What Sony sells for 200k, they will sell for 20k, now, red, start making an answer to the Sonys HDR-FX1 I will gladly tender the money if you can make that for 1/10 the price too!!!
I was just on a short one day visit to NAB. Currently RED camera is a total pipe dream. Because it does not exist.
After visiting the RED booth it became clear to me and other film professionals that Jannard nor his team have any clue about the film/video market or industry.
What they currently have is a piece of paper with incredible specs that they claim they will deliver for $17,000.
The design they've shown for the camera makes absolutely no sense at all. That design bears no resemblance to a practical working production camera. I asked one of the representatives at the booth. Why the hell did you design the camera like that. His response was some lame market speak. Those guys don't have a clue.
A real working camera that delivers specs close to what RED claims costs $140,000.
Not to even mention the cost of storage for all of that data, as well as post production. All of which would run hundreds of thousands more.
I would have been more impressed with RED if they actually could demonstrate the basic sensor and circuit board actually recording an image. But the reality is they had nothing but hype. A lotta' sizzle with no steak.
Just looking at the image on the Red site I see what appears to a housing for the imager and lens mount, with a flip out LCD. Oh, and what I guess are a pair of XLR inputs.
Beyond that I see lots of holes and panels for affixing (I assume) various modules. As well as that "cage" deal, and its many holes and mount points.
Which is all to say it's very hard to evaluate what the camera does or does not or could or could not include in its various configurations.
So, I'm curious if they were presenting, even at a paper level, any detail that struck you as headed in the wrong directions, for pro shooters?
Like, I dunno, "The LCD screen is the only viewfinder you need" or "the basic camera will go for X but we expect you to do all your video set-ups and monitoring and signal processing on a remote device, and the camera just ships out raw sensor data" or such.
So, I'm curious if they were presenting, even at a paper level, any detail that struck you as headed in the wrong directions, for pro shooters?
Pro cameras need to be easily configurable for four basic tasks: tripod head, handheld, steadicam, and crane.
A camera needs to be ergonomic, easy to the touch and able to mold to the body. Toggles, switches, buttons, menu read outs, in/out ports need to be in convenient and predictable locations.
On film cameras everything the camera operator needs is on the left hand side of the camera while most everything the camera assistant needs is on the right hand side of the camera. In newer cameras all of the bells and whistles are integrated into the camera body to ease use and keeping cables on the right side of the camera.
The RED camera has no obvious thought to any of this in its current design. Its basically a metallic shaft.
Quote:
Which is all to say it's very hard to evaluate what the camera does or does not or could or could not include in its various configurations.
Which is pretty much what the rep at the RED booth said. The point of the cage is for the customer to put on the camera whatever they want.
A camera needs to be modular but also balanced. I don't know of anyone who wants a camera they can put together like a Lego set.They want everything arraigned in a logical way that keeps a balanced camera.
For example film cameras use very large and heavy zoom lenses. You need counter weight in the back of the camera to keep everything in good balance. The camera manufactures know this and design their cameras accordingly.
Quote:
Like, I dunno, "The LCD screen is the only viewfinder you need" or "the basic camera will go for X but we expect you to do all your video set-ups and monitoring and signal processing on a remote device, and the camera just ships out raw sensor data" or such.
No those flip out LCD monitors are horrible. They cannot display correct color, correct contrast, and they are difficult to use for critical focus.
To some degree you can get away with them on mini DV cameras because they record highly compressed data, and because of their 1/3 inch sensors have lots of depth of field.
As you move up to higher resolutions all of those problems are compounded. RED wants to use a super 35mm size sensor. In 35mm often the depth of field is down to mere inches before your subject goes out of focus. You cannot correctly judge that on a LCD screen.
People have trouble judging focus on electronic viewfinders. The best viewfinder to use is an optical viewfinder because you are literally watching the real scene and not some electronic interpretation of it.
Over all the design of the RED camera is more for hype and coolness than real world functionality. The current design might be great for a rocket launcher or fusion reactor or a jet engine, but not as a camera.
People have trouble judging focus on electronic viewfinders. The best viewfinder to use is an optical viewfinder because you are literally watching the real scene and not some electronic interpretation of it.
You are right on the money about optical vs. digital viewfinder. Hopefully, this will be corrected as they get closer to a real product.
Only two digital camera manufacturers I can think of build optical viewfinders in their cameras. 99% use electronic viewfinders.
RED would need to build a 180 degree spinning shutter between the image sensor and the lens. There would also need to be a prism system to split the light sending half up to the viewing system and the other half for video assist monitors.
The big problem with electronic viewfinders focus on HD cameras is the fact they are display a lower resolution than the native resolution of the format. You are not watching as sharp an image as being recorded.
So the subject may appear in sharp focus on that tiny 2 inch viewfinder. But you can see the subject is soft when viewed on a larger monitor. You will really see soft focus if projected on a large screen.
Comments
But do they have the rights to the Terminators design?
