After a morning of
drip-fed images, RED just went official with its DSMC (Digital Stills and Motion Camera) System. The system starts with your choice of the professional Scarlet or "master professional" EPIC brains which can then be bunged into about 2,251,799,813,685,248 possible camera configurations, RED only half-jokingly chides. The brains are built upon Mysterium-X and Mysterium Monstro sensors which start at 2/3-inch and end at a whopping 6x17-cm -- when a new sensor comes out you just upgrade the brain. Scarlet will launch in 4 choices ranging from $2,500 (and possibly less) to $12,000 with a variety of lens mounts (yes, Canon and Nikon) capable of shooting 3K @120fps on up to 6K @30fps. Epic will offer similar mounts with capabilities spanning 5K @100fps ($28k) to 9K @50fps ($45k) -- a 28K system hitting 25fps is expected in 2010 for $55k. Still image resolutions will range from 4.9 megapixels to a freakish 261 megapixels. The first Scarlet systems could come as early as Spring of 2009 while EPIC should arrive by summer. Of course, the brain is just the beginning of the costs. RED also introduced a 3D camera configuration today in true, "one more thing" fashion. See all the details in the gallery below, 3D camera after the break.
posted Nov 13th 2008 4:50AM
That's really realy great
congratulations RED team!
I'm sold. This finally puts real movie tools into the hands of the common man. Now the only difference between a home movie and a Hollywood movie is the size of the sensor. The modual idea is brilliant.
"Now the only difference between a home movie and a Hollywood movie is the size of the sensor."
Er. . . . and the quality of the acting/directing/cinematography/script/composer/effects team?
Frankly, I am scared what porn would look like at 261 megapixels and in 3D.
Youre absolutely right! It falls directly into the hands of the common man!
...As long as the common man has the common bank account to afford such a socialistic price tag, right comrade?
:)
I jest, I'm well aware of how phenomenal this announcement is, I've been drooling over the tease shots the past few weeks and months... I'm a still photographer, I have nothing to do with video, and I would do nearly anything to get my hands on a 261mp digiback.
You could print photos the size of stadiums... I'm having trouble controlling my salivary glands.
I posted a summary of this announcement along with a my thoughts. I also modified their spec table to add prices and release dates so you can see on one page how much this going to cost you:
http://www.michaelsmith.tv/2008/11/13/red-announcement-holy-crap-this-is-great/
Is that being sold at ikea?
@Saint Dumb Ox
"I'm sold. This finally puts real movie tools into the hands of the common man."
The common man with several thousand dollars to spend on high-end camera equipment. My uncle was a photographer and I doubt even this was in his price range.
"...The brains are built upon Mysterium-X and Mysterium Monstro..."
Does it come in Captain Fantastic flavour?
me likey
HOLY CRAP!
Second that.
It's as if millions of wallets suddenly cried out in terror...
and were suddenly silenced................by the sheer awesomeness of what RED is able to pump out. my god.
Is that what the gear rental shop says now that your primary unit can buy a cam for what they were charging to rent one?
It does not only look like Lego - it is Lego.
The exploded diagram is very helpful for putting it back together after you drop it. :)
It's the AR-15 of digital cameras.
WELL DAMN!!
No wonder those teasers were so good, and, think of the great shots :)
yeah that must have been weird. taking a picture of the same camera your using to take the picture with. (they must have used mirors)
This is definitely a videographer's dream, but it's NOT a DSLR killer, as hyped. A FF DSLR costs $2500, and the "brain" with the FF DSLR sensor costs $12000. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.
No, probably not a DLSR killer per se, but can't think of any DSLRs out there that can hit 30+ frames per second at 24 MP per frame. There's definitely a market for this somewhere.
@ JM
Well, I'm gonna buy one to film my kid's birthday parties...
The best way that I think I can describe the DSLR market against these is this (and forgive me if it doesn't make sense to anybody else since I haven't really slept in two days):
DSLRs are still cameras with a convenient video feature (largest appeal: photographers)
These are video cameras with a convenient still camera feature (largest appeal: videographers)
I don't see how the markets will interact.
