Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RED review by wildlife cameraman

Elsie N said:
But sure, if you are someone like the author of the review,
Click to expand...

Not sure quite what you mean by that? This is one of the top wildlife cameramen in the world, he's worked on Planet Earth and loads of the big David Attenborough series of the last 10 years or more, he knows his stuff.
Steve
 
Steve Phillipps said:
Not sure quite what you mean by that? This is one of the top wildlife cameramen in the world, he's worked on Planet Earth and loads of the big David Attenborough series of the last 10 years or more, he knows his stuff.
Steve
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't care if he has a letter from the President... I'm judging him by his review.
 
Elsie N said:
Sorry, I don't care if he has a letter from the President... I'm judging him by his review.
Click to expand...

And I'm judging you by your posts. Your a RED fanboi, which does nothing to further the RED company other than placing the camera in situations where it is not suited to be and thus damaging its reputation.
 
Jay Gannon said:
And I'm judging you by your posts. Your a RED fanboi, which does nothing to further the RED company other than placing the camera in situations where it is not suited to be and thus damaging its reputation.
Click to expand...
Heh, heh. I guess if that's the best you can do, we'll let it stop here.
 
Interesting read, for sure. I've never really read much about the camera from a wildlife perspective and can definitely understand that it would require some adjustments from the standard MO in order to work seamlessly.

That said, I don't understand a simple phenomenon. It seems that people have something in their mind that is rather capable of supplanting words in marketing material. And it does this without recognition.

To wit RED is a "Digital Cinema Camera". It says it everywhere, and it certainly says Cinema. Yet I hear people surprised, shocked, and deeply concerned that it is not perfectly designed to work as an ENG camera, a two-man documentary camera, a low-budget indie camera, or a high resolution security camera. Of course it isn't. It's a Digital Cinema Camera.

Seems a bit like hopping into a race car and lamenting the lack of air conditioning and plush carpeting. Or for that matter, hopping into a "budget minded family sedan" and becoming livid about the lack of power and the poor handling above 80mph.

RED ONE is built to purpose. And it does that really well. The modularity, at least in my observation, lets it do more than most purpose-built cameras could, in terms of stretching out to other applications.

But why would I expect a Digital Cinema Camera to perform as a exactly as Film Camera would, when it doesn't use film? Or exactly an ENG Camera when it isn't built to be used by a single operator in extreme conditions?
 
Jay Gannon said:
And I'm judging you by your posts. Your a RED fanboi, which does nothing to further the RED company other than placing the camera in situations where it is not suited to be and thus damaging its reputation.
Click to expand...

Judging by your post, your just here to talk shit without having any input that matters. Now go back and read what I said and tell me what problems I didn't answer. Mark Payne-Gill comments, even if hes the greatest ever, sound grade school to folks that have used the camera more than 3 times.

Were not here to suck RED off. Were here to call bullshit when its bullshit. You sound pathic. Why put the energy into slandering something you nothing about. And please stop name dropping other peoples work!
 
And if you want to "further the RED company" you should try using constructive criticism rather than being a "fanboy" of bashing a company that is trying there hardest to bring a product to the table that is unmatched at a price point that nobody can argue.
 
agg, we should have locked this thread after anson's very fair and balanced evaluation...

it is nonsense to be a fanboy, the camera has obvious challenges for this application...but it is equally nonsense to say that RED has no use value to the wildlife cinematography world.
 
Agreed Meryem, it also saddens me when discussions sink to this.
Let's close it please - the article is there for those who want to see it, always good to hear a review I think, whether you agree with it or not is up to you.
Steve
 
funny...

funny...

Meryem Ersoz said:
..but it is equally nonsense to say that RED has no use value to the wildlife cinematography world.
Click to expand...

I'm just back from a short trip in Camargue, where I could speak with 4 BBC people shooting wildlife with two red ones :-)
 
It is obvious the Red 1 can and is being used for effective serious nature work, but it is far from ideal for that purpose.
I am very much looking forward to the 2/3" Scarlet with 16mm glass as a casual nature/wildlife hobby camera. As a practical back packing field camera with an Angenieux 12-240 it should weigh less in total than a Canon 150-600mm 35 zoom lens that would have the equivalent image magnification on S35.
 
true, David..

true, David..

