New Cameras like the RED

[sina12345]

This has been bothering me, and all my googling has not given me a proper answer yet so I thought I'd bring it here. I still don't understand the retardedly expensiveness of some of the heavy duty professional filming cameras out there.

For example the RED ONE camera, it's to my understanding the body by itself is roughly $17.5k and if you want it to actually shoot anything you'll probably be spending around $30k. WHHYYYY?? I get that it shoots 4k, but I mean honestly how MUCH of a difference does everything else make? Why is it so special?

I've seen footage with the Red, and it all looks really nice, but not $30k worth of nice, I feel like if I spent enough money on a 5dii and some good quality lenses I could almost get the same quality, so how do cameras like the RED still exist? Is there something I'm missing?

I used to think that maaaaybe they had some sort of technology that would allow a person to export directly from the camera the motion and rotation the camera went through, and the process of tracking would be obsolete, obviously that isn't the case...yet () but what else could it possibly be SO special that I would pay almost 10x the price for a seemingly fraction of visual enhancement?

Am I colour blind or something, am I missing something extraordinary about these cameras?
Please, someone fill me in on this stuff.

EDIT: THE FREAKING STICKERS COST $50!!

 

[NathanH]

Good topic, it seems to me that RED is aimed at the professional film maker.

A DSLR like the t2i does 1080p which is the max that a consumer HDTV will do where as the RED is 4k which is better suited to high quality projectors and cinema screens.

At the end of the day technology has advanced so much that we can now achieve a film quality look for under 1k, but just like in the past for a current top end professional video camera it's going to cost you 30k.

RED is essentially a pipe dream for indie filmmakers but the standard for hollywood professionals.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

u should check out the Phantoms.

 

[Pedro Monteiro]

I guess that its the market that dictates the price of a product, if the body only costs 17.5k its because there are enough film makers willing to pay that price.

p.s. I would risk to say that the Red has the "Mac look effect", the look accounts for at least 50% of the equipment price.

 

[David.rhsc]

I'm going to get flamed for this - in the traditionally nicest IT way possible - but I'm going to do it anyway.

Before we begin though, I'll say this. Red is good at two things, in this order:

First: Generating hype.
Second: Making Cameras.

The other thing I'll say is that I'm a firm believer in using the tool that is either A: available to you, or B: appropriate to the content. We never shoot industrial videos (think internal/external corporate marketing) with REDs, we use Sony's for that, or HVX, or something similar. Additionally, the folks that are buying reds are rental houses, camera op/DoP types, and the occasional full service production house. It's only aimed at the "indie" market if you are talking about the same "indie" market that shoots under SAG
"ultra-low" contracts.

There's definitely a whole lot of the hype/marketing/OMGRED I want to use one too action surrounding their cameras. Having said that, you can't realistically compare a 1080 image and a 4K image unless you are seeing them projected. Additionally, a lot of the artifacts from h.264 aren't really noticeable when you look at samples on the web, unless you are getting really high quality streams.

I've seen footage with the Red, and it all looks really nice, but not $30k worth of nice, I feel like if I spent enough money on a 5dii and some good quality lenses I could almost get the same quality, so how do cameras like the RED still exist? Is there something I'm missing?

Yes. All the Canon DSLRs use a line-skipped compression scheme that cuts the effective resolution of the sensor (MP value) in half and generates strong stair-step artifacts on diagonal lines. Also, shooting RAW has its advantages. Then don't get me started on the advantages of having a standard PL mount.

They really are two entirely different cameras, but you have to dig into the image farther than internet distribution will allow you to go for making comparisons. I do like the DSLR look for certain reasons, but not the compression. The good news is that said compression will only improve over time. RED isn't aimed at a writer/director/investor who wants to buy a camera and shoot a feature with only the available resources. It's a different market. In all honesty the question of which one to use is about "image quality" last and so so so so so many other considerations first.

One of the things they don't tell you with the price tag is that you need a crew of people to run the camera, manage the data during the shoot day, pull focus, etc.

EDIT: THE FREAKING STICKERS COST $50!!

Pure OMG hype. The week long class they teach costs $2500.

One thing I almost forgot, the One is almost like 6 or 7 years old at this point, maybe 5 at the minimum. I could probably ramble on, but I got to go.

Seriously, cliff notes: Nothing against the Canon cameras, but there is a difference in so many ways. Will it drive down the price of REDs incoming stuff? Hopefully.

 

[sonnyboo]

I have personally shot with the Canon 5D, T2i, and also the RED ONE, plus see these projects all the way through post production pipelines, including have to get shots to 3rd party vendors for aspects like sound mixing, color correction, FX, and online editing.

I think I can speak a little to the questions and wrong assumptions being stated above...

One thing I almost forgot, the One is almost like 6 or 7 years old at this point, maybe 5 at the minimum. I could probably ramble on, but I got to go.

The first cameras off the assembly line were used to shoot CHE part I and II in 2007, so 3 years old....

