Jump to content


Photo

RED - A hoax?


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 06 April 2006 - 05:14 AM

I heard about this new site www.red.com

Seems far out! Is it a hoax? I heard that it is going to revolutionize digital image quality and prices . One thing I find hard to believe are the lenses they say they are designing.

It would be interesting if they could deliver.
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 06 April 2006 - 06:23 AM

I heard about this new site www.red.com

Seems far out! Is it a hoax? I heard that it is going to revolutionize digital image quality and prices . One thing I find hard to believe are the lenses they say they are designing.

It would be interesting if they could deliver.


Hi,

Its not a hoax, the owner owns Oakley sunglasses, he is rich enough, so it could happen.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 06 April 2006 - 06:52 AM

He asserts that it will be cheap compared to similar products. Do you think it could ruin the D-20, Genesis and the Dalsa? Could it also wipe out the 35mm and telecine market?

I think it is going to be very exciting. Funny how Arri and Panavision haven't bought him out.
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 April 2006 - 07:41 AM

First of all, let's not forget that this camera does not exist yet, its quite amazing specs still whishful thinking at this time.

Allthough they claim on their website that they 'decided to skip several generations of evolution' that would only be true if they released the camera right now, which is obvioulsy not the case. By the time this camera will be ready, it will not seem such a big evolutionary step anymore (if at all).

Since the camera has a Super 35 sized sensor it is obviously aimed at professionals, the reduced depth of field of 35mm making it useless for amateurs. But the professional market is quite small, so I really do not see how this camera could possibly retailed for such a low price as they claim. Even if that is the case one still would need PL mount lenses, which are comparatively expensive to rent, not to mention to purchase (the prices for a single Master Prime start at ? 13.500 for instance) and all the accessories that go with it. It remains to be seen what their own lenses will look like and at what price. Once again, designing good lenses is not cheap, especially if one starts from the ground up. The next step in lens design would be zoom lenses that are optically as good as the best primes and just as fast (under T2). But there I would put my faith in companies like Zeiss, Panavision or Cooke, who have a proven track record and decades of experience.
  • 0

#5 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 April 2006 - 02:47 AM

The specs and price will (reportedly) be announced at NAB. I will be very curious to see them.

The D20 and Genesis are very expensive cameras. There is an enormous chasm between the 6000 HVX and the ...what 500k (I don't know) priced existing cameras it sees as it's competition. Will it be 300k? 100k?

If they came out with a 50k camera at the Genesis / D20 quality - they'd own that market (and maybe a few others would spill in as well). Would that be enough market share to lower the price? Hard to say.

Something worth keeping an eye on, but there are a lot of iffy steps between announcing specs and announcing production. Will be a while.
  • 0

#6 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:46 AM

I ran across that site several months ago... I can't see that much has changed :huh:
  • 0

#7 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 April 2006 - 08:18 AM

I think it is going to be very exciting. Funny how Arri and Panavision haven't bought him out.


How could they afford to? Do you have any idea of the financial gulf that exists between a company like Panavision and Oakley?*

Panavision and Arri with access to the small professional market have to consistantly balance their R and D expenditure with their operating proffits - or frequently losses. A company that generates it's income from overpriced consumer products will always win out financially. From the interviews I've read with Jannard this project seems to be a bit of a labour of love. Personally I cannot see how he can make money from this project, but again until NAB there is no way of knowing.

Keith


*An example, as Red is not directly a devision of Oakley.
  • 0

#8 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:27 PM

First of all, let's not forget that this camera does not exist yet, its quite amazing specs still whishful thinking at this time.


Interesting that I said much the same thing about the Dalsa Origin about 2 years ago, although they did eventually demonstrate working hardware a few months later. At the same time I received an e-mail through my account here from Dalsa, telling me it's now "all systems go" and "watch this space" and so on. However 18 months on, I haven't hard of any serious productions using their system.

The "Red" web site doesn't appear to have changed in over four months; and most of it is still "under construction." I would have thought it would be a lot harder to build an HD camera than to put up a half-finished website, but that's just me


Since the camera has a Super 35 sized sensor it is obviously aimed at professionals, the reduced depth of field of 35mm making it useless for amateurs.

