RED ONE HD camcorder finally gets a street date

So we know a lot of you have been on the edge of your seat concerning the RED ONE modular, high-end, HD HD-clobbering camcorder system. The camera -- announced at NAB way back in the wild, sun-soaked days of 2006 -- rocks 11.4-megapixel, 60fps video, and is designed as a multi-part system, featuring a base unit that can be modded with a variety of add-ons -- allowing for all kinds of crazy configurations (just what the low-budget auteur is after). Now, according to the Reduser forums (and more specifically, Jim Jannard, Oakley founder and Red Digital Cinema company head), the RED ONE shipments will begin on August 31st, with a second batch to follow on September 7th. Sure, the $17,500 base system price-tag may seem prohibitive to some, but as we all know, fear is the mind-killer, and if you're really serious about that film you're making, you're going to need something like this. Time to break open the piggy-bank.

[Thanks, Blayne G]

[scott @ Aug 25th 2007 1:43PM]

I'm the student budget adviser for my university's film program, I know what we're getting for Christmas :)

[Porkchop Flavored Cupcake @ Aug 25th 2007 6:26PM]

I respect all of the hard work and effort the RED team has put into this camera system, I hope they stick around and remain competitive, but I don't know if they're positioned to remain a leader.
I only say this because there's a distinct possibility an existing camera manufacturer could produce something along the same lines within a year and offer greater value.
Look, when DALSA introduced their 4K camera (not long ago), which people still use, nobody would have thought that in a matter of a few years something like RED would be out. Therefore, it doesn't seem far-fetched to conclude that after RED has been introduced we'll see something as good, possibly offering better value in a couple years. So, in the same sense if your story can wait, or if you don't really feel comfortable with investing so early in such a new company, you might want to wait it out a little, sharpen up with what you have now, look over the reviews of RED, see exactly how it measures up and if it serves your needs.

[tim @ Aug 25th 2007 1:53PM]

this is just what i need for my new podcast!

[Tristan @ Aug 26th 2007 2:15PM]

you want to record in 60 fps, 11.4 MP HD so we can put it on our ipods?

[tim @ Aug 27th 2007 12:56AM]

@tristan -

you want to record 60fps 11.4mp just so we can put it on our 1080p tv's?

[joe23521 @ Aug 25th 2007 1:54PM]

This is nothing short of a revolution. If it truly does what it's supposed to. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

The independent filmmaker's wet dream come true.

[a ham sandwich @ Aug 25th 2007 2:06PM]

this camera's a beast. ive heard it goes far beyond 1080p. id love to see what kind of video this puppy could pump out!

[Luis @ Aug 25th 2007 2:11PM]

Of course it goes beyond 1080p-1080p is only 2k res. This thing is 11k!!!

[scienceguy_ae @ Aug 25th 2007 2:36PM]

First of all, 2k is not 1080p, it's larger. Second, this camera only shoots a max of 4.5k resolution or about 11 megapixels (about four times the pixels of 2k).

[a ham sandwich @ Aug 25th 2007 2:39PM]

lol, scienceguy thanks for the clarification. 11k sounded just a tad redic.

[prometheus @ Aug 25th 2007 2:42PM]

Bene Gesserit witch! Buuuuurn her!

[humpty @ Aug 25th 2007 2:50PM]

Has anyone worked with 4k video before... hope ya plan on upgrading your entire nle computer systems.

[Shaocaholica @ Aug 25th 2007 3:08PM]

Considering the base camera costs $17k, I don't think a modern 4K capable NLE workstation would cost much in comparison. Even still, $17k is super cheap compared to what the competition is selling for.

[finalcutmtl @ Aug 25th 2007 4:03PM]

4K used to be the format in wich they scanned 35mm film for FX. Generaqlly scanned in 2K. But with the RED ONE you can shoot in 4K to a special RED FW800 hard drive and plug it in a MacBook Pro and edit 4K (real time proxy) on the field in seconds using Final Cut Pro.

[Jeremy @ Aug 25th 2007 3:09PM]

This is not an "HD" camera. It shoots 4K--waaaaaaaay beyond HD. Not even close as a matter of fact.

[Julio @ Aug 25th 2007 3:43PM]

I see ULTRA-HIGH DEF porn movies coming out next month...

[admin @ Aug 25th 2007 9:28PM]

Yeah, people really wanna see porn in UltraHD. You could SEE the veins and cellulite!

[mat @ Aug 25th 2007 4:05PM]

Peter shot a short with that camera. Here is the trailer in 1K resolution:
http://www.freshdv.com/mjeppsen/video/red/Crossing1k.mov

Soderberg is shooting GUEVARA with Benicio Del Toro with the RedONE too

[TNP @ Aug 25th 2007 9:37PM]

"Peter shot a short with that camera"

For a second I thought you meant Peter North.

Not that I know who that is.

[mat @ Aug 25th 2007 4:07PM]

Peter Jackson shot a short with that camera. Here is the trailer in 1K resolution:
http://www.freshdv.com/mjeppsen/video/red/Crossing1k.mov

Soderberg is shooting GUEVARA with Benicio Del Toro with the RedONE too

[cirby @ Aug 25th 2007 4:07PM]

Man, I need that lottery win tonight...

[Ben @ Aug 25th 2007 4:35PM]

Christmas in August/September ... not only does this camera do 4k it can shoot a range of resolutions from 720p to 4k. Now that's what we needs, as editing systems and monitors take time to adapt.

