Can Someone Explain the New RED Offerings?

[termina3]

The thread title pretty much says it all... can anyone digest the new RED Scarlet (still camera) offerings for me? I doubt that I'll purchase as single component, but I'm still curious.

The whole RED system is dense to me, especially compared to Nikon's (which I'm familiar with), but maybe this is a matter of being exposed to Nikon for so long, and just now seeing RED.

(Of course, I have the same lack of understanding when it comes to Canon's multi-sized sensors/crops and lens compatibility issues. But that's another thread for another day--NO Nikon/Canon comparisons, please)

Thanks in advance.

 

[puckhead193]

i thought Red was a video camera to capture film like quality...? They make a still camera?

edit - i did a google search and it seems they did make a still camera... pretty good specs. Seems to me like you can basicly design your own camera to fit your needs and has time goes on you won't have to upgrade a whole new body you can just upgrade a certain portion. But dam that's going to cost a pretty penny... wanna buy me one?

 

[Grimace]

It's a modular system, started in the video industry, now they are bridging to still media.

RED's products are bargains for pro video users, but still a bit high for the rest of us.

 

[anubis]

but still a bit high for the rest of us.

Understatement of the century

But seriously though, you needn't worry about RED unless even the highest Canon or Nikon offerings are insufficient for your needs, which isn't applicable to all but the most demanding and highly paid professionals

 

[troyhark]

RED's products are bargains for pro video users, but still a bit high for the rest of us.

RED's video cameras are aimed at the very top level of professional video/filmmaking. Yet pricey as they seem, they are very cheap compared to the competition.

 

[OreoCookie]

The cameras which have a high-res still option are competing with cameras that people like us cannot afford. They compete with medium format bodies with digibacks. Their collection of three primes costs, what, $19k? Youzers.

 

[termina3]

But seriously though, you needn't worry about RED unless even the highest Canon or Nikon offerings are insufficient for your needs, which isn't applicable to all but the most demanding and highly paid professionals

Is this directed to me "you" or the universal "you?" If it's to me then:

I doubt that I'll purchase a single component, but I'm still curious.

OK, so it's a high-res camera. I got that. But what about individual parts? It seems to have a body, several grips, lenses (from RED and Canon and Nikon), batteries--all of which look like they add up to an un-ergonomic, heavy box. Or more like a series of boxes glued together.

How can a pro buy a bunch of boxes instead of a more streamlined Hasselblad?

 

[OreoCookie]

How can a pro buy a bunch of boxes instead of a more streamlined Hasselblad?

Wasn't that how Hasselblads used to work (200 and 500 series were also a bunch of boxes you could combine to your liking)?
I obviously have zero experience with Red products, but given their background, I still think that it's very likely they know what they're doing. The dslr they've stacked together looks remarkably normal (well, for a modular medium format body, they do).

 

[bocomo]

Wasn't that how Hasselblads used to work (200 and 500 series were also a bunch of boxes you could combine to your liking)?
I obviously have zero experience with Red products, but given their background, I still think that it's very likely they know what they're doing. The dslr they've stacked together looks remarkably normal (well, for a modular medium format body, they do).

exactly. medium format has almost universally been modular, which is a great way to go. very configurable.

i'm excited to see what Red brings to the table

 

[Holgapics]

The whole modular system has been used in the motion picture industry for years. Panavision is a good example where you sort of build a system based on what and where you'll be filming. Tight spaces? You'll perhaps go low profile. Studio? Then you'll go with 1000' magazines and super silent. Hand held? Then you'll rig for that. And the list goes on.

To me what the RED system is offering is a complete high-end digital video recording system that a fairly modest sized production company can own outright. Considering the cost difference between 35mm movie cameras and the RED system, the RED product wins hands down. In the case of Panavision they only rent or lease their systems.

Another area where the RED could really shine is in advertising. Normally for an advertising shoot it would either be for broadcast or print. If both, then two different crews and equipment would be needed. I can see instances where with the RED system all you would have to do is swap out the sensors depending on which medium you were shooting for. Just about everything else could nearly remain the same. Almost like killing two birds with one stone. And when it comes to advertising budgets you're talking real money so the basic system costs for the RED isn't all that much. Of course your wedding or landscape or hobby photographers will naturally find those prices way out of the ballpark.

 

[troyhark]

Another area where the RED could really shine is in advertising. Normally for an advertising shoot it would either be for broadcast or print. If both, then two different crews and equipment would be needed. I can see instances where with the RED system all you would have to do is swap out the sensors depending on which medium you were shooting for. Just about everything else could nearly remain the same.

Not quite, lighting for filming is often not appropriate for stills. Film is shot at low shutter speeds and this is why stills photographers are also required on set for getting sharper pictures. Which can be a real challenge at times as the light levels are also very low, due to that slower film shutter speed.

Also how you light looks wise can be an issue. A lot of lower key movie work would simply look like a poorly exposed still when viewed as a single frame, but in the context of movement within the frame, it can work very well.
I sometimes shoot movie stills and when doing so, I do separate setups or reblock scenes, both of which may require different lighting from that of individual shots within the scene. The reason I do this is that film is a series of edits which tell a story. A still has to do that in a single shot. Even with advertising, you will get many of the same issues.

