The RED ONE 60p cam gets a price list

With a release set for "early 2007," Red Digital Cinema just took the important step of outing the price list for the range of RED gear which could hit as early as May 31st. Intent on keeping both wedding videographers and indie film makers happy, it all starts with the $17,500 RED ONE base system (center). From there you can add your choice of the $1,250 Basic or $2,750 Premium production packs (top right and left, respectively). But don't stop now, go ahead and throw down for a $1,650 RED ONE Power Pack featuring 2x RED BRICK 140Wh batteries and charger, a $1,950 RED Electronic Viewfinder, and the $1,700 5.6-inch LCD. Optics accessories include a $3,500 B4 lens adapter and both Canon and Nikkor 35mm photo mounts costing $500 each. There are also several RED branded media accessories for CF, SATA disk, and something called the "RED RAM 64GB" for $4,500 -- extortionate if that's just a RED-branded SSD in an external housing. But hey, no one said that a 4k resolution and 60p frame rate would come cheap.

[Thanks, Blayne G.]

[tchiseen @ Mar 13th 2007 7:58AM]

oh
my
gawd


i want one, with all the specs, right freakin now. 4k reso is great, 60p is great, it looks b.a. (that's bad-ass)

yes plx.

[Scott Gant @ Mar 13th 2007 8:16AM]

Considering it's competition, these prices for 4k at 60p (though is it all 4,4,4 video?) are pretty cheap. Documentary film makers could invest in these, then a Mac pro decked out with Final Cut Studio (which will support the Red One natively) and you could have a nice, tight, low-budget yet high-end production studio at a VERY reasonable cost.

[David @ Mar 13th 2007 2:33PM]

"Considering it's competition, these prices for 4k at 60p (though is it all 4,4,4 video?) are pretty cheap."

It will do 4:4:4 or 4:2:2.

[Lectoid @ Mar 13th 2007 8:20AM]

I might be slightly behind the times, but I can't recall many things that could display the footage taken by this camera.

[andy @ Mar 13th 2007 8:41AM]

There are a few commercial digital DLP projectors. They're used in some of the "all digital" theatres in the US. They're trying to go all digital to get rid of film so that they can just distribute movies via satellite or encrypted terrestrial IP.

[ossie @ Mar 13th 2007 9:07AM]

How about good olde standard 35mm film. Not only that 4k cinema projectors are already out there if you look around.

Om

[Station @ Mar 13th 2007 8:21AM]

I thought that it was cheap, considering what you are getting. Now film schools can have nice cameras for the students to use, indie filmakers can get something for the cost of a cheap car, its not that bad.

[Nutsy @ Mar 13th 2007 8:42AM]

Its not that most people cant display 4k film its that Cinemas can...
This is aimed at small- high end produciton houses and indie film makers who want to produce cinematic film...

While a top of the range 1080p camera is great and upscales well it still isnt true 4k.

4K is the resolusion most films are digitised to when there in production.

As for the red. While the cameras base unit is a great price. I look at the accesories and wonder what drugs have they been taking to make battery packs, basic LCD pannles and harddrives cost so much.

Most of those things are ten times the price they should be.

It looks like there taking the sony route by trying to make back any losses they may of got form the camera sale in the accsesory sale...

Shame.

[Brian @ Mar 13th 2007 8:58AM]

"indie filmakers can get something for the cost of a cheap car"

$17,500... car... cheap...

Sorry, Station, ain't feelin it.

[Nick Catalano @ Mar 13th 2007 8:59AM]

You cannot use the 4k at 60fps, and you cannot put the 4k on the SSD (you need to have a fibre-channel interface to record 4k.)

Remember, almost all the films you see today have their CGI cuts printed at 2k (see 300 yet? That's 2k, even the IMAX prints I believe.)

[Station @ Mar 13th 2007 9:01AM]

heh, well I should preface that with I live in DC, 17500 is a cheap car here. I drive a dakota worth about that and I get dirty looks while I pass the maserati's.

[just.Rob @ Mar 13th 2007 9:27AM]

I work on Madison Avenue, Saks 5th is around the corner... 17500 is a decent Friday night (and by decent I mean gallons of wine, cheap blow and expensive hookers... as opposed to a great night which is gallons of gin, expensive blow and cheap hookers!)

jk jk...

but seriously...Red + 8 core MacPro + Final Cut Extreme = so awesome that you'll probably go blind

[Billy Kincaid @ Mar 13th 2007 9:34AM]

I saw some raw footage taken with this camera. Definite buy.

[MichaelM @ Mar 13th 2007 10:03AM]

If it's coming out in May, how come their website still seems to only have 3D renderings of what the camera will look like?

