Red just released full specs and pricing for their camera. Looks awesome.While it's certainly not an inexpensive camera, with a MSRP of $17.5K even after you get a few lenses and a recording system, you'll surely get setup for less than a varricam or F-900 HD setup.

Highlights that interested me were:
-up to 120 FPS
-2540p recording
-66 dB S/N ratio
-Imaging plane is S35mm sized
-body is ~ 7 lbs

Sure it isn't to market yet, and at the end of the day it's still video (that's for Evan). But even if it only delivers 75% of what the specs promise today, what the heck would be the point of getting a Cinealta or Varicam for 5 times the cost? It could be revolutionary.

Wow. That is going to be so sweet when they finally get it on the market.

Yeah! Can't wait to see the footage. May be my next camera - we'll see how it stacks up against the Canon XL-H1 or vice versa. WOnder what medium it uses?

Maybe it'll be your next camera, and you're also looking at the XL-H1?

You realize that the body alone (no lenses, no recording system) is over $17,000?

I seem to recall this company initially stating that it would be in the $3-5k range. I guess even Oakley's corporate hype machine couldn't change real market laws in the end

It's kind of comical that they call it 'digital large format'. Since when is 35mm a large format? The sensor is larger than other digital cameras, sure, but it's only reached parity with the standard in Hollywood for film acquisition (35mm).

To be honest I'm not sure how big of a boon this is. With all the support equipment it costs roughly as much as a new Aaton XTRprod, but neither camera is really targeted towards private owners.

I can't see many film kids buying these - way too expensive as a digital toy.

Also, 'professionals' don't really care whether a camera costs $25k or $150k. If it's being rented the cost is not going to be that different, and we all know that camera and film costs (even if you shoot at a 10:1 ratio on 35mm) are not the major financial hurdle associated with even SAG-defined 'very low budget' productions.

Look at Arri's high-end modular digital camera. I'm not sure what the exact pricing is, but it's been on the market for at least a year and hasn't made significant inroads in professional shoots because there's no really compelling reason to use it.

It's good that the technology is out there but I can't see a huge number of these making their way into the field.

Someone with the goal of producing low-low budget video-originated 'films' would be misguided to purchase one of these, even if the technical specs are pretty outrageous by current standards. It certainly beats a DVX100a, but at what cost? Having a $20000 camera is not going to improve matters if your actors suck and your script stinks. Without exception, the most important elements are actors, script, and production values (set design, props, locations), and I'd rather shoot on a $25 regular 8mm Bolex from 1953 on a project with top-tier actors and a great crew than own this RED camera and work with a couple of inexperienced friends in the backyard.

Just my three cents

How constructive.

The product itself is fine, it's just that it's coming in at a much higher price point than they had initially implied (at least from what I read). $17,500 is more in line with what you'd expect it to cost based on the specs.

I stand by my earlier statement that I'm not sure what market exists for this. Far too expensive for people that would normally buy a DVX100a and probably not a worthwhile difference in price for productions that can afford CineAlta or a Varicam.

Okay, I'll bite.

What does all the "most important elements" have to do with a thread about emerging technologies and a particular product? I'm trying to discuss a camera that's price/performance factor is exponentially better than any video camera out there. And nowhere am I comparing it to a DVX or a crappy 8mm Bolex. I'm merely discussing it as a possible emerging trend that could trickle down to much better cameras for the low-low budget minded.

I would whole heartedly disagree that professionals wouldn't care about a 500% price difference, especially for 2-4 times the quality (as measured by resolution and color space for simplicity's sake). This camera could be in the same league as the d-20, genesis or Dalsa 4k, but priced one figure less.

As for a market for this camera (we're definitely not speaking of micro-budget filmmaking), I could see this almost anywhere. Will news stations want to buy 2 varicams or 6 red cameras, where with the resolution increase, they'd have more options? Will the local/regional TV commercial producer want to buy another cinealta that can't do 2K resolution at 120 FPS. Or the music video business, which hasn't spent the kind of money it did in the late 90s early 2000s, could rent it instead of a 35mm package and put the money back into fancy cars and pretty girls. I would bet Lucas would be using this, the genesis or dalsa instead of the cinealta if this technology existed then.

