RED's militaristic branding and marketing.

[Christoffer Glans]

As for the skull. Whelp, I'm biased as I've had one on my business cards since I was a teenager and still use that currently. The skull itself carries a lot of symbolism throughout cultures well before "now". My particular fascination has been tied to mortality as well as anatomy and wisdom, perhaps even the look into the deeper mysteries of life, but everybody will take their own interpretation I imagine. Somewhere between DaVinci and Goonies I took a shinning to it.

Current problem with the skull is that it's very close to the "punisher blue line" used by fascist supporters of the police accused of killing African Americans. It increased in fashion after BLM and is a clear statement of police power over minorities. The Red skull's shape looks similar in form and I don't think many would want to be associated with something like that.

Personally, sure, I agree that a skull can represent what you mention, but a skull has so many negative interpretations and used in and around many destructive groups and ideals. Together with the aesthetics of military equipment, the entire design philosophy invokes something I don't think has anything to do with cameras, photography and filmmaking.

I still think the design aesthetics should be cleaned up, logos referring to much more universal interpretative themes and so on. Hydrogen, Helium, Gemini speaks to a far more universal naming convention. The design philosophy behind Komodo being a nod to the old medium format systems is a much more peaceful ideal than things resembling military gear.

I get that there are military families that have less problem with this design philosophy, but they are a very niche audience and I can guess that Red didn't make their cameras designed for them. A design should have a much broader appeal, something more neutral and agreeable among people. Using element naming like Hydrogen and Helium is a much more balanced and neutral naming convention while the design could easily be focused more on Jarred's ideas about retro inspiration or focus on something cleaner.

Hydrogen and Helium are the first in the periodic table. So maybe DSMC3 or its sensor should be named Red Lithium since it's the third element. There are lots of good names to be found on the periodic table if Red would continue down that line. I would like to see something along the line of light. Let's say that Red's next sensor is a very light-sensitive sensor in the way of Gemini. So maybe as I mentioned before, Red Spectrum, Red Kelvin or Red Photon.

There are so many other types of themes and names that I think fits Red's systems much better than military and skulls. I would definitely want to see an overhaul of Red's design philosophy going into DSMC3.

[Mark Phelan]

Current problem with the skull is that it's very close to the "punisher blue line" used by fascist supporters of the police accused of killing African Americans. It increased in fashion after BLM and is a clear statement of police power over minorities. The Red skull's shape looks similar in form and I don't think many would want to be associated with something like that.

Personally, sure, I agree that a skull can represent what you mention, but a skull has so many negative interpretations and used in and around many destructive groups and ideals. Together with the aesthetics of military equipment, the entire design philosophy invokes something I don't think has anything to do with cameras, photography and filmmaking.

I still think the design aesthetics should be cleaned up, logos referring to much more universal interpretative themes and so on. Hydrogen, Helium, Gemini speaks to a far more universal naming convention. The design philosophy behind Komodo being a nod to the old medium format systems is a much more peaceful ideal than things resembling military gear.

I get that there are military families that have less problem with this design philosophy, but they are a very niche audience and I can guess that Red didn't make their cameras designed for them. A design should have a much broader appeal, something more neutral and agreeable among people. Using element naming like Hydrogen and Helium is a much more balanced and neutral naming convention while the design could easily be focused more on Jarred's ideas about retro inspiration or focus on something cleaner.

Hydrogen and Helium are the first in the periodic table. So maybe DSMC3 or its sensor should be named Red Lithium since it's the third element. There are lots of good names to be found on the periodic table if Red would continue down that line. I would like to see something along the line of light. Let's say that Red's next sensor is a very light-sensitive sensor in the way of Gemini. So maybe as I mentioned before, Red Spectrum, Red Kelvin or Red Photon.

There are so many other types of themes and names that I think fits Red's systems much better than military and skulls. I would definitely want to see an overhaul of Red's design philosophy going into DSMC3.

All of the ongoing commentary is making for a good laugh. Reminds me of the quote, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

[Aaron Lochert]

+1 for "not a fan" of the branding. But they've definitely cleaned it up over the years as others have already said. Either way, velcro isn't hard to slap on the camera to cover it. For what it's worth, I'm also a firearms owner, just don't care for that kind of aesthetic on a tool for imaging.

The feature set is what keeps me here, not the branding. So as long as RED keeps pushing the bar, I'll continue to roll my eyes but purchase the cameras anyway. They don't owe me anything and I don't owe them my loyalty. That's the way I like my companies anyway.

And that's all I'll say about that. :)

[William Long]

.... Hydrogen and Helium are the first in the periodic table. So maybe DSMC3 or its sensor should be named Red Lithium since it's the third element. There are lots of good names to be found on the periodic table if Red would continue down that line. I would like to see something along the line of light. Let's say that Red's next sensor is a very light-sensitive sensor in the way of Gemini. So maybe as I mentioned before, Red Spectrum, Red Kelvin or Red Photon.

There are so many other types of themes and names that I think fits Red's systems much better than military and skulls. I would definitely want to see an overhaul of Red's design philosophy going into DSMC3.

This is a great idea, and a much better contribution to what should be a simple exchange. Of course, RED doesn't have to change anything, but what other ideas might be interesting if they did consider doing that?

It's much more constructive than the snide, personal comments that float in and out.

[Michael Hastings]

snip:

So as long as RED keeps pushing the bar, I'll continue to roll my eyes but purchase the cameras anyway.

But are they really pushing the bar?