Uh... I disagree.... These aren't just video cameras with a convenient still feature. This is brilliance.
First, these are neither video camera or still camera, they are "Camera." There is a modular platform with a digital image sensor. This platform can be configured to take either video or still images (even 3D video or still), but at the base level, it is neither. So there is no "convenience" factor, it is simply whatever it is configured to... It is Schrödinger's Cat... It is both...
Secondly, this doesn't kill DSLRs... It doesn't even Overkill DSLRs... In the face of this device, DSLRs don't exist, they aren't even a factor. It's like saying masturbating kills babies.
Name ONE DSLR, medium format DSLR or large format DSLR that can take a 261mp still! The still feature in this system is not for the average person, or even the above average person, but neither is the video feature.
This is for a certain clientèle, and in the hands of that clientèle, it will change things. But with the price of putting a full system together, and the price of the editing equipment that will be required to process the data coming from this system, you are sadly mistaken to say this brings professional video to the masses...
Right, but if you shoot still images, why would you pay the extra cash to be able to shoot video as well? There's no point.
If you're some kind of still image/actual image hybrid guy (Maybe this exists, I don't know) then yeah, this is mana. But if all you really shoot is stills, its a lot of extra money.
Saying it invalidates DSLRs sounds crazy to me because there are people who put a higher priority on the still image than the moving one.
@Unknown: I don't think it really costs more money to shoot video as well. Why do you think Canon and Nikon's latest DSLRs have (pretty credible, at least in the former case) movie modes? I'm guessing it's because they realised the sensor could pretty much do that already if they just added a bit of firmware and a cheap compression chip. Give it a few years and probably all DSLRs will offer movie modes without a price increase.
What costs more money - $55K, apparently - is to have a ridiculously large 200-megapixel (really?!) sensor that's even bigger than medium-format (quick google suggests the highest-resolution medium-format back are currently 60MP, but this is larger physically as well, so I guess it's plausible). Since this isn't coming out until 2010 it does have a bit of an advantage over current technology as well.
imo the thing that makes this definitely a video camera which can also take stills (rather than the other way around, or some kind of generic 'both' thing) is just the size; you can't possibly carry it around with you in the way normal photographers do. I'm sure there are some uses for it as a still camera though, in a studio setting? Or for the kind of insane birdwatcher who has those 500mm lenses? Cases where size doesn't matter.
@Unknown:
"Right, but if you shoot still images, why would you pay the extra cash to be able to shoot video as well? There's no point."
The point is that you no longer shoot still images. You just shoot video and then go pick the still images you want. Nobody gets credit for "catching the right moment" anymore because you'll always catch it. It's a concept bound to cause some controversy, IMHO.
2 JM: " can't think of any DSLRs out there that can hit 30+ frames per second at 24 MP per frame"
5D mark II?
I wonder what Sony, Canon and Nikon are thinking right now?
I think they are thinking Repectively
Will it blend
Does it Play Crises
First :P
or all are thinking making a packet with LEGO
Probably something along the lines of:
"Sweet, more people to buy our lenses." (for Canon and Nikon, at least)
SLR bodies aren't threatened by this announcement.
Canon and Nikon are probably happy. If I were a photographer with money to burn, I would spring on this. I would get a 5D Mk. II and the Scarlet...One for more on-location stuff, the other for more studio stuff. I'm too tired right now to go into everything that I would do, but it would be cool.
I'd say some of this might be going through their heads:
1) Oh SHIT!
2) Now why didn't we think of that?
3) Is RED hiring?
4) ooh, what does this button do?
You know the LEGO companies now failed to win their last attempt at protecting their business, seems the patent on LEGO has run out and already a canadian company is making lego blocks, and basically anybody can now the courts have decided.
So no pacts needed, and this is just-in-time-technology I guess.
Shitwaffles.