[mat @ Aug 25th 2007 6:55PM]

Actually, their talking about dropping the native 720p and 1080. You will still be able to do it but through REDCINE, their conversion software. For Final Cut you won't really need to convert it because it can extract smaller proxies from the 4K stream in realtime so you can shoot in 4K and edit it as 1K, 1080 or anything.

[Luis @ Aug 26th 2007 5:50AM]

I sense an Engadget contest!!

[Alvin @ Aug 25th 2007 6:51PM]

The RED maxes out at slightly higher than 4K at 4520px width (4K is 4096, 2K is 2048) by 2540px height. The $18,000 base system may seem like a bargain, relative to its capabilities of course, but once you fit it with all of the accessories required to actually get the RED to work, you're easily looking at well over $100,000 - highly variable, though, depending on rent vs. own, editing infrastructure, etc.

What's nice about the RED is that it is the first full-digital motion picture camera that can not only capture 4K, but approaches the dynamic range of film stock as well (the Dalsa Origin does 4K, but I believe had issues with highlight management, and is damn expensive).

We must consider, however, that although efficient 4K digital acquisition is a fantastic leap in motion picture technology, like most feature film productions by the time the image hits the silver screen it'll be presented at 2K even in the most ideal conditions. There are no public theatres that can project 4K, only a handful that do 2K, and the rest 1080P HD.

This is not to say a purely photochemical film process would fare any better; although a 35mm negative can't resolve much beyond 4K, after all the internegative and interpositive stocks, dupes, processing, handling, and finally old projectors with dying bulbs, poor lenses, and blind projectionists who never seem to be able to focus properly, it tops out at 2K (and unfortunately most times it's even worse). RED footage will most often be transferred to a print stock, so the aforementioned projection issues will likely persist.

[jup @ Aug 25th 2007 9:30PM]

Price-tag may seem prohibitive to me.

[mat @ Aug 25th 2007 9:52PM]

Well, it replaces $250K+ cameras and days long film processes. It's worth way more in the actual market

[ex-casio @ Aug 25th 2007 11:19PM]

I am pathologist, and I need to discuss microscopy slides with a dozen colleagues, in the highest available optical quality. Currently I have a scope with several beam-splitters and 12 binocular eyepieces. I would prefer a video camera capturing high-rez material at high frame rates from a microscope, and then showing it on a few high-end displays. We watch stuff for several hours a day, hence we need real good quality - otherwise we go crazy. So far I haven't seen anything of sufficient quality to replace glass though. either the rez wasnt good enough, or the frame rate

[Dan @ Aug 25th 2007 11:23PM]

Alvin,
Where do you get 100K for an outfitted system?
Me and my friends are looking at under $40k for a great system.

Dan

[Solomon @ Aug 26th 2007 12:43AM]

Someone in the industry, please fill me in. What does film cost? Give me a rough estimate of what high-def film for one and a half hours of video costs. Also, if anyone here knows this, how long does it take to scan every frame to digital (like, real time, or a full day to store an hour)?
I could ask one hundred questions about the film industry, but these are the hard hitting few.

[Fei @ Aug 26th 2007 11:34AM]

35mm film stock is actually quite expensive. It is the reason why most micro-budget filmmakers (under a million dollars) choose DV, HD, or 16mm film stock. 35mm film stock will cost around $0.40 a foot with processing, and most features use over 100,000 feet. So that's $40K+ right there. Cheap stock, if you can find it, might run you half that price.

A 35mm motion picture camera alone will cost around $50K, the cost of a workable RED system, unless you rent (but then it's not comparable, is it?).

35mm film must be scanned by professionals. This is yet an additional cost that can be totally avoided by just buying a RED system. And usually the goal of shooting on film is to then project from film, in which case digitally scanned film will have to printed back onto film (known as the "film-out" process), yet another cost.

16mm film stock is really only for people who insist on shooting with film. The resolution is generally regarded to be about equal to that of HD.

There are a few more additional non-monetary (more or less) costs associated with using film. You can't see what you shot until you have it processed. Editing film is a pain any way that you slice it, be it old-fashioned direct film editing or using Avid software. Every time that you start a new project, you have to purchase more film stock, while you can manage to spend only a fixed amount on a digital system and pay no more no matter how many new projects you start. 35mm film is limited to 11 minutes a canister, so every time that you fill a canister, you have to stop and reload; with digital, you have nearly complete freedom to start and stop however you want. And let's not forget that when you're shooting film, you are almost literally burning money whenever you trash a take.

[cameron4all @ Aug 26th 2007 2:27AM]

This would be awesome

[Thameth @ Aug 26th 2007 3:33PM]

Alot of misinformation flying around on these comments..... People need to get your information straight.

[Dan @ Aug 26th 2007 6:44AM]

LIES!!! ALL LIES!!! I've spoken with Red and people who have purchased them...and i've determined that Red is a bunch of lying liars!

[Fei @ Aug 26th 2007 11:35AM]

And what is your proof?

[JediFonger @ Aug 27th 2007 9:31AM]

4k downrez to 2k looks better than capturing 2k then rendering to 2k. there is SOME loss when you add fx/masks ontop of captured raw footage. not a lot, but noticeable.

then you have to consider colorspace. 4k@higher colorspace is better than 2k@higher colorspace, especially when you are rendering both to 1080p24.