Also for those who never been on set, the lighting tends to be rejigged for every camera shot within a scene, so it's not like an entire scene is set up and lit in one go for all shots. Though soaps with a rapid shooting schedule are usually just flooded with light. Hence why they usually look so flat and lifeless.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Though soaps with a rapid shooting schedule are usually just flooded with light. Hence why they usually look so flat and lifeless.

And here I thought it was the writing and acting that did it.

 

[Dejavu]

I think I will stick with Nikon and Canons because they have a long history.

RED products still going through bug testing on their shipping products.

 

[Holgapics]

"lighting for filming is often not appropriate for stills."

Often in the case of interiors but not always for exteriors. And of course the 50/sec. shutter speed of a movie camera is not optimum for stills, nor is the negative itself. I understand all this as many times I've had still photographers shooting on my sets and granted, there can be different needs for each discipline.

What I was trying to imply is that often new technology can change the nature of business. I spent a number of years filming without video playback then all of a sudden someone split the image and presto, within a short time video playback was standard from then on. Not that the RED system will change everything but it has the possibility of altering some aspects of production. Which and how much remains to be seen but somebody was thinking outside the box when designing the system.

The OP was wondering what the deal is with this system and certainly the final answer is further down the road but for sure it's not a system for the casual user.

 

[ChrisA]

Is this directed to me "you" or the universal "you?" If it's to me then:



OK, so it's a high-res camera. I got that. But what about individual parts? It seems to have a body, several grips, lenses (from RED and Canon and Nikon), batteries--all of which look like they add up to an un-ergonomic, heavy box. Or more like a series of boxes glued together.

How can a pro buy a bunch of boxes instead of a more streamlined Hasselblad?

It depends on your work. If you do studio based photography then bulk is a non-issue. In the studio even if you had a Nikon you'd likely have it attached to a 200 pound camera stand and have even bulkier lights and power packs. and then you might shoot tethered to a computer. The bulk of the camera is a non-issue. If you don't think a lot of people don't work this way just pick up a Sunday newspaper and look at all the adds or all the catalog shots on the web.

 

[Digital Skunk]

RED's video cameras are aimed at the very top level of professional video/filmmaking. Yet pricey as they seem, they are very cheap compared to the competition.

True, but even the RED bodies fully loaded don't cost half as much as a broadcast panasonic or XDCAM Sony, nor a Varicam or 35mm motion picture film camera.

The RED system may benefit the freelance shop/person that does double duty as well. There have been days where I have to shoot stills and video for the same event, do a promotional video one day, and shoot corporate head shots the next.

I don't have top notch gear for video, I just can't afford it, but I did spend near $4000 for a DVX P2 camera and P2 cards to capture to, then another $5000 for just the Nikon bodies I have. This does not include the thousands more spent on audio gear, lenses, strobes, battery packs, bags, filters, etc. that go along with BOTH camera systems.

Being able to combine them both together on a modular body would be a dream. Switching out the parts as needed and having an FX body and 3k/4k (beyond HD) video camera in one system that uses the same batteries and lenses and filters.

I won't have 20K to blow on an entirely new system for my OWN PERSONAL use anytime soon, but those production shops that do this stuff on the regular with 5-10 guys and Mac Pros and Xserves should have itch credit card fingers.

 

[troyhark]

True, but even the RED bodies fully loaded don't cost half as much as a broadcast panasonic or XDCAM Sony, nor a Varicam or 35mm motion picture film camera.

Errr? That's exactly what I said!

 

[troyhark]

"lighting for filming is often not appropriate for stills."

Often in the case of interiors but not always for exteriors. And of course the 50/sec. shutter speed of a movie camera is not optimum for stills, nor is the negative itself. I understand all this as many times I've had still photographers shooting on my sets and granted, there can be different needs for each discipline.

I've done plenty of shoots with no or very little exterior work.

What I was trying to imply is that often new technology can change the nature of business. I spent a number of years filming without video playback then all of a sudden someone split the image and presto, within a short time video playback was standard from then on. Not that the RED system will change everything but it has the possibility of altering some aspects of production. Which and how much remains to be seen but somebody was thinking outside the box when designing the system.

The OP was wondering what the deal is with this system and certainly the final answer is further down the road but for sure it's not a system for the casual user.

I don't think RED will change filmmaking too much, post production - yes it will have an impact there. The main thing is that people will be able to afford to buy kit they could only previously rent. It will affect the other manufacturers more than the end user - other than financially.
Marvelous as the RED kit is, it doesn't really do anything not already done before unlike live monitoring. It's just affordable, not that that is a trivial thing.

 

[FX120]

The biggest problem with RED is their rush to get a product to market has left many people with half-way functioning gear.

I have heard stories of people having their RED one crash multiple times durring a day of shooting. This scares the crap out of me, I can only imagine filming a wedding and right as the bride and groom are about to say "I do", having your camera crash...

 

[OreoCookie]

I asked my cousin about Red equipment yesterday when I met him at a family gathering. He's producer of video ads for cars (and mainly working for a certain large German car manufacturer) and a professional photographer.

He said that even though their first cameras were `public betas', they were priced as such. Their price performance is amazing according to him. Later incarnations of Red gear work great.