And pricewise I think it's close to what they implied. They announced it at DVXuser and dvinfo, which cater to lower-cost production people. But plenty of those guys have spent $$$ on the HVX and XL1-H1 already and they've been on the market less than 6 months. I'm sure the larger imaging plane, larger resolution, and better color space will lead a few of those to this camera. And pornos ... well, they'll be all over something like this. Well maybe. And I think at this pricepoint, it is breaking real market laws!

The one market segment (maybe two) that I can conceive of are music videos and ad shoots.

I don't think ENG is a viable market for these right now - all kinds of distribution issues (anyone's local channel in HD?) and other things.

The thread is about the product, and necessarily practical concerns enter into the discussion. Who can buy it, how will it be used, etc. I'm not remiss in bringing these things up. It's easy enough for 100 people to just post 'wow it looks cool' and it accomplishes nothing. It's not even stimulating.

I'm glad there's some debate over the target market and potential applications for this product. As I said, I'm glad it's out there, but I have questions about its usability.

Renting a D20 may not be on another magnitude compared to the RED - one figure I saw for the RED was $3000USD/day and for the Arri around $2800 for the D20... D20 is a complete kit, not sure about what is included with the RED for that (seemingly exorbitant) fee. An Arri SRII package that may cost $20k new certainly will not cost $2-3k to rent for a single day.

From another post (not by me) on this forum (not sure on accuracy, but I'm sure the pricing info was sourced from what was generally circulated prior to release):

"Also, don't be phased by the price of film-quality digital camcorders. The RED cinema camera is expected to be in the price range of Canon's XL-HD1 and features uncompressed HD footage coming from a 35mm CMOS image sensor. Definately nothing to sneeze at."

Granted, the XL-HD1 is more than I thought ($9k MSRP) but the RED is still almost twice as much for just the body. I'm not sure how that falls in line with anyone's predictions, and I'm also not sure how people that are spending $3-4k on DVX setups or $8-9k on an XL-HD1 can justify well over $20k on the RED camera, as well as the very high additional equipment cost necessary to downsample/work with such high resolution video at effective rates.

Frankly I think even $8k is absurd to spend on a video camera for most uses, but that's just me. Not sure what the guys on DVinfo or DVXuser do but if it's narrative production they'd be better off looking into current or one or two generations older S16 cameras, which will come in well below this RED camera with a better post-production infrastructure already in place.

Plus if you have theatrical ambitions for your work a blowup from 16mm to 35mm is much cheaper than a film out from your video edit, which is the only option AFAIK with something like the RED...

It's posts like these that really open up my eyes, and hopefully others to the budgets involved in specific projects. Thanks Joren and Evan.

Yeah Joren, as much as I hate to agree with Evan on this, I'm going to have to. All of the prior reading I've done has told me that the Red camera would be attainable if I saved up my allowance for a couple of weeks. Hyperbole, sure, but the $17,000 price tag puts it out of reach and basically in the same category as every other camera more than the XL-H1; too damn much. The features are cool, I guess, especially for that price, I guess, but until Oakley puts out an amazing camera for my (which is almost the collective "our") price range, I just can't seem to care.

elliott...

Dare I mention the word: vaporware?

Right now it is prohibitively expensive, but the price will fall, like it always does with technology.

There's no information that I could find regarding who makes the sensor. My guess is that it is from a digital still camera and they've 'simply' (not simply, but easier than making a new CMOS) come up with the connective tissue, so to speak, to get it from light hitting the sensor to HD-SDI output. The fact that they don't provide for an integrated recorder in the body also speaks to the fact that while they've invested some R&D, it's not to the level where they make their own sensor. I bet it's sourced from one of the large OEM manufacturers. Also PL mount saves them from having to come up with their own lenses (and also reveals the target market - no XL-HD1 video guys are going to have 35mm PL mount lenses lying around).

The price will surely fall, but by how much? The overall workflow for an 11MP sensor is brutal and probably not in the cards at this point (using full resolution) even for many Hollywood jobs - 4k scans are more common now, but surely dealing with that kind of data is out of reach for virtually any hobbyists and many mid-range 'pros.'