That is one bitchin' camera.
It's a monstrosity.
Pretty cool though
You mean, "it can be a monstrosity. Or not."
Just strap it to your shoulder and you'll be pew pew pewing like the Predator in no time.
Is it like a transformers, Lego, Centurians,
So when are they gonna offer a lens zoom controller handle so people can use this thing ENG style?
i just realized that its like those games you start with a puny gadget and as you go along you get add-on's to make it more powerful
so if walk across the street i would find one floating on the side walk
Yeah but 261 Megapixels?
Hasselblad will be pissed.
Seriously, what's next? Half-gigapixel? Gigapixel?
@gad get
262 megapixels
If the thing talks to you with a slightly feminine male voice, HasselHOFF will be pissed.
@gad get
gigapixel cameras already exist
@ maveric101
The Gigapxl camera isn't digital, it's film.
http://www.gigapxl.org/
I just wish they'd come out with a "semi-professional" line. That way I might almost be able to afford a system. (If I really really wanted to.)
the Scarlet 2/3" line IS their Semi-Professional line.
Another overhyped product launch by Jannard.
Forget the over $10,000+ products vaporware he launched today. That market is exceedingly small.
The real volumes for prosumer and professional cameras is in the $2500 to $6000 range. And there is nothing impressive about Red products in that price bracket. Sony, Canon, Panasonic and JVC are safe and secure.
And as always, I expect the Red products will ship defective which they will try to "fix" by using you as guinea pig for firmware.
As someone who has had the misfortune of dealing with these scam artists, please stay away from them. They ban you from their forum and delete the posts if you so much as politely point out that your camera is not working as Red advertised.
"Forget the over $10,000+ products vaporware he launched today. That market is exceedingly small."
Idiot.
RED release RED ONE and SOLD AND SHIPPED 5,300+ orders in one year.
One year.
Make no mistake this is not vaporware, and this is no small biscuits. Aluminium MacBooks are gravel beneath Red's feet.
@ HUKI365: Are you aware that companies like Canon and Nikon shift several million units a year? I can't find the exact figures but overall Canon sold some 11m units across their range in Australia alone.
5000+ units is, really, not a great deal.
Secondarily, those are all very impressive shots - I'm excited. Astounding specs in some places (I suspect prices will be similiarly astounding) and yet I can't help but wonder. Those are all still renders, aren't they? I mean, we can see the whole product now, but it's not "real" yet.
The modular design is very good though.
@Smi
Yes I am. However the comparable Genesis Cams, IMAX or Sony F35 cameras have miniscule purchases because they range upwards of $100,000 grand.
For example Genesis only have 50 units in the world.
Vaporware? Try telling that to the 5,000+ Red owners all round the world (you're probably watching something on tv right now that was shot on the Red but you don't realize it). Selling 5,000 units might sound like small potatoes but a basic Red package costs about $20,000 (including accessories - some people spend waaay more than this). If the average Red owner spends about $20,000 on their camera then Red have turned over round about $100 million (not bad for a two year old company with their first one year old product). Compare that to the 50 Genesis cameras round the world that would cost in the region of $300,000 each (if you could even buy one!) and the total there is $15 million...small potatoes.
Heh, the Red army is out in force voting down any comment that is critical of scamster Jannard. Amazing devotion to corruption.
all this talk of jannard "over-hyping", "scamming" etc etc.
i am currently working with a red one making a very low budget feature. as a result of jannard and this camera (and a few other people :P) the film looks spectacular. the red one is no scam, it was the most revolutionary thing to hit digital film-making yet. everytime i look at some footage i'm astounded.
its not pretty, has some glaring design flaws, heats up like a son of a bitch and the workflow has only recently been ironed out... but the way it interacts with light in such an honest, beautiful way makes it a joy to work with.
Even if it's Vaporware hopefully it will get other companies to stop crippling their offerings.
I mean the look at the new HDV Camcorders Canon came out with last week, then look at the Video the still Canon 5D Mark II shoots.