David Rasberry said:
It is obvious the Red 1 can and is being used for effective serious nature work, but it is far from ideal for that purpose.
I am very much looking forward to the 2/3" Scarlet with 16mm glass as a casual nature/wildlife hobby camera. As a practical back packing field camera with an Angenieux 12-240 it should weigh less in total than a Canon 150-600mm 35 zoom lens that would have the equivalent image magnification on S35.
Click to expand...

Even if, some day, you end up with a shot that cost you one eye in time and knowledge...and that you would like to have recorded 4K or more... :-)
 
buhot said:
Even if, some day, you end up with a shot that cost you one eye in time and knowledge...and that you would like to have recorded 4K or more... :-)
Click to expand...
Like shooting an eagle in flight from an eye-level hide? ;-)
(Hope that worked out well for you)
 
it did, Elsie..

it did, Elsie..

Elsie N said:
Like shooting an eagle in flight from an eye-level hide? ;-)
(Hope that worked out well for you)
Click to expand...

thanks for inquiring :-) I'm still on it for specific things but no way I blame the red one on that !!
 
buhot said:
Even if, some day, you end up with a shot that cost you one eye in time and knowledge...and that you would like to have recorded 4K or more... :-)
Click to expand...

3k is a huge step up from what I use now. There are budget limits to what I can afford for a personal hobby camera and the 2/3" Scarlet is already pushing that pretty hard.
I am specifically interested in a practical digital replacement for something like a Bolex 16mm film camera, and I like the 2/3" 16mm sized format for general purpose shooting. Quite frankly this is the most in interesting new camera system I have seen in 30 years since I switched from 16mm film to video.
 
Interesting discussion. I also feel the conclusions of the review of using Red One in wildlife shooting are bit hasty.

Before getting the camera I also shared some of the concerns mentioned in the article, but now, after using the camera for more than two years the only thing which I would recognize as a real issue is the slow boot up time. What I mean is, I've lost couple nice footages while waiting the camera to boot up. But still, if I could pick any camera for wildlife shooting, that would still be Red One.

Maybe the person who wrote the review had not recognized using Red One requires one is also familiar with the camera. For example, there are conditions when the 2K 100 or 120fps may result in a Codec error message. The trick is to set 96 fps or 116 fps, and then, everything is just fine. In addition, one has to maintain the system and check and tighten all cables etc. every now and then. And if so, then, in my experience, the camera is very reliable and a pleasure to use.

In another thread -which sounded like Red's reaction to what was written in Provideocoalition- there was a discussion about resolution and dynamics. I've found for wildlife shooting rez and dynamics are the two main ingredients; If one has an aquarium or a fire place in house and sets a display showing a camera image on the side, as long as one can say which one is which, I feel satisfied Red is working towards more rez and dynamics.
 
image quality...

image quality...

C. Jagan Mohan said:
If the situation is such a rare one, why only use one RED1? when lighter options required why use RED drive?
Click to expand...

... flexibility and endless improvement you get from raw capture.. At times, using the red drive helps counterbalance the weight of a huge lens, making a very heavy gear oddly simple to operate. Among other reasons :-)

We're all waiting for Epic lighter weight, shorter boot and the rest, I suppose. As for the existing Red1, only thing is to make apparent fallbacks an advantage. For instance, modularity means extra time to get the whole gear assembled. On the other and, though, some kind (not all kinds) of nature photography is NOT and CANNOT be a run an gun thing. Read what Lauri wrote some place about the time you need in preparation. You need... week's or month's preparation, uncomfortable hides.. Assembling the gear might be boring, but counts for nothing in comparison, and it allows you to configure the camera exactly the way you need it in the hide... e.g, you can lower the red cradle so that it is not at risk of getting in contact with the top of your hide (inevitably moving in whatever breeze blows). And, btw, just allow battery change. Video cameras battery packs and the way you slide them in from above are a nightmare :-) Of course, all of this gets technical, and is not as obvious as what a short test like the one discussed here will tell you (boot-time, etc.), which could be predicted simply by reading the red1 specs ! Real useful field indications/counterindications is what one might expect from a famous wildlife cameraman in a specialized review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top