Just simply, how is red priced like it is

[Brennan Klensch]

is there an obvious point I'm missing or is it literally that sony, jvc, panasonic, panavision, arri, silicon, thompson, etc.. are just pushing for a massive profit margin? If the tech is better in the Red, but the price is also better, how do the others work? how expensive is the technology to make would be the bottom line?

[Steve Sherrick]

There are some major differences in how the companies are comprised. I personally don't think it matters too much. RED is setting prices where they need/want them to be. They were able to start from scratch, others are having to adapt/revise their plans. But in the end only this really matters:

Company X provides product Y at price Z. Consumer either purchases or doesn't.

Obviously companies will look at each other's business models/strategy and react, but from the consumer end of it, we all want the best product we can get at a dollar figure we can afford. Time will tell who succeeds at the various price/performance points. For me, I will choose on what I think is the smartest investment for the type of work I do.

[Steve Sherrick]

Originally Posted by Brennan Klensch

... is it literally that sony, jvc, panasonic, panavision, arri, silicon, thompson, etc.. are just pushing for a massive profit margin?....

I think in order to know that, you would have to be able to figure out all of the details such as R&D, manufacturing, distribution, sales/marketing, etc. to know exactly how much profit margin is in there. My guess is that there isn't as much as we would like to think. It might be a healthy margin, but I can't see any of them working on huge margins. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Tim Whitcomb]

All valid points Steve... but The BIGGEST cost difference?

Most of those companies listed create VIDEO cameras...
i.e cameras with on board "processing" to "bake-in" a look... where what you
see is essentially "what you get".

RED has created a RAW image capture camera with NO ONBOARD processing...and the processing instead is done in post.

Not surprisingly,. the most expensive component on a video camera is a PROCESSOR.

This is the main reason RED appears to "cost so much less" than comparable video cameras. Recording RAW, gives you something you can apply look after look to WITHOUT baking it in... its non-destructive... so when Jim announces NEW COLOR science... you can go back to RAW files you shot two years ago and process them again! That is what I call PRICELESS!

No way you can do that with a "baked in" video camera... you can color correct them, but the flexibility of RAW is why many of us have put our $ on RED.

EDIT: RED Rocket™™, is also an unbelievably priced RAW file processor... as it gives you 4K FULL QUALITY DEBAYERS, usually faster than Realtime. Prior to RED Rocket™™
a post RAid system would cost over $100K to get the same speed at 4k full quality.

This kind of thinking is disruptive and what makes RED so awesome. Now the tricky part is they are trying to squeeze all this innovation
into a form factor that makes upgrading less expensive than buying a new camera every couple years.

i.e a Fully Modular Scarlet and Epic Camera systems.

To most of us, that future savings is well worth the delays.

[Michael Bravin]

Originally Posted by Tim Whitcomb

but The BIGGEST cost difference?

Not surprisingly,. the most expensive component on a video camera is a PROCESSOR.

...but the fleibility if RAW is why I and many of us have put our $ on RED.

No doubt RAW is why you bought your Red
... but the imager (sensor) is the most expensive single component in a digital camera

[Tim Whitcomb]

Originally Posted by Michael Bravin

No doubt RAW is why you bought your Red
... but the imager (sensor) is the most expensive single component in a digital camera

Id argue that with EPIC, the ASIC is the most expensive component ;)

Not sure you are correct Michael, as the image processing on the Sony F35 for example is where all the cost is, its way more $ than the sensor.

Perhaps I should have been more specific, as you are probably correct when it comes to the HVX-200 class cameras.

[David Battistella]

I believe that the reason RED could enter the arena and compete is because they had NO LEGACY products and no LEGACY customers to support.

They were able to bring fresh products to the table at fair market value with no one to piss off.

BlackMagic design did this really well with 10-bit SDI video cards ears back.

If any of the companies you mentioned brought out a "RED" style camera at that price-point, they may very well have been shooting their high-end customers in the face.

david

[Graeme Nattress]

There's a full image processing pipeline in ALL our cameras. It's not an expense you can omit on even a raw-centric camera.

Graeme

[Steve Sherrick]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

There's a full image processing pipeline in ALL our cameras. It's not an expense you can omit on even a raw-centric camera.

Graeme

If there wasn't, I'm not sure how you would get video out the tap. And I would imagine that getting a 4K signal processed out at 720P RGB probably requires a few shingles, even if it's a "cheap/dirty" feed. :-)

[Tim Whitcomb]

Ok, guys the thread title requested a "SIMPLE" answer as to why RED costs less...
as I DO have friends who think the RED must be inferior because it costs so much less than the F35.

and video monitoring, is still not processing the RAW file **EDIT (on RECORD), but I get your point Steve.

Graeme, I am not going to argue with you... but when I explain it the way I did above, I always get an "Ahhh, that makes sense" response and have won over some closed minded DP's lately with that "simplistic" explanation.

EDIT** As I understand it, there is NO PROCESSING ON RECORD, wherein the RED bakes in a look, like when you record an F35 to a HUGE TAPE DECK... versus recording tapeless i.e. compressed RAW file to a tiny CF card. That recording deck for the F35 is a tad more spendy than a CF Card ;)

to me the genius, including the cost savings, is in the (the reads: yours Graeme) sophisticated compression.