I mean WTF? The 5D shoots better quality video then their pro video cameras? Can't they just make a pro video camera with proper audio connections, variable frame rates, with the full frame sensor of the 5D M2?? Some people like to be able to control the depth of field.
If you want to adjust the depth of field on the Canon pro video cameras just turn the aperture ring on the lens.
It's far from vaporware. We use RED and FXPHD gives a lot of great training on the RED camera and pipeline. RED is commited to their products and take a personal approach to them and have built their units smartly w/software and hardware ugprades easily accessable. RED is a force to be reckoned with. There are a lot in the film community looking at switching cameras. With cameras like Scarlet, even indie filmmakers have an affordable camera to do their work with.
Scarlet and Epic further their conquest. Go RED.. ignore the ignorant on a site as crappy as this for generic reviews of anything eletronic.
The Canon 5D2 has rolling shutter problems (as does Scarlet), the Canon pro camcorders do not.
If you want to shoot motion, the Canon Pro camcorders are still better than the Canon still cameras. And better than any other consumer camcorder.
The Canon 5D2 has rolling shutter problems (as does RED ONE and likely Scarlet too), the Canon pro camcorders do not.
If you want to shoot motion, the Canon Pro camcorders are still better than the Canon still cameras. And better than any other consumer camcorder.
So, Red can barely get the Red One working and suddenly they will have like 5,000 products.
They should have made it able go up to thousands of frames per second at even lower resolutions. Maybe it's still possible with a firmware hack?
FURTHERMORE!
These aren't out for another year, at least. Who can tell what the competitors will do now this is out in the open, and what they can come up with in a whole year.
I mean, this is all very exciting. Amazing specs. But again, more renders?
If only it fit in your pocket.....
Must admit that i'm pretty disappointed! I know the specs are HUGE, but the whole thing just looks plain awful, a bit of a mess. The DSLR side of this announcement is a bit of a joke, this modular design would be a nightmare to use in the field or real world environments - maybe in studio might be an option - but i'd still rather use Phase One Medium format Digital or (shock horror) Film - which still has more resolution than the biggest digital sensor.
Nice idea though - I think i'll leave the market to mature a little before I replace all my Canon Pro Gear - that's if RED is still in business in 2 years!
Rod, you do realize that the 645 and large format cameras offered by RED *easily* exceed film resolution? Not to mention the dynamic range?
I was scanning in some of my 6x6 slide film the other day and it sure as heck wasn't 65 megapixel equivalent. Film is dead. Useless for anything except niche and hobbyist pursuits.
google red bull: facts about the red camera.
sony, canon and panasonic are gonna be just fine.
What about lighting? It's no good to any pro user without a proper flash system.
I do hope you're joking. For those that don't get it:
1) It's a video camera. Strobes/flashes don't help much for VIDEO. You'd want continuous lighting, there's plenty of good options out there: Mole Richarsons, FJ Westcotts, Lowel Pro, Kino Flo, Chimera...
2) If you're using it for stills and you do want strobes you probably would to better using studio kits than little flashes. Being as there is no mirror or shutter in the design, it would be difficult to TTL meter you're either going by hand or using an auto-thrysistor. Either way if you wanted just a shoe-mount flash, just about any one will do (Vivitar 283, SB-800)
Does anyone know if the camera has an x-sync for still photos? Otherwise you'd have to capture video and just fire the flash as your shutter.
*palm* *forehead*
You do realize that professional users don't use lighting systems from camera manufacturers, right? I'm sure it's perfectly compatible with things like Speedotron or Broncolor or even Alien Bee strobes.
Like it, or like it not - these guys are pushing the technical envelope.
A quote I heard a couple of days a go seems fairly fitting here:
"This is why the film industry is so exciting to be in - no other sector uses such cutting edge technology. Flight - tech has to be approved/safety tested for 10 years before use. Automobile - kinda similar. Medical - nope. In the film sector, computers, video and film all combining and using the most powerful processing, the most precision equipment (most people won't find anything more precise in their home than the drum in their VHS machine - if they still have one), all in the most innovative ways to stay ahead of the competition. Why is this? Because if it f**ks up, no one dies."