Why would that make any difference? If you were that bloody inept, I don't think you'd be shooting too many features! But you make an interesting point; is that why George Lucas thinks 2/3" sensors are ideal for making films? :P

Perhaps what's really happening is that everybody is waiting to see what Superman Returns looks like.
  • 0

#9 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:57 PM

Funny how Arri and Panavision haven't bought him out.

Well, that was probably the whole idea; hardly a new concept
And which, I rather suspect, is why Ronald Perelman paid such a ridiculous price for Panavision in 1997!
You gotta admire the enterprise of ex-CEO John Farrand; not only did he unload his shares in a worthless, debt-ridden company for a ludicrously inflated price, as part of the deal he had himself installed as CEO for several more highly-profitable years. When they finally began to realize how incompetent he actually was, it cost PV another $3.5 million in severence pay just to get rid of the prick before he could do any more damage!

Edited by Jim Murdoch, 08 April 2006 - 12:02 AM.

  • 0

#10 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 April 2006 - 04:14 PM

Is it just me is that site reduced to a front page? I can't seem to access it.
  • 0

#11 Dickson Sorensen

Dickson Sorensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 April 2006 - 05:01 PM

Is it just me is that site reduced to a front page? I can't seem to access it.


Seems like it's just a front page here also. Hype? As the well known Wendy's tv commercial said, "Where's the Beef?"
  • 0

#12 Jan Weis

Jan Weis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Student
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 08 April 2006 - 06:13 PM

This whole situation reminds me of that video game console (cant remember the name) that was supposed to be great (specs-wise) but it never pulled through.
  • 0

#13 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 08 April 2006 - 08:32 PM

IF this is all true, another layer of film-shooters might go to the dark side of the force, those that stick with film for image quality.
  • 0

#14 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 April 2006 - 08:52 AM

IF this is all true, another layer of film-shooters might go to the dark side of the force, those that stick with film for image quality.


yawn
  • 0

#15 spieden

spieden
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2006 - 02:54 PM

Keith... do some homework.
  • 0

#16 Elhanan Matos

Elhanan Matos
  • Sustaining Members
  • 432 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Santa Monica, CA

Posted 12 April 2006 - 03:20 PM

yawn



I'll second that yawn... I think we are all sick of hearing comments like Filips made here on this site and elsewhere.
  • 0

#17 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 April 2006 - 03:16 PM

I just stumbled accross a discussion at dvinfo.net about the pricing of this Red camera. They seem to be hoping for something in the vicinity of 25K (some go even as low as 4K). Oh, that includes a 'decent lens' btw...
  • 0

#18 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 April 2006 - 03:29 PM

Other than "wishful thinking" from those forum members, it was stated that $4k was NOT reasonable and there was never a mention from the RED team about a "decent lens" included.

Edited by jannard, 16 April 2006 - 03:30 PM.

  • 0

#19 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 April 2006 - 03:46 PM

This actually wasn't meant to be a comment about the Red camera itself, but about the people who are so excited by this camera. They obviously have no clue what a 'decent lens' costs. I have a feeling they will be very dissapointed once the actual price of the camera gets announced since it very likely will be out of their league. Even if they can afford the camera, they're in for a surprise once they try to get lenses for it.
  • 0

#20 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 April 2006 - 05:22 AM

There's a recent interview with employee number one of RED at www.hdforindies.com

In a week it will be much more interesting to speculate about the camera as some details will be revealed.

Oakley isn't known for making the cheapest products - but it seems they intend to make products for the consumer who want the best and are willing to (sometimes) pay multitudes more for it - ten times or more for sunglasses (oakley vs. rite-aid for example). I would imagine that this is maybe where the camera is going to be aimed. I just think it will take a lot of time before it comes out and hope that people like me who get tempted easily by new technology don't post pone anything until the camera goes into production. There's just such a long road from here to there.

If it takes too long, the rest of the industry will catch up though.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

CineTape

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

The Slider

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

CineLab

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Technodolly

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineTape

Willys Widgets