$17k for the camera, maybe $8-10k for the recorder, you can rent lenses, and how much for the editing setup? $30k or more, probably.

Again, with their greater adaptability and willingness to embrace new applications of technology, ad shoots and music videos will probably be the best chances for this thing. Joren mentioned porn but I doubt even the most well-heeled porn production is going to spring for this thing. They still use consumer HD cameras in many cases - or even SD for cheaper stuff

Yeah, okay. I get that people were butt-hurt about the price. But I'm still a little surprised people aren't more stoked it doesn't cost $250,000 like it's direct competition.

No more arguments tonight. Just some possible miss-information:
-They have stated they custom designed and made the CMOS sensor. ---they sub'ed out the manufacture, but it's their proprietary design.
-They have hired a guy from AJA and are making a custom RAW codec to handle the larger formats. The fact that there's no built in recorder speaks to how modular they're trying to make it. Firewire outs, RAM cards, flash cards, eSATA, Red RAID. A red rep was quoted as saying there trying to make a 2k size hourlong capture device for under $1k. Sure I got this from the publicity (i.e. promotional) info that's out there, but I'm trying to show the other side of Evan's coin.
-Red is making their own lens'. They announced a 2.8 300mm for <$5k today and have plans for a 17-100mm zoom. Like the camera, it's yet to see if the lens' are any good, but one thing Oakley has is lots of experience with optics. Only time will tell, though.

Oh, and all my local channels are in HD ... including the news ... including the helicopter for one channel. You haven't seen a car chase 'til you've seen it in HD. True for the last place I lived. But I understand that not all are.
...and I've been on two different porn shoots that were shooting 35mm. I know for a fact one was an Arri 435 of some kind. I'm no expert, but they're out there.

Holy crap that's the ugliest camera I have ever seen.

Ugly, and beautiful, my friend.

I'm from over on DVXuser and I have to say many people there are stoked about this camera. We've had members join for the specific reason of participating in the RED forums. The only thing that the RED camera has in common with the DVX and HVX is that the wants of the consumer were taken into consideration by the maker. Jannard wanted to make a camera for the people, much like the DVX and HVX. Other than that though, there isn't really a comparison. The RED camera has many professional features for a small price.

Granted, its expensive for film students and the like, but nonetheless there IS a market for this camera and I can see it making lots of money.

On a side note, I think the camera looks AWESOME

-Kegan

How is a $17,500 body a 'camera for the people'? I don't get it.

I think it's the ugliest thing I've ever seen, FWIW. Serious cameras are never silver

Well even though it does scream of Oakley's "I'm so sleek and cool look at me design," it's still pretty cool. Mostly because I can't think of another camera that looks so radically different, which I'm all for. You definitely won't confuse that with any other camera if you see someone lugging it around.

And yes Joren, I am a little butt-hurt, 18K is quite a large sum to fit up there; maybe if I were doing porn, that wouldn't be a problem (oh the innuendo is killing me.) Seriously, more power to anyone actually making a living out of this that can afford it, but I've learned after my fascination with the Drake cam that even though it is a lot of camera for not a lot of the price, it's still too much for me. So, damn.

Also, because I'm not one of you "fancy" Mac users, I'm inherently weary of proprietary hardware and software. I know cameras are typically pretty rigid as far as accessories are concerned but I don't know one person who has a bag full of soley Panasonic or Sony gear. Red, so far, is making it look like you won't have a choice.

The only good I imagine would be if they did release a cheaper "little brother" model that I could afford, or they cause other companies to step up and make badass cameras for the same price resulting in better, cheaper equipment all around.

elliott...

Fine, vaporware. Come on, anyone with a ****ty flash site like that can't be serious, it's as if they hired me for the web design.

LOL, my apologies for any inappropriate, overly colorful metaphors. And so no one miss-infers anything, I've never actually worked on a porno. I've just run into them while scouting locations.

If it is vaporware, there are going to be some pissed off people. Over 150 people have already put down a 1000 dollar deposit toward a Red camera. ...that's in the last 36 hours. But I agree that the website is hella lame.