For example the RED ONE camera, it's to my understanding the body by itself is roughly $17.5k and if you want it to actually shoot anything you'll probably be spending around $30k.

Actually, it's closer to $60,000 with all the bells and whistles, a lens package etc. at least that's what the 3-4 people I personally know with RED ONE's spent.

WHHYYYY?? I get that it shoots 4k, but I mean honestly how MUCH of a difference does everything else make? Why is it so special? Please, someone fill me in on this stuff.

First off, don't underestimate what the 4K does. It seems like (but I don't want to assume) that you don't truly get how important the 4K is, especially since most people only see footage on the web at 720 or even 480. The resolution is crucially important to color correction, FX, and the rigors of basic rendering for maintaining quality. To the untrained eye, you really don't see it on the web, but for broadcast and especially theatrical cinematic presentation it is an enormous difference.


With the RED ONE, you are not only getting resolution but a very mild compression from a sensor that may be similar in size to the DSLR, but is far more robust and has greater detail, that is also being recorded with far more picture and color information because of the compression and size of the frame.

Getting 4 discreet audio channels of professional grade audio via XLR input into dynamic bit rates much higher than most professional sound gear doesn't hurt either.

The ability to use cine-style lenses for 35mm, including primes, etc. not to be confused with 35mm still camera lenses, are just a few of the professional aspects to the RED ONE.


If your shooting for the WEB or you can't afford a RED ONE, then these DSLR's are amazing cameras. They are still amazing, but absolutely incomparable to the quality of the RED ONE and what it does for the entire process of shooting and post. You are comparing a tinker toy to a construction tool when looking at DLSR versus RED ONE.

When used for broadcast television or movie theater exhibition, the RED ONE footage is incomparably clearer, sharper, and more in line with 35mm film than a DSLR. A DSLR still camera shooting video at this time has literally 1/100th the picture quality because of the compression, the rolling shutter, data rates, resolution, and audio of the RED ONE, and that ratio is being very generous. That is nothing against DLSR's as I started shooting with those after having done a few RED shoots, but to try to put them on the same playing field is like trying to get a Little League team against the NFL...

 

[Cracker Funk]

I have personally shot with the Canon 5D, T2i, and also the RED ONE, plus see these projects all the way through post production pipelines, including have to get shots to 3rd party vendors for aspects like sound mixing, color correction, FX, and online editing.

I think I can speak a little to the questions and wrong assumptions being stated above...



The first cameras off the assembly line were used to shoot CHE part I and II in 2007, so 3 years old....




Actually, it's closer to $60,000 with all the bells and whistles, a lens package etc. at least that's what the 3-4 people I personally know with RED ONE's spent.




First off, don't underestimate what the 4K does. It seems like (but I don't want to assume) that you don't truly get how important the 4K is, especially since most people only see footage on the web at 720 or even 480. The resolution is crucially important to color correction, FX, and the rigors of basic rendering for maintaining quality. To the untrained eye, you really don't see it on the web, but for broadcast and especially theatrical cinematic presentation it is an enormous difference.


With the RED ONE, you are not only getting resolution but a very mild compression from a sensor that may be similar in size to the DSLR, but is far more robust and has greater detail, that is also being recorded with far more picture and color information because of the compression and size of the frame.

Getting 4 discreet audio channels of professional grade audio via XLR input into dynamic bit rates much higher than most professional sound gear doesn't hurt either.

The ability to use cine-style lenses for 35mm, including primes, etc. not to be confused with 35mm still camera lenses, are just a few of the professional aspects to the RED ONE.


If your shooting for the WEB or you can't afford a RED ONE, then these DSLR's are amazing cameras. They are still amazing, but absolutely incomparable to the quality of the RED ONE and what it does for the entire process of shooting and post. You are comparing a tinker toy to a construction tool when looking at DLSR versus RED ONE.

When used for broadcast television or movie theater exhibition, the RED ONE footage is incomparably clearer, sharper, and more in line with 35mm film than a DSLR. A DSLR still camera shooting video at this time has literally 1/100th the picture quality because of the compression, the rolling shutter, data rates, resolution, and audio of the RED ONE, and that ratio is being very generous. That is nothing against DLSR's as I started shooting with those after having done a few RED shoots, but to try to put them on the same playing field is like trying to get a Little League team against the NFL...

I'm sold.

 

[sonnyboo]

I'm sold.

Can I set you up with 12 months same as cash?

 

[David.rhsc]

Thanks Sonny,

You put it to words better than I could have, even if I hadn't been on my way out the door.

The first cameras off the assembly line were used to shoot CHE part I and II in 2007, so 3 years old....

Yeah, that sounds closer. My sense of time is pretty distorted, of course so is RED's. I might have been counting some of the time that the camera was supposed to have been on the market - but wasn't.

Can I set you up with 12 months same as cash?

I'll take the 60 months same as cash, with trade up to an s35 Epic plzkthx.