Sony F55 had global shutter 7 years ago; BMD has 12K for not much more than Komodo and 6K/compact form factor at a third of the price (and they provide pro sound inputs!); my new $3900 R5 has 8K and 4K full frame scaled in camera, smaller/lighter more power efficient, RF mount, excellent RS reset time for a full frame sensor (BTW rolling shutter hasn't been a deal killer for any previous RED), IBIS, better monitor AND eye VF, much faster CFexpress, better AF that incl. eye and animal focus that works with every lens I've tried (inc. Sigma, Tokina) with phenomenal stills and flash synchronization - admitted heat/time limits at 8K but all of these can be easily implemented by Canon in a more "cinema" and heat friendly form factor. And dozens of other cameras slightly larger or smaller, less expensive etc.

Komodo is a nice camera at a nice price point if you are a committed RED user, but it doesn't even use the vaunted wavelet based R3D format that has often been cited as a prime advantage of RED cameras. It doesn't seem that RED really is pushing the bar as it has in years past - nor does it seem that the other companies are looking at RED as their prime competitor/market leader.

The point is that as products become less and less differentiated by actual features, branding becomes even more important. The effectiveness of the current approach if continued will be judged by the marketplace in the next few years.

Setting aside the political stuff, some of us are simply suggesting there may be a better way.

[Michael Tiemann]

But are they really pushing the bar? [...]

Komodo's image quality to power usage (and sound generation) ratio is a Big Deal to me, so I appreciate that. I can complain about other things it does not do, but it's a huge step forward in areas I care about.

[Michael Hastings]

Komodo's image quality to power usage (and sound generation) ratio is a Big Deal to me, so I appreciate that. I can complain about other things it does not do, but it's a huge step forward in areas I care about.

But neither is really "pushing the bar".

[Phil Holland]

But neither is really "pushing the bar".

Komodo has about 3-4 stops more DR than the F55 if you're curious. Is 2lbs, 25Wh draw, small, and records actual compressed RAW internally for $6-$7.5K.

I purchased the R5 and enjoy it, but it's not Monstro or even Dragon when it comes to DR. It's a cool camera, but far from a motion picture oriented digital cinema camera. Now if Canon made something like the C70 with the R5 sensor, the world would be set on fire. Similarly if Komodo was 6K 60p or 8K 30p the world would be set on fire. Both of those cameras would be noticeably more expensive however if that's how they manifested. More power hungry to boot too.

As for the other cameras, the BMD 12K is a great value proposition, but I'd take Komodo or Helium over it. Though some of the data and image related issues are slowly being tended to.

On the long stride of features coming to cameras, I'm curious if top tier digital cinema cameras will utilize IBIS. There are pros and cons to the tech that aren't totally suitable. It's freaking useful though, but it can cause issues in other applications that are everyday territory for film, television, and streaming shoots.

Other tech is certainly coming. I'm curious to see what the next big boy camera from RED will feature. I think Komodo is a slight tease of what's to come. Full wireless monitoring and control being as good as it is already in Komodo was a bit of a surprise. I imagine that will be part of the future moving forward. Media is a changing landscape and Komodo also alludes to that. It's not 10 or 5 years ago. We'll see what's next there. Not too worried about AF. Canon and Sony are many generations into it and RED's like barely 2 generations into evolving the tech. Certain that will improve. Lots of voiced wants over the years. Internal ND comes to mind just reading discussion here, but rear ND isn't always the "best" solution as many learn over the years. But it's bloody useful and certainly the integration of how the Motion Mount worked through the camera shows some of the possibilities there. And I'll want that for sure, even though on narrative I'll likely role front of lens filtration more often than not.

Just a note on heavy reliance on AF. It's gotten to an impressive place, but I've had Canon and Sony fail to achieve critical focus or track in the last few months and that's frustrating. And even this mini lidar thingy gets fooled. It's impressive as hell, but when it doesn't work it shows why clearly it can't be relied on purely. Komodo side I've been doing tests combining the in camera focus assist tools with AF a bit. Somewhere there's a solution. Likely a couple of new features can be added into the mix to make everything more cinema and motion friendly. Got a few ideas on that front actually that I should forward to somebody.

It's nice to pick out features from the new cameras, but what is more shocking is people still working with DSMC Dragon or whatever and choosing to do so. Monstro is now 3+ years old and still arguably the king. And we don't discuss things like ProRes recording, dual REDCODE RAW + Intermediate Codec, etc.

We'll have to see. The gears of the camera world are spinning again, though slowly. We'll have new cameras from the big 4 relatively soon. Lots to look out for.

[Michael Hastings]

snip:
It's nice to pick out features from the new cameras, but what is more shocking is people still working with DSMC Dragon or whatever and choosing to do so.

Phil: As always, you make a bunch of good points.

This one sort of makes one of my points which was that we have IQ that is suitable (or at least very acceptable) for high level cinema at almost every price point - and why RED has some tremendous challenges ahead. It will be very interesting to see what rabbits come out of the hat at RED later this year if DSMC3 can happen.

PS question:
How much DR does a capable cinematographer, with normal time and lighting budget need? (beyond the obvious "as much as s/he can get")

[Phil Holland]

How much DR does a capable cinematographer, with normal time and lighting budget need? (beyond the obvious "as much as s/he can get")

Depends on how it's used :)

*runs and hides*. But yeah. Kodak Motion Picture Film's rated 13-15 stops is also including some of the magic of film to create images, which isn't exactly a straight to digital comparison.

I've seen decent 15 stops and awful 15 stops for example. Also interesting to see luminance versus chromatic response in highlights as well as shadows. Big bag of worms.

The industry as a whole looks at the sensor, color science, and other image related hardware first. Checking off IQ related boxes is the most important thing no matter what. Don't care if there's a coffee maker on there if there's IR contamination for instance or spectral issues under tungsten or whatever.

Sort of like a first date test. Like there's no 2nd date if they chew with their mouth open spitting food at you during the first moments of hope. Which is why I stopped taking alpacas to dinner. Ugly eaters, comfy sweaters :)