Go RED. Even if your designs fail, it'll only pull others in the same direction.
"Go RED. Even if your designs fail, it'll only pull others in the same direction."
Thereby pulling them to failure as well?
They haven't failed, it's just whilst the video industry pushes the envelope, the film side are, tbh, old fashioned. We've used film since c.1896, had a revolution when sound came in, and colour, but what else beyond that?
No, not failure. The whole sector is going will go this way. Go ahead and invest in HDCAM SR - a lovely tape based system for you.
It will change things, and I think they're going in the correct direction. Sony and the others are playing safe. People who know what they're doing what they're doing want modular, SSD-based, high-res, high speed cameras. Idiots want 3:1:1 tape based crap for bloated money.
There hasn't been a decent tape based video format since Digibeta or D6 , and now they're obsolete as far as I'm concerned. They were introduced c.1993/4/5 iirc.
I see what you're getting at though, and I didn't mean that closing statement to be read that way. To reiterate:
'Even if their designs fail, I still think they're doing a good job at dragging the rest of the sector towards a tapeless, high def, high speed, modular approach - even if those sort of designs aren't out from other companies yet, they will follow.'
All we need now is is digital Cinemas and there will be a sea-change in film making.
TVs have pretty much got it nailed already though.
Bring on the XHDTV, 1050i, pah, that low-res junk.
I believe RED has hinted that it is working on the digital projection end of the equation as well.
Mapper Montag - Sorry, but you are SO wrong!
Film is in rude health and will be for ever and a day. Digital - even at this size - is still more about convenience than outright quality.
A 6x6 slide would easily yield a 95-100MB equivalent resolution and the Dynamic Range is better on film (E6 and Print) than any digital will be in the near future.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm
"The bottom line is that 4X5 film, when properly scanned, (drum scanned) is capable of producing more detailed images than any of the DSLR cameras. I suspect that the difference in detail would be noticeable in prints of 20X30" and larger" http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
I compare the photo's I took 10 years ago from a trip around Australia, all taken on Canon 1N's with Fuji Velvia 50 and then scanned on a home Minolta slide scanner producing only around 18Mb Tiff files, and quality and vibrancy wise, these photo's completely destroy my current output with the 5D's, 40D's and 1DsMK2.
I am a massive Digital fan and could not earn a living without digital cameras (as a photographer) BUT I am left cold by the best that digital has to offer when compared to drum scanned film. And I don't see that changing with RED's Mecano cameras, big red logo's, huge resolution, nasty shiny black plastic and HUGE cost. If anyone want quality - go with film, it's the same story for moving images too.
Rod, first off, resolution isn't measured in megabytes. That'd be just silly. Number two, Ken Rockwell is one of the worst sources of information on the internet when it comes to photography.
Number three, take a look at someone who isn't the laughingstock of the professional photography world - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml - It's a comparison of drum scanned 4x5" film vs a Phase One P45 digital back.
And just as importantly - dynamic range. Slide film has 7-8 stops of range, print film a few less. Digital has anywhere from 11 to 13 stops of dynamic range.
I agree: digital will not, in the near foreseeable future, come anywhere CLOSE to what film can produce, BUT, as SO MANY of the major players in the film game are calling it quits, we're left to fend for ourselves. I learned black and white printing when I was 5 from my father, who to this day shoots a 4x5 view camera. However, he also shoots a double-digital backup (uses two separate digital cameras in addition to the Horseman) just for redundancies sake. As wonderful as film is, it's only as good as the people who process it; you can have an amazing box of sheetfilm that took a week to produce, but if you have no one competent to process it, you have no film. In Columbus, Ohio, we used to use SSI for EVERYTHING but our black and white, but theyre gone because of the major professional interest in digital. I'm always going to be leery of sending my undev'd transparencies away to be processed because of the hundreds of things that can go wrong.