Originally posted by Ireland
Thanks for sharing that with us.
But do they have the rights to the Terminators design?
LOL! Well, you know Oakley (Jim Jannard is the guy behind this RED camera, and the Oakley company)... they're all about style.
Originally posted by Ireland
Thanks for sharing that with us.
But do they have the rights to the Terminators design?
Oh my god, thank you for that!
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Oh my god, thank you for that!
Oakley dokley.
After visiting the RED booth it became clear to me and other film professionals that Jannard nor his team have any clue about the film/video market or industry.
What they currently have is a piece of paper with incredible specs that they claim they will deliver for $17,000.
The design they've shown for the camera makes absolutely no sense at all. That design bears no resemblance to a practical working production camera. I asked one of the representatives at the booth. Why the hell did you design the camera like that. His response was some lame market speak. Those guys don't have a clue.
A real working camera that delivers specs close to what RED claims costs $140,000.
Not to even mention the cost of storage for all of that data, as well as post production. All of which would run hundreds of thousands more.
I would have been more impressed with RED if they actually could demonstrate the basic sensor and circuit board actually recording an image. But the reality is they had nothing but hype. A lotta' sizzle with no steak.
Just looking at the image on the Red site I see what appears to a housing for the imager and lens mount, with a flip out LCD. Oh, and what I guess are a pair of XLR inputs.
Beyond that I see lots of holes and panels for affixing (I assume) various modules. As well as that "cage" deal, and its many holes and mount points.
Which is all to say it's very hard to evaluate what the camera does or does not or could or could not include in its various configurations.
So, I'm curious if they were presenting, even at a paper level, any detail that struck you as headed in the wrong directions, for pro shooters?
Like, I dunno, "The LCD screen is the only viewfinder you need" or "the basic camera will go for X but we expect you to do all your video set-ups and monitoring and signal processing on a remote device, and the camera just ships out raw sensor data" or such.
So, I'm curious if they were presenting, even at a paper level, any detail that struck you as headed in the wrong directions, for pro shooters?
Pro cameras need to be easily configurable for four basic tasks: tripod head, handheld, steadicam, and crane.
A camera needs to be ergonomic, easy to the touch and able to mold to the body. Toggles, switches, buttons, menu read outs, in/out ports need to be in convenient and predictable locations.
On film cameras everything the camera operator needs is on the left hand side of the camera while most everything the camera assistant needs is on the right hand side of the camera. In newer cameras all of the bells and whistles are integrated into the camera body to ease use and keeping cables on the right side of the camera.
The RED camera has no obvious thought to any of this in its current design. Its basically a metallic shaft.
Which is all to say it's very hard to evaluate what the camera does or does not or could or could not include in its various configurations.
Which is pretty much what the rep at the RED booth said. The point of the cage is for the customer to put on the camera whatever they want.
A camera needs to be modular but also balanced. I don't know of anyone who wants a camera they can put together like a Lego set.They want everything arraigned in a logical way that keeps a balanced camera.
For example film cameras use very large and heavy zoom lenses. You need counter weight in the back of the camera to keep everything in good balance. The camera manufactures know this and design their cameras accordingly.
Like, I dunno, "The LCD screen is the only viewfinder you need" or "the basic camera will go for X but we expect you to do all your video set-ups and monitoring and signal processing on a remote device, and the camera just ships out raw sensor data" or such.
No those flip out LCD monitors are horrible. They cannot display correct color, correct contrast, and they are difficult to use for critical focus.
To some degree you can get away with them on mini DV cameras because they record highly compressed data, and because of their 1/3 inch sensors have lots of depth of field.
As you move up to higher resolutions all of those problems are compounded. RED wants to use a super 35mm size sensor. In 35mm often the depth of field is down to mere inches before your subject goes out of focus. You cannot correctly judge that on a LCD screen.
People have trouble judging focus on electronic viewfinders. The best viewfinder to use is an optical viewfinder because you are literally watching the real scene and not some electronic interpretation of it.
Over all the design of the RED camera is more for hype and coolness than real world functionality. The current design might be great for a rocket launcher or fusion reactor or a jet engine, but not as a camera.
Originally posted by TenoBell
People have trouble judging focus on electronic viewfinders. The best viewfinder to use is an optical viewfinder because you are literally watching the real scene and not some electronic interpretation of it.
You are right on the money about optical vs. digital viewfinder. Hopefully, this will be corrected as they get closer to a real product.
RED would need to build a 180 degree spinning shutter between the image sensor and the lens. There would also need to be a prism system to split the light sending half up to the viewing system and the other half for video assist monitors.
The big problem with electronic viewfinders focus on HD cameras is the fact they are display a lower resolution than the native resolution of the format. You are not watching as sharp an image as being recorded.
So the subject may appear in sharp focus on that tiny 2 inch viewfinder. But you can see the subject is soft when viewed on a larger monitor. You will really see soft focus if projected on a large screen.