RED camera

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Television is shot with 2/3 because that's what's available. Sensor size positively correlates with production value.

If by "television" we are talking about news, EFP, sports etc., indeed those are generally 2/3" productions. There are still a number of prime time episodic series being shot on Varicams and F900's, some using F23's or Vipers (all 2/3" cameras). Still others are shot on F35's, Genesis, or RED. While the larger sensor is usually preferred for narrative work, I would stop short of saying that it a 2/3" camera is incapable of providing a lot of production value however. Probably if there is little to no production value in a shot to begin with, adding shallow focus to the mix will present the appearance of a higher end production to many, although I think this look is becoming so ubiquitious as to approach cliche.

I shot a feature on the F900 with some additional photography on the Genesis (i.e., 2/3" vs 35mm sensor). There's footage from both in the trailer. I have yet to talk to anyone who has seen the movie who can accurately and repeatedly pick out the Genesis footage--that is hopefully an indication that DOF is not the be-all and end-all.

[Brian Drysdale]

People are shooting with the 35mm sized sensors, but they're in the minority. For what the vast majority of productions undertake the 2/3" sensors have huge advantages. One key element is the more compact size of a comprehensive kit, especially with single person crews.

There is much talk about the sensitivity advantages, but in practise it's rare that you actually need to go beyond 1500 asa anyway.

Sony may bring out HD video on their higher end stills cameras, but they and the other manufacturers will continue to sell their specialised video cameras, the larger sales in that market tend to be for the smaller cameras. I suspect Canon rely more on the stills market than the video market to make the sales figures for their camera. Mobile phones also offer video features.

[Don Miller]

But it's more than dof, especially looking at smaller than 2/3. Compare a 5DII shot to EX3. The EX3 will be better behaved as far as artifacts and aliasing, but the 5dII is, well...... maybe people should make there own comparisons. Plenty of footage of both on vimeo. It's also not like the large sensor cameras can't be stopped down. The smaller sensor 7D get to a large DOF easily except on long lenses.

As far as size, scarlet and the two canons are the size of large paperbacks. Of course the 1/3 pro cameras are much more functional. But we're talking about trends. I think we're on the brink of 1/3 sensor cameras becoming specialized, and large single sensors becoming the pro norm.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

I shot a feature on the F900 with some additional photography on the Genesis (i.e., 2/3" vs 35mm sensor). There's footage from both in the trailer. I have yet to talk to anyone who has seen the movie who can accurately and repeatedly pick out the Genesis footage--that is hopefully an indication that DOF is not the be-all and end-all.

Could be a good editor too :) There's no doubt a $80,000 2/3 camera with a $50K zoom can take beautiful shots that can ressed up nicely on most material.

But how close does red come to panavision? How close will Canon/Sony/Nikon/JVC etc come to red?

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

But how close does red come to panavision? How close will Canon/Sony/Nikon/JVC etc come to red?

I know productions that have gone for the Sony F35 over the RED. There are many factors that come into the equation, what works for the budget, plus the schedule and that includes the post production.

The new Arri digital cameras currently look like the competitors for the Epic and they have the option of recording to either video or RAW. However, both the Arri and Epic are well out of the budget being discussed in this thread

The HDSLR cameras will have to improve their codec to compare to the RED. Although, much depends on how much they want to trade off spec wise for price and a more specialised market that RED happily can go for.

[Tim Polster]

I agree with Don's post.

I think RED has been missing out on market share by the delay of the Scarlet.

Had they released a camera this year they would have owned the space as it will have better "video/film" ergonomics, audio and outputs than the VDSLRs.

