Thread: EPIC's Price Point can be justified...

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Peter Majtan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    3,984
    Both EPIC and Red One have the exact same size sensor (which is why You can upgrade Red One to Mysterium X). Also they are both 16:9. It is clear You don't have Red One and have never seen one in person. And saying that it "look like a consumer hd camera" is crossing the line between constructive comments and outright flaming. What are You shooting on?
    You don't need eyes to see, You need a vision!
    www.petermajtan.com - www.derylgroup.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Peter Majtan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    3,984
    The reason for EPIC being 5K is to produce brilliant 4K imagery, same as the 3K Scarlet to produce brilliant 2K imagery, without any aliasing and with reduced noise and improved DR... Red One (for now) threads in the middle between 2K and 4K delivery. Some say it is "overkill for 2K" and "not enough for 4K". Some like that You can do both at a very reasonable price point. With B16 the 4K quality of Red One has risen to whole new level...
    You don't need eyes to see, You need a vision!
    www.petermajtan.com - www.derylgroup.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    262
    well, i use film now(i dont use epic yet, it's not available yet - and i'm not sure how good would it compare to the arri cam), but epic was announced to be full frame(and not a form factor sensor), and was a 40% upgrade in the sensor that would make it(4:3), it's not the same size sensor in used pixels, it's the same size sensor in physical space,the red one sensor throws away allot of pixels right now.
    there is a big difference between the ability to mount a lens and use all it's potential.

    i meant pro consumer hd camera of course(something that can mount 35mm). and don't compare camera's with different lens and say that the red camera is better, use same lens in both cameras.

    i have seen allot of images and videos, and dont think that it's a motion camera, it's missing allot of things, it's a fast digital camera(still), not a video or cinema camera.

    and i don't know if i want one right away with that price range. since i still would want to get master primes to go with it. that would definitely go over budget(the lens alone would go over my budget).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Peter Majtan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    3,984
    A) Full-frame S35 cine sensor - not 35 mm still size. Apples and Oranges...

    B) The 40% relates to increase in speed (read-out/reset), rather then size...

    C) You did say specifically:
    like a consumer hd camera
    No mentioning of "PRO". Plus I really don't know of any HD camera on the market that is "PRO" and "CONSUMER" at the same time... The HD cams will have at most 2/3" sensor. So You can't compare the same lens on HD and Red One (S35 sensor). If anything - it is going to be the RED sensor that utilizes the 35mm lens closer to its potential then any other HD on the market...

    D) If You can't classify Red One as a digital cinema camera - then what is? Or is main problem with Red One that is too "cheap" to be considered a cinema camera???

    E) You don't have to get primes - You can get great footage with affordable 35mm still glass, as it has been proven number of times... I would be personally surprised if You were serious about digital cinematography and did not own a 35 DSLR with some decent glass already. But maybe that is just me...
    You don't need eyes to see, You need a vision!
    www.petermajtan.com - www.derylgroup.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    262
    i didn't see the s35 part, so it's still a still camera with fast fps.

    i thought i read on the forum, someone said that jim said it's basically a 40% increase in the sensor.not that data transfer and boot time would be 64% more in epic and scarlet.

    yes, high end consumer cameras are consumer cameras. that goes all the way to broadcast cameras, they r consumer cameras.

    the potential of the 35mm is not in the size of the sensor.

    it is a fast still camera.

    that's exactly the point, it's not for cinematography, it's for stills.
    it doesn't do well with motion.

    i have been using slr cameras for a long time, u can't use a still camera to make a film, u can't use a still lens to do a film, if a d3 would do 24fps it wont work as a film camera.

    but a "cheap" canon or jvc would make a gr8 film camera.
    also a "cheap" sony would make a gr8 video camera.

    it's not the price. but it's not a cinema camera, it's more like the fast fps cameras that do hundreds of fpss (but only does 60-120fps?). it's not something that can be used as a cinema camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    262
    i still like the camera and think it's gr8. but not for film.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Northwest, GA
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by amrrahmy View Post

    yes, high end consumer cameras are consumer cameras. that goes all the way to broadcast cameras, they r consumer cameras.

    it is a fast still camera.

    that's exactly the point, it's not for cinematography, it's for stills.
    it doesn't do well with motion.

    i have been using slr cameras for a long time, u can't use a still camera to make a film, u can't use a still lens to do a film, if a d3 would do 24fps it wont work as a film camera.

    but a "cheap" canon or jvc would make a gr8 film camera.
    also a "cheap" sony would make a gr8 video camera.

    it's not the price. but it's not a cinema camera, it's more like the fast fps cameras that do hundreds of fpss (but only does 60-120fps?). it's not something that can be used as a cinema camera.
    Tell that to Peter Jackson, Terence Mallick, and Steven Soderberg. And You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by kyle.presley View Post
    Tell that to Peter Jackson, Terence Mallick, and Steven Soderberg. And You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
    Ditto. Times 100.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    946
    The day I start thinking of reasons for companies to charge more, is the day I start shooting myself in the head for a laugh. Red need to keep their prices as low as they can, otherwise its not a revolution no more.. And I don`t think they`ll have a problem recovering their research and development costs, or turning a very healthy profit mid to long term :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    262
    other than Steven Soderbergh, the rest are director and not cinematographers....

    and steven soderbergh is not an impressive cinematographer even when he's making beautiful stories, he's average.
    didn't he make:
    ocean's thirteen(no comment)
    ocean's twelve(no comment)
    solaris(no comment)
    ocean's eleven(watch the original)
    traffic(no comment)
    erin brokovich(that's exactly how u turn a great story into a (good at best) film).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts