http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/ Engadget Comments for RED DSMC specs detailed, prices start at $28,000 for EPIC-X, lower-end Scarlet still vague http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/

.....shit dude]]>Oct 30th 2009 7:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 7:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Yes I know that this is cheap relatively speaking to other professional cameras...but still. Not so used to these numbers.]]>Oct 30th 2009 7:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
Once again, resolution isn't everything - let's not forget. You can buy a 12 megapixel camera for $400 and it won't compare to a $5,000 Nikon D3.]]>Oct 30th 2009 8:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
Well thanks Brian for schooling me about how resolution isn't everything, but I'm a little bit aware of these things already, as a DP and director. My point was, at $28,000, it's very cheap in comparison, while competing with much more expensive rigs. Notice that I wasn't mentioning the F35, but let's see how they compare nonetheless when the product is actually out... I have a hunch you'll be surprised.

One thing you said leaves me wondering though: "The CCDs in the F35 are stripped from a much higher resolution sensor - so it records at 1080p - but it is very close to film's dynamic range" - what exactly do you think pixel resolution has to do with dynamic range ?]]>Oct 30th 2009 8:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
Not to say that I'm anti-Red. But you've also got CMOS rolling shutter issues on Red cameras. Major studios will probably stick with CCDs until the rolling shutter problem is improved.

Anyway, sorry if I sounded condescending - didn't mean to come off like that.]]>Oct 30th 2009 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
Well, I took a look at Public Enemies, shot on the F23, and it looked like ass.]]>Oct 31st 2009 3:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/>Well, I took a look at Public Enemies, shot on the F23, and it looked like ass.

What are you talking about? Public Enemies doesn't look like ass. Besides, the Sony F23 and F35/Genesis is commonly used for major Hollywood films. That's why its been used in movies from everything from Sin City, Star Wars, 21, to Zombieland.

The Red is still relegated to Indie films like The Argentine and Guerrilla. But that's not a bad thing. When your budget are in the millions of dollars, the cost of the camera is the last thing you want to worry about. Red serves a very important role. Its silly to compare a Red to a F35/Genesis, like it is to compare a 5DII/7D to a Red. They each serve their own niche, their own market. Same goes for equipment from Arriflex, Silicon imaging, etc.]]>Oct 31st 2009 7:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://sKarlets.com]]>Nov 1st 2009 9:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
OK, well, if you think grid noise patterns in dark areas, pink smears on lights (similar to those seen in the digital portions of Collateral), and a period movie entirely composed of close-ups and medium shots doesn't look like ass, then your standards should allow you to enjoy a wide range of crap.

It's 1930s Chicago, but you'd never know it from watching this movie. There's not one wide shot of... well, just about anything. Not an iconic street. Nothing even to validate that we're in Chicago. The Untouchables was shot on film, an an era without digital post, and it manages to encompass downtown locations.

So why would that be? Perhaps because the image quality was so poor that they couldn't afford to have the audience scrutinizing small details, like buildings in the distance. Much the same reason you don't see but one wide shot in 28 Days Later, which was shot on DV. People don't notice piss-poor resolution as much when all you have is close-ups.

Public Enemies is a claustrophobic bore.]]>Nov 1st 2009 12:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 7:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
/Joey Lawrence]]>Oct 30th 2009 7:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 10:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Where is my Canon 5D mkII?? I will rather use the change on a new car.]]>Nov 5th 2009 10:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 7:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 7:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 9:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 7:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 10:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
So why would you need more lights with this than the RED One? I've shot with the RED One and I certainly didn't need twice as many lights to get good contrast and a properly exposed image. Maybe the problem isn't that the camera needs tons more lights, but that you need to learn to light better.]]>Oct 31st 2009 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Nov 1st 2009 12:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
Film will never die, but RED is giving it a helluhva run for it's money.]]>Oct 30th 2009 8:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
As far as the money goes. If you're shooting anything over about 20 minutes (I forget the exact number of minutes) it costs the same or more to shoot on the Red because of the high cost of post and what not.

I don't mean to sound like I hate innovation, quite the opposite really, but I do hate it when people (kids and producers mainly) don't understand quite everything and then it screws us all on set because they didn't know the facts.]]>Oct 30th 2009 8:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
I've been on both film and RED sets and RED is cheaper....even if you have a Scratch system RED is still cheaper. ]]>Oct 30th 2009 8:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
I love REDs, but they're too expensive for my needs. I'm still holding my breath for the Scarlet 2/3.]]>Oct 31st 2009 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 31st 2009 6:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 10:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
Secondly, to compare Scarlet to ANY DSLR that can "shoot HD" is just plain ignorant. Scarlet will absolutely, unequivocably DESTROY any DSLR. End of debate.

Third, if the F35 (200k price tag) is so hot, why wasn't "District 9" shot on it? Or "Knowing"? Or "The Informant", or "The Lovely Bones"... or "Gamer"?

Answer: because it's weak sauce compared to a camera that costs a fraction of the price.

In closing, this is some seriously groundbreaking, industry disrupting, game changing stuff.

Film isn't dead... yet... but the audiences' tastes have changed. Get on board, cause the train is leaving the station.
]]>Oct 30th 2009 8:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
District 9 had a lot of hand held and tight indoor shots, and while I haven't seen the F35 I could only imagine it's more cumbersome than Red One.]]>Oct 30th 2009 9:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/> "District 9 had a lot of hand held and tight indoor shots, and while I haven't seen the F35 I could only imagine it's more cumbersome than Red One."

Oh, the F35 can be handheld... or shoulderheld :)

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/hd-uhd-2k-digital-cinema/10090d1229666876-sony-f35-first-experience-img_0756.jpg]]>Oct 30th 2009 10:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
REAL ANSWER: Big Hollywood blockbusters never shoot on any camera because of it's price point. They shoot on it because of the look. Every time I read about a movie using RED in ICG or ASC the DP ALWAYS SAYS it's for the look of the camera. Specifically, I remember articles about D9, Knowing, and the Informant all wanting their films to have a Digital look (Aka, they didn't want it to look like film).

They don't even buy RED's anyway, so the price isn't a debate for them. They rent them, and for about the same rental price as a F35, because you aren't paying a rental house for the camera, you are paying for a guarantee that your camera is going to work.

"Secondly, to compare Scarlet to ANY DSLR that can "shoot HD" is just plain ignorant. Scarlet will absolutely, unequivocably DESTROY any DSLR. End of debate."

Interesting, have you seen footage from a Scarlet yet? I haven't. ]]>Oct 31st 2009 4:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/
The Canon DSLRs ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, SOMETHINGLY FRIGGING annihilate RED ONE in low light shooting. The noise on the RED is horrible. Both camera's are great for their own merits and I'm pretty psyched about the cheapo Scarlet.

Come on RED!]]>Oct 31st 2009 6:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Lumatech Inc has such a set of Super35 lenses now shipping that is a little over $30k. see www.lumatechinc.com

A small company giving the industry insiders a run for their money at a quality that's tough to beat. Gotta love it!]]>Oct 31st 2009 8:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 31st 2009 12:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 31st 2009 3:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/dumbass... You haven't even seen a comparison... ]]>Oct 31st 2009 8:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 8:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/4:4:4 RGB is raw.
Redcode is not.]]>Nov 22nd 2009 6:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 9:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/red-dsmc-specs-detailed-prices-start-at-28-000-for-epix-x-low/Oct 30th 2009 9:45PM