineer or technician would probably have an easier time than a DP. So, most kinds of documentary work and run-and-gun style shooting are out, but I don't think that it would pose any particularly serious challenges for studio or location shooting, provided that you don't need to move the camera through crowds, attach it to moving vehicles, etc. The IEEE-1394 or Ethernet "tether" can be quite long - up to a couple hundred feet with the proper equipment, as I understand - so you can still do all of the pans, tracking shots, motion control, even handheld to a large degree. There is a blog (now defunct, I think - it hasn't been updated since I started visiting) that chronicled the use of an early version of the Silicon Imaging SI-2K, and it talks a lot about these kinds of workflow issues - that's one of the things that got me thinking about this concept more seriously.

Cool, thank you. I'll download it and give it a whirl.

Hi Brian, Do you happen to have a larger version of that film? It looks very smooth as-is - but I'm curious to see what it looks like at full size, or maybe half size. I used an earlier version of Twixtor years ago, and I think I remember it looking OK, but I'd love to see a larger sample if you have one handy.

I agree with Michael 100%. The Canon EF Adapter XL comes with 7.2x magnification, so even a wide lens (e.g. 20mm) will act like a 144mm when mounted on the XL2. If you need that kind of telephoto, then that's a good option - but it won't do you any favors for wide angle shooting. If you'd like to learn some more about the DVX100B, you might check out dvxuser.com - a great resource.

Righto. What I had meant to imply was that I wasn't sure whether 60i actually means that you can create an exact 30 frames per second by recombining fields in post (albeit with interlaced motion artifacts), or whether it's being used in same sense as "30i" is generally used (incorrectly), when the technically correct term would be 59.94i, meaning an effective 29.97 frames per second (if that makes sense). Michael, do you happen to know if there's technically any difference between 29.97 frames interlaced (NTSC) and 60i - e.g. would the latter literally recombine to 30 fps, or would it still technically be 29.97 fps?

Yeah. I had initially been under the impression, too, that 60i was twice the frames/fields per second as 30i, but they are in fact two terms for the same effective frame rate. I'm not sure if there are some slight differences in terms of "true 30p", e.g. an even 30 frames per second, vs. 29.97 frames per second (NTSC standard), but even if so, their differences would be visually imperceptible.

I don't believe that it's possible with a laptop, or certainly at least not practical or affordable. From what I understand, the data rate for uncompressed footage will be *very* high, probably 50MB/second or higher. It's not so much an issue of capacity with laptop drives (some are up to 160GB these days, and getting bigger with PMR technology), but rather with bandwidth. Even fast single desktop hard drives (even SCSI or 10K rpm) likely couldn't keep up with uncompressed 1080p24, at least not past the innermost portions of the platter(s), where data transfer rate is highest. I would plan to do this with a desktop PC, either in a studio/home setting or in the field with a generator or other power source. It would likely need a RAID setup to reach the needed minimum sustained transfer rate. As I understand it, though, with appropriate software and a powerful enough processor, you can compress the footage real-time as it's fed into the computer. I'm basing that partly on feedback from Blackmagic Design (who makes the Infinity card for HDMI capture). The idea with their card, at least, is that you can bypass the harsh compression of an HDV camera by capturing the uncompressed HDMI stream live, and either keep it uncompressed or choose your own, more appropriate (and lower) compression codec to apply real-time.