The thing that we have to realize is that film is going to become a novelty art form, and it's so wholly depressing that I cannot help but become teary-eyed when I think about it. In Ohio University's Visual Communication school, they only teach history of black and white film, where 5 years ago they taught an actual black and white shooting class that involved processing both your own negatives AND prints. The new generation of photographers are diving head first into digital, both for convenience and for technology's sake. With advances such as RED is making, there is a strong doubt that film will ever make a comeback. I (sadly) envision a future teaching my grandchildren about the days of the film camera, showing them what a picture USED to be... But this has all happened before, you understand. What happened to the Daguerrotype and Cyanotype? Glass-plate went out the same way; as technology advances, old techniques become historical artifacts and not current tools. The next thing to go, logically, is film. As of now, we can't envision anything past digital, but I guarantee that it will come. We'll eventually evolve from print medium to holography and, from there, who knows WHERE we'll end up... That far in the future is never predictable.
I prefer the results I get from film. However, a drum scan is still a transfer (and thus acceptance) to our new digital overlords. Digital photography will find a way to one day exceed film, and when that happens, film becomes nothing more than a memory and an art form. It's great for what it is, but it peaked, it isn't advancing, and everything eventually evolves or fades away. Who knows, maybe the lens goes next, and we're using liquid tech instead of glass? It's gotta change, and RED is doing some fantastic things helping it along.
4x5 is the medium of choice for a good number of professional and amateur photographers... I hope that it will continue to exist as we currently use it, but.. It's not going anywhere new, and people have been slowly (and rapidly) moving away from our beloved favorite. Motion and still photography is dying. We move, we adapt, we change, and we keep it in our heads. We know how to do it, we can do everything ourselves, and we'll always have that knowledge in our heads. I cherish film and paper photography, the heart and soul of image making, but it's becoming something that we can't do anymore. I'm too broke to continue a black and white darkroom, i could never afford a color darkroom, and it kills me to have to let it go... But hey, at least we always have our old film, right?
"A 6x6 slide would easily yield a 95-100MB equivalent resolution and the Dynamic Range is better on film (E6 and Print) than any digital will be in the near future."
No. Negative may have better dynamic range if correctly exposed, but not E6 which has quite limited dynamic range.
Also the best digital will kill negative in terms of resolution if comparing similar formats. There's a 60 megapixel full frame Phase One back, and in my experience there's no way of getting that many clean pixels from a 645 film.
There's not much sense in comparing digital vs film of different formats (fe. small vs. medium format).
Don't trust outdated "expert" information you read in the internet.
Specs subject to drastic change.
For $2500 you get the brains to a 5mp camera.
Now I understand that MP isn't everything, but for that price you can get a 12 MP FF 1Ds, which has the image quality to back things up.
Guy - first off, I know what I am talking about here since I have been using PhaseOne equipment for years, Canon and Nikon film cameras, medium format film cameras in advertising, and for the past 5 years, all sorts of digital SLR's - having settled on Canon's DSLR line up for the time being because their glass line up is better than the rest IMO....and I earn a living from my photography.
So, I won't entertain your resolution comment, or your (cheap) dig at Ken Rockwell or get in an exchange over your DR figures! (save that debate for the pub)
I also read LLandscape and many other 'expert' web sites. I also hear & share lots of opinions all the time with other photographers whilst working and, there is always a common opinion.....You can't beat film when your seeking absolute resolution, clarity, colour reproduction and over all quality. And this new equipment gives me no cause for celebration, although I do find it an interesting development.
I'll wait and see the SN ratio and the real life images before saying more - other than this: This equipment could easily set you back over £30,000 for a good (not top of the range) set up, and that's presuming you've got your own lenses...that's nuts.
I'll stick with the 5DMK2 orders and my Fuji GX617, and take a look at Canon's or Nikon's future offerings. I do thank RED for forwarding the speed of development in Digital Cameras and I look forward to the day that I can send my Canon body back to be 'upgraded' in a similar way.
