RED ONE camcorder gets unboxed on video

While we're sure you've just now gotten over your bout with jealously after seeing the first 25 punks lucky souls head to California and pick up their RED ONEs, how's about a relapse? If you're up for it, you can head on down to the read link and take a peek at a 76-second unboxing clip filled with boisterous music, entirely too many smiles and so much exuberance it's likely to ooze out of your monitor. Go on, you know you can't resist.

[Kris Janssen @ Oct 5th 2007 3:14AM]

First Post!!

What the hell is a Red One??

[bombastinator @ Oct 5th 2007 3:37AM]

Mind.. boggling... too... many easy jokes.... must not...

[bombastinator @ Oct 5th 2007 3:40AM]

Mind.. boggling... too... many easy jokes.... must not...

[LLKrisJ @ Oct 5th 2007 3:40AM]

oh come on bombastinator... humor us!!!!!!

[andi @ Oct 5th 2007 3:40AM]

the 'first post' thing says a lot about you.. It even says that it didn't cross your mind to google for the red one. it's a camera, a professional digital video camera, which aims to replace film.

[bombastinator @ Oct 5th 2007 5:02AM]

spoilsport

[Joe @ Oct 5th 2007 6:29AM]

I want a Red One unboxing video shot with a Red One please.

[hman @ Oct 5th 2007 3:36AM]

*resists*

[Tyme @ Oct 5th 2007 4:19AM]

omg! all these unboxing videos of red one! every other post engadget! it's getting worse than the apple/iphone posts...

lol, j/k....
man im bored

[eric @ Oct 5th 2007 7:44AM]

ugh I saw this on gizmodo.com about 2 weeks ago. Old.

[PK @ Oct 5th 2007 8:11AM]

For filmmakers this camera is the bomb. Only cost $17,500 verse $100,000 (a Sony HD Professional Camera) for feature film quality. Awesome!

[PK @ Oct 5th 2007 8:13AM]

For filmmakers this camera is the bomb. Only cost $17,500 verse $100,000 (a Sony HD Professional Camera) for feature film quality. Awesome!

[PK @ Oct 5th 2007 8:15AM]

Sorry for the double post :(

[Balzac2m @ Oct 5th 2007 8:27AM]

Did you mean: Triple Post

;)
I for one welcome our new RED overlords.
What a dumb posting.

[Paul Christian @ Oct 5th 2007 10:16AM]

Suck a RED ONE you know that?

[Terry Thomas @ Oct 5th 2007 11:01AM]

Sorry prior posters of this thread.

As a filmmaker and professional photographer for over 45 years the Red One is not meant to "replace film", to date nothing can do that.

What it aims to do is replace the highly expensive professional digital cameras that the likes of Mr. Speilberg and Lucan might want to use.

Watch Panavision stock react to this...

You neither need nor could afford one to photograph Cousin Sue's wedding.

Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
http://TerryThomasPhotos.GooglePages.com

[Z @ Oct 5th 2007 11:24AM]

Arrgh! The unboxing video is down. Maybe he'll have it up later.


So Terry, share with us, in all seriousness, why can't something like the RED or other digital vidcams replace film yet? HD isn't sharp enough in these cams yet? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find that hard to believe. Not to mention, with digital, you wouldn't have all the artifacts present in film.

I'd like to hear your input on this a little more.

[Matt H. @ Oct 5th 2007 5:42PM]

Not speaking from direct knowledge, but I spoke with the dude in charge of filming for a major hollywood movie filmed at the resort I worked at.

He said just that there aren't cameras with high enough quality for movie production yet. The size/quality of the detector chip as well as the amount of data to be recorded/second were the two major problems.
This was a year ago though.

[Terry Thomas @ Oct 6th 2007 12:43AM]

Today's color negative film has an (almost) infinite ability to capture image detail. (The term is Resolving Power.) This is important when you need to take something as small as a frame of movie film (or a digital sensor) and throw it onto a theater screen 60 feet high.

Also color negative film is superior to digital when it comes to capturing detail in deep shadows and at the same time in highlights. When photographing with any digital media one has to be very careful not to overexpose highlights. If you blow them out, well sorry, there just is no trick to bringing them back. It's all 0s and 1s with digital. At least with a color negative even overexposed hightlights have detail which can be recovered.

Given the choice when creating photographs for a client I'll shoot on color negative film every time. The only thing digital gives you is instantaneous feedback. Well that and the cost savings of not having to buy film and pay for processing. But in the long run the above mentioned advantages of film still kick digital's butt.

Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
http://TerryThomasPhotos.GooglePages.com

[Terry Thomas @ Oct 5th 2007 11:02AM]

Sorry for the typo, it should have been "Lucas".

Man, my eyes are wearing out...

TT

[Dan @ Oct 5th 2007 11:24AM]

I like hearing news about this camera! Beep the jokes. I wish I could see the video. I'm getting error messages. Phooey. I want one of these cameras. I realize that with lenses, battery packs, etc, etc we're looking at $60 K. Still want it. You know what to get me for the upcoming major gift-giving season. I've been good!

[kevin @ Oct 5th 2007 3:41PM]

Awesome. Man I want one.