[Pat Hughes]

I give my clients copied of DVD in HD, BluRay hasn't caught on for the majority of the household viewing experience out there. I use to remember when I shot weddings in the Betamax format but clients wanted vhs copies and Sony lost out to VHS even though Betamax was a vastly superior format. It's all in the marketing, you may have a better mousetrap but it's convincing the buyers that counts. RED in my opinion is the camera for the pros as it has the expandability and offers many options from the prosumer to the big time films. I also see that we are gradually moving away from the 3 chip system to employ a larger single sensor for video. That makes a lot of sense as in the manufacturing and alignment of a single chip would make the camera not only smaller but also eliminating the RGB prismatic thing altogether. I don't want to sound like a prophet but the 3 CCD arrangement will go the way of the Betamax and Dodo bird. I only wish that RED will have an affordable 6K interchangeable lens model that will also capture RAW stills and can be used as a photographic tool. The camera will be slightly bigger than the Canon 5D with interchangeable optical viewfinders when used as a camera, and locked up mirror when in video mode displaying a large 16:9 lcd on a flip out screen ala Pana DMC-GH1. Sensor would be 16:9 ( to fit in image circle afforded by 35 mm optics. Ideally a Foveon chip WOW.Nice to dream.

[Brian Drysdale]

The Scarlet will have a higher price, is intended to more friendly to handling motion and records RAW. All of these a very different to the current crop of DSLR cameras, so the Scarlet has points which are extremely attractive to professionals. However, the higher price may very well rule it out for those people who want a large sensor, but don't really have the funds for a more specialised motion camera.

The video/film features are precisely those that the professionals look for in a camera. There was a lot of comments when the RED One has weaknesses in these areas that were sorted out in the end by third party manufacturers. I suspect RED want to introduce a more fully functioning product this time and certainly it looks like they've been working at this. Many of their current customers don't want them to rush onto the market too early.

I think it's important to realise that professionals work in a wide range of markets, so it won't be a case of one size catches all. For many productions RAW isn't the way to go and video formats will continue to serve those. If 3 sensor cameras get totally replaced by single sensor cameras remains to be seen, however, there are extremely compelling reasons to have a range of sensor sizes on professional cameras and not just 35mm.

[Don Miller]

If Red could supply the Scarlet lineup today, what has happened with Canon would be very good for their sales. I'm interested in the larger sensor Scarlet. What's the chance I can own one by Oct 2010? I'll bet less than 50%.
I'm not concerned with Scarlet/Epic being good. But I wonder about true mass production. At some undetermined future date being late will be too late for Red.

[Brian Drysdale]

If people are using cameras as professional tools they definitely want them to be reliable and give high quality images appropriate to the market they are working in, combined with a robust workflow. I don't think the Epic will sell in the numbers of a DSLR, which would count as true mass production, more likely a few thousand at the most and given the higher price, likely less than the RED One production run.

I'd expect the Scarlet series to sell in higher numbers, but if they could match say the Z1 would be hard to tell. Although, this may depend on how well the RAW workflow become accepted by producers and if people are interested in the colour correction possibilities. But given how many people just shoot JPEG rather RAW on stills cameras, I suspect the traditional video formats will continue to have a lot of followers.

The 35mm sensor Scarlets will much more expensive cameras than the current HD video DSLR cameras. I also suspect they're looking at different markets, RED's on-line community is extremely demanding in what they want.

[Peter Moretti]

I have a hunch that the one thing that really held the Scarlet development back was autofocus. The original Scarlet was 2/3rd's sensor, fixed lens w/ autofocus for $3.5K.

This camera is still on the brochure, but it's not going to be their first Scarlet release. I have to think that autofocus is very complicated, esp for moving subjects. It's also constantly being tweaked, improved, rethought. I think it may be a technology that just proved too much for Red at this time. Just a guess.

[Don Miller]

I think Red is a long way from releasing a fixed lens Scarlet. They would need to support the unwashed masses in post production. They would be nuts to do that at this point.

Jarred (sp?) said a couple days ago that the Epic for current Red owners is first. It seems to me they would take care of all the big screen DP demand first. That would be epics, and that would seem to take a long time.

If I'm right about inexpensive scarlet, those users will have more choices from other companies next years.

[William LiPera]

Any suggestion where I can download some Raw Red footage to try with Vegas 9. Thanks