Rod, I'm glad you've had the chance to use Phase One backs and film side by side, though I have some doubts as to your knowledge on the technical end of things if you're referring to resolution in terms of megabytes rather than some real world measure.
In the most absolute sense, digital has gotten to the point where no human being can tell the difference between whether the final product was done with film or digital. (looking at the negs or digital equivalent at 100% doesn't count, as that's not a real world scenario). You'll have noticed that less than 1% of working professionals today shoot with film all or even a majority of the time.
I work part time as an architectural photographer, which is (as far as I know) the most technically demanding area of commercial photography. And I'll admit, there are times when I prefer film over digital, though it's always been for aesthetic reasons. On a production basis? Working with film and being competitive would be absolutely impossible. Clients don't care about the 0.1-0.2% *possible* increase in quality, and nor do real world human beings outside of pedants (who don't count heh). Digital has film beat in every area that counts, most importantly speed (in terms of turnaround). Even if I develop my own negatives by hand right after the shoot, I can't come close to a 3 hr. turnaround time, and re-shoots? Bwuahaha!
Why do you think film is dying so fast? It isn't because it produces better quality results than digital. When the selling points are 'slightly better than digital, though may be completely imperceptible in most cases' and 'comparatively slower than all get out', it makes the sound of a death knell.
Some areas film can't even come close to being competitive in - low light shooting, for instance. Look at Ilford Delta 3200 shots and D3 3200 ISO shots in low lighting environments and tell me which ones are better in a competitive environment.
I'm not a digital fan boy - a film fan boy, if anything - but the continued 'sticking our heads in the sand' reaction from fellow photographers when it comes to film vs digital is simply ignorant and laughable.
262MP sounds nice, but you're probably going to need your own supercomputer cluster and a nausea inducing monitor(s) just to make use of that resolution.
Is this even usabale on a Macbook Pro? (I have my doubts)...
This all sounds groovy, but I suspect that for at least the next few years I'll still be using my Canon XH-A1 for studio/tripod work and my Sony A1U for outdoor handheld/action video. I'm already able to put out finished video that looks great on a 1080i TV or 24' computer monitor -- and is really overkill for 99% of my work, since even though I shoot and render HD, I have not yet had one single client request HD deliverables.
And, as others have pointed out, rendering all those pixels is going to take some serious computer power -- and some major software upgrades, too. I'm currently running Sony Vegas Pro on a quad-core PC, which is pretty up there for local commercial and business video work, and if I have a serious rendering 'need for speed' I can network two puters with Vegas (but almost never do).
Put it this way; if I see customer demand for something like the new Red -- and I am cynically assuming that their "$2400" cam will cost $12K+ in ready-to-shoot configuration, including lenses, sound gear, and HD or card storage -- I'll but one, plus software/hardware to deal with its output. But until then, I will be happy with what I have.
@rafa
No, Canon, Sony, and Nikon are NOT going to be fine, according to your own article. It's about technical specifications, not overall look, and is shooting down some of the bullies, which I'm all for. But in the market segment Red is aiming for (indie filmmakers, high-end videography applications), overall look and cost are the most important factors, not pixel specifications, and Canon, Sony, and Nikon are, as of right now, at a severe disadvantage. The best they've got on offer are cameras that cost a lot more and shoot at a lot lower resolution, and on HDV.
If you walk up to me and ask me which I prefer, a camera that costs $2500, looks good, has interchangeable lenses, is totally modular (and so I don't have to throw out all my accessories when I trade up), and records on cheap and widely available flash memory in RAW and has frame rates up to 120 fps, versus a camcorder that costs two to four times as much, is fixed lens, shoots on a format with generation loss using either tape or a proprietary memory card system, and can shoot up to 30 fps...what would be YOUR choice?
You do realize that $2400 only gets you the sensor. You've still got to buy the lens, recording unit, monitoring unit, control unit, frame to hold it all together unit, battery unit ect.