Actually I was thinking about this the other day. There's a guy locally who owns a set of Zeiss Super Speeds, but doesn't own a camera to connect them to. Given the cost of equipment and the following:

1. PL mount is pretty much here to stay.
2. Lenses will last a LOT longer than a camera platform.

I'm almost inclined to think that if I was investing heavily in cine gear I'd consider owning glass and renting camera bodies instead of the other way around.

Almost. Lenses have to be maintained, and that's not cheap either. Also times when a Zeiss set are overkill.

All of this is basically academic. Don't plan on making a $100K investment in cinematography gear anytime soon.

 

[Graeme]

I think the big issue for the RED camera (and hopefully the Scarlet will solve) is that for low/no budget indies its simply too much camera and too expensive, unless your film is going on a big screen the RED One is overkill for most productions; hopefully the scarlet will solve this issue (soon).

 

[Adeimantus]

Does anyone know an average daily rental price for a Red One?

 

[Graeme]

~$500 a day is what I've seen quoted, but I'm not sure if that is just the body or some kind of kit.

 

[directorik]

Does anyone know an average daily rental price for a Red One?

Here in L.A. a body only rental is $300. A standard package
with top handle, baseplate, rods, audio and video adapters
and batteries is around $500. For a package you can actually
shoot a movie with the rate is about $1,300/day.

I think the big issue for the RED camera (and hopefully the Scarlet will solve)

And when will the scarlet arrive? I've been reading about this
for years. On Sept 3 Jannard announced another delay.

To the untrained eye, you really don't see it on the web, but for broadcast and especially theatrical cinematic presentation it is an enormous difference.

This is the best answer to the original question in a great
thread with great answers. sina12345 has seen footage with
the Red, and it all looks really nice, but not $30k worth of
nice. If the goal of a low budget moviemaker is to get nice
looking footage, that can be achieved with much cheaper
cameras. For broadcast and theatrical release a better camera
is needed.

 

[Graeme]

And when will the scarlet arrive? I've been reading about this
for years. On Sept 3 Jannard announced another delay.

When Hell Freezes over at this rate

They seriously need to get their act together, what has it been? 3 Years?

 

[David.rhsc]

Here in L.A. a body only rental is $300. A standard package
with top handle, baseplate, rods, audio and video adapters
and batteries is around $500. For a package you can actually
shoot a movie with the rate is about $1,300/day.

That sounds about right. I don't know how it is down south, but up here there seems to be quite a few red owners dying to get some use out of their cameras. Those numbers can usually be brought down somewhat - depending on what you're asking for, how long you want it, and who you know.

And when will the scarlet arrive? I've been reading about this
for years. On Sept 3 Jannard announced another delay.

My guess is that Scarlet is Vaporware. They keep announcing delay after delay with it, and given how fast canon/panasonic/sony are developing cameras in the $6000 ish range, Scarlet might be a loss for the folks at RED. Who knows, maybe they'll revamp it in some way and come out with something after all.

This is the best answer to the original question in a great
thread with great answers. sina12345 has seen footage with
the Red, and it all looks really nice, but not $30k worth of
nice. If the goal of a low budget moviemaker is to get nice
looking footage, that can be achieved with much cheaper
cameras. For broadcast and theatrical release a better camera
is needed.

This, for emphasis. I'm not nearly as succinct as these guys.

 

[Graeme]

My guess is that Scarlet is Vaporware. They keep announcing delay after delay with it, and given how fast canon/panasonic/sony are developing cameras in the $6000 ish range, Scarlet might be a loss for the folks at RED. Who knows, maybe they'll revamp it in some way and come out with something after all.

I'm not sure its vaporware yet but I do agree with the rest of your comment, if it comes out tomorrow, awesome, if it comes out in 6months to a year, meh? Scary but that is what happens when you take so long to bring out a "consumer" product vs. an industrial one.

 

[David.rhsc]

Too true. I am a natural pessimist, and I think I'm a little bitter because I was one of the ones hoping Scarlett would drop before Epic way back when. So much for that plan.

I imagine they don't have the R&D resources of a Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, or Sony. Every time one of these guys comes out with something in the DSLR range, or something like Sony's impending 1080i "E-mount" lens platform (why no 1080p, Sony?), or what have you then RED is stuck holding Scarlett and their plans for a fat price tag and thinking "Damnit! Now we have to one-up them AGAIN!" and it's "Time for another delay kids."

That's my theory anyway.

For example: Panasonic has a little number coming out that's basically a souped-up GH-1 in a video-cam shaped body with an HD-SDI out. It's the same micro 4/3 ring, so any lens mount you like with the ability to out to a ki-pro or similar device. Somewhere in the $6K range supposedly. Sure. Micro 4/3 isn't a big fat s35 or ff35 sensor, but if it has the advantage of actually existing on the market ...

Alas, here's hoping that RED proves me wrong and drops a Scarlett in the s35 sensor format with all their bells and whistles, PL mount, kit 18-50, battery, storage, and basic AKS for less than $10K.