Are there any pictures of the actual camera on the web?

[Matt Jeppsen @ Mar 13th 2007 10:59AM]

Wedding Videographers? ROTFL
Yeah, I know a lot of wedding videographers that are going to drop ~25K on a Red One + large capacity storage media + decent glass + .....oh yeah, and you'll need two of those for a two-cam shoot.

Yes there are real images of the camera available, also footage. The camera is real, the company is legit, and the film and production industry will never be the same.

Matt Jeppsen
www.FresHDV.com

[Matt @ Mar 13th 2007 11:19AM]

uhh damn thats sexy

[Nogami @ Mar 13th 2007 12:05PM]

"If it's coming out in May, how come their website still seems to only have 3D renderings of what the camera will look like? Are there any pictures of the actual camera on the web?"

The actual "release" of the camera will likely be at the NAB convention in April. Lineups are going to be sort of long for their booth...

[paul irwin @ Mar 13th 2007 12:07PM]

as a wedding videographer, i can tell you that only the wedding videographers to the stars are going to be shooting with that thing. FX1/FX7 and Z1U's are common ($3000-5000), as are HVX200's and HD100U's. but not much more than that. XL H1's are rare in the wedding videography market, but i bet the XH A1 will take off.

[SubGenius @ Mar 13th 2007 12:54PM]

If I was Steve Jobs sitting on 12B in cash and looking for a company to acquire, I think I know who it would be. They should offer a matching black 8-core MacPro.

[Dan @ Mar 13th 2007 1:16PM]

Porno.

[JediFonger @ Mar 13th 2007 1:46PM]

Canon's HV20 does 1920x1080p24, for oh a breezy $1k:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=177&modelid=14869

[Nogami @ Mar 13th 2007 9:16PM]

"Canon's HV20 does 1920x1080p24, for oh a breezy $1k:"

You do know that the Canon you linked to is a single-CCD consumer camera right? It also records in the MPG-2 HDV format, which is awful for editing. It's a pretty neat little camera, and the price is right, but comparing it to the Red One is a bit silly...

[T. Rob Brown @ Jan 23rd 2009 2:43AM]

I agree...

It's like comparing a Z-24 Cavalier to a souped-up Corvette. There is no comparison.

It's like comparing a point-and-shoot 5 megapixel still camera to a Canon EOS 1ds Mark III or a Nikon D3. There just is no comparison.

The Red One is leagues above any 1080p camera.

[mark tosh @ Mar 13th 2007 1:53PM]

i hope my film school will get one of these. and if you consider $ 18.000 as expensive... well then, simply put: for what you get, it ain't..

[Juaquin @ Mar 13th 2007 6:43PM]

Yeah, unlike the Optimus keyboard, RED actually managed to turn something many claimed to be vaporware into something real. Congrats on that alone. Sweet camera too.

[simon @ Mar 19th 2007 8:23AM]

as if u would be using an analog interface Nick Catalano you downer. u would use something like usb .

[T. Rob Brown @ Jan 23rd 2009 2:28AM]

No... USB is too slow... Even USB2 is slow for transferring terabytes worth of information in a reasonable time...

You want to use the E-SATA interface for 3gig per second transfer rate. Much faster than firewire 800 (which the camera also supports -- and is still heads above USB2).

USB1 on that camera would be complete worthless.

Figure this... the 120 hours estimate shooting footage for a feature-length film would take about 10 terabytes worth of hard drive space with this camera. Better invest in a LARGE SATA or SCSI RAID.

[jesse @ Apr 17th 2007 12:31AM]

half of the value of this camera the INSANE depth of feild you will get with such a large sensor even if you downconvert off the camera... for doc makers and networks making movies with a decent budget puts the sony f900 in the crosshairs. well see what happens.

[T. Rob Brown @ Jan 23rd 2009 2:40AM]

I don't know about "insane" but it is supposed to be roughly equivalent to 35mm...

So, if you throw a wide-angle lens such as a 16mm F2.8 on there (Canon or Nikon, if you buy the optional lens mount)... you will get some great depth of field... especially if you drop that puppy down to F8 or smaller. Imagine shooting scenics with a 16mm at F22 -- you can get foreground to infinity all within the depth of field. Granted, you're going to need some great lighting to accomplish that task with good quality. Also, I'd like to see how well this camera holds up against dust on the CMOS sensor... most pro digital stills have issues with dust accumulating on the CCDs and CMOS sensors. At F22 on a wide lens you can see nearly every dust particle on the sensor.

But if you put on a 400mm F2.8 (tripod-mounted), then you'll get very shallow depth of field with some gorgeous bokeh (especially if you leave it wide open at 2.8). Action never looked so good!