So comparing it to a $5000 ready to go out and shoot professional camcorder isn't exactly fair, as by the time you assemble everything you need to actually go out and use it you're cost is probably going to be closer to the $10,000 range.
Well it depends on what you find important. Because if you're someone who likes ultra fast auto focus you find on the Canons or Nikons, you might not like the Red. Or if you're someone who doesn't like auto focus and likes to look through the lens to focus, you probably won't like the Red. Keep in mind you're looking at a screen. Most likely if you're using this camera you're focusing by measuring the distance.
I haven't heard anything about auto focus on this camera, so I don't know if it even has AF, but if it does I would guess it's by contrast detection which is very slow compared to dedicated phase-detection sensors.
Red may have an amazing video camera on their hands that can also do stills. But just like a cinematographer or videographer would have issues shooting footage on a Nikon D90 or Canon 5D Mk II, a number of photographers would have issues with using this for still. Two very different things.
How on EARTH do you hold that 3D camera? Do you place it over your head??
well.... its unfortunate that These blogs dont have more industry input from those that are actually having to deal with the RED. The Red cam, first of all, is not a 4k camera, the way they count their pixels basically cheats their way up to 4k. By industry standards, this camera is ALMOST a 1.5k. Second...the thing is the most unreliable camera ever made. Before this, the price would had gone to the Viper, but the Vipers problems were nothing compared to the RED, we can still work with the Viper. The RED has so many inherent problems that i wouldnt know where to begin. Us in the film/video industry are basical being used by them as their guinea pig and developing their half finished product for them on the field....all while putting our necks on the line in front of productions and agency that are not there to play with new toys but to get a job done. You m,au ask why we use it then?! well, because some porr bastard Director of Photography, or some Production company, or Director fell for the trap and bought a RED or two and now feels the need to pawn it on us to use it on jobs. This new still camera is where RED SHOULD had started and stayed out of our industry until they had a product that was ready to be used as advertised.
There hundreds of poor bastards that fell for the RED and went and bought the thing and are now dealing with the nightmare of this thing. I hope RED arrives a solution for their buggy machine because a lot of people shelled out a lot of money (no, the RED is not JSUT $17k...by the time you have a working camera youve lost close to $30-40k) and are now hoping for a fix-all update on the thing..not these band aids they've been dribbling out.
I guess my point is, dont RUN out and by this thing purely on Hype...and chances are the spec theyre re giving you are measured by their OWN system and not an industry standard. Nikon, Canon and Sigma will be JUST fine judging by the way RED does things...buggy, unfinished, and not as advertised.
"NAB's bombshell was Scarlet, a 3K Digital Cinema camera. Scarlet will offer a 2/3" 3K sensor, a 8X T2.8 Zoom lens that maintains speed through the zoom, 4.8" flip out LCD, built in stereo mic, removable battery, recording to standard CF card media, all metal body and a few secret features even we aren't talking about yet."
It seems like the scarlet changed by a lot. I hope that its still capable of recording audio.
the original idea would of sold like hotcakes. i was waiting for it for my next upgrade but now sadly i will go to something else. you get into the 12 grand range there are a few options.
Well, I've been looking for an excused to get a web-cam...
what the..... I have been waiting all this time viewing all these teaser shots for THIS!!! that thing is freakin HUGE!
There is no way I am gonna shove that thing in my pocket. >:(
Sincerly,
One Disgruntled Photograpgher
What were you expecting, a point a shoot?
so can it shoot laser beams too (brings new meaning to the idea of shooting a picture) looks more like a beam cannon than a camera
...Meh. Specs are nice, but if there's anything key, it's the lens mounting matter. By clearly stating open support for Nikon/Canon mounts, they seem to negate themselves from developing their own lenses. And how much of a loss in focal length are we looking at here by using mounts? Odds are, this camera will be useless in low light.
I'm waiting out on Nikon MX. At least that looks promising.