Incredible...

[Harrison Diamond]

I'm keen to know more about the electronic lenses but suspect they'll be too heavy. Anyway, I'll be excited when all the details are announced.

They shouldn't really be significantly bigger/heavier than other pro-grade stills lenses based on the renders.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I can think of another very good reason. I use FF 35mm stills lenses exclusively on my three RED One cameras. There are a lot of people who own kits of high quality FF 35mm stills lenses, who have traditionally worked in both motion media and stills work, want to maximize their FF stills lens potential, and who intend to work in both those industries with the new FF35 cameras, both Epic and Scarlet. I'm one of those...

Its a big motion media industry beyond narrative cinema, and a lot of people with a broad diversity of needs. That's the beauty for this modular system - its flexibility and utility.

Fun times ahead...:sifone:

Gibby: your right on here. I think a lot of people miss the importance of the beyond-cinema market. For the nature stuff you and I do the more resolution the better as it future proofs the stock footage material.

In addition, if you think about the non-CGI Imax stuff it is almost all nature and documentary stuff - but right now it is prohibitively expensive to shoot. Yet 6K is getting there in resolution and the 645 epic 9K is pretty much there. With an epic 645 a single person can backpack into the mountains or climb a cliff to get those beautiful shots of seals, eagles, etc. that I see in your work.

For my underwater work I can stick an Epic 645 in a housing the same size as a prosumer camcorder for easy travel and small or even one man crews. If you think of the kind of still shooting Chris Newbert did for his "Within a Rainbowed Sea" book it would be impossible to do that even in 35mm motion film much less Imax. With a 645 it is physically feasible and cost effective.I can buy an extremely good Zeiss 35mm 645 lens (equivalent to about a 14mm on S35) for less than $1500 and shoot to my heart's content for just the cost of storage.

The same goes for extreme sports and all the other things that make for cool immersive experience movies.

And this doesn't even get into the industrial and scientific uses of a cost effective 6K or 9K motion camera with very high speed capability (6K @ 100 fps; 4K @150, 3K@225 and 2K @350).

One can easily argue both sides of the cost advantages of S35 film vs. digital for cinema production. But when you consider 35 or Imax size imaging for nature/documentary/scientific - there is no argument.

9K resolution allows pristine transfers to Imax film but the biggest possibilities are with 9K Imax type digital projection. Even more than 3D, I think this has the ability to bring back the immersive experience in theaters. No longer will you have to drive downtown to the science museum to see an Imax type film - it will be feasible at any major movie theater. Theaters are losing out to home theater because watching most Hollywood movies isn't that much better than watching it on BluRay on a 60" screen and 3D in the home isn't difficult either. But huge screen immersive Imax just isn't possible in a normal home.

I look forward to the day I can drive over to the local Muvico with my grandson to watch the latest Gibby Productions nature documentary. The revolution has just begun.

 

[Martin Ubilluz]

Jim,

You keep saying... thanks to our supporter who from the start bought the cameras and those who dont will wish they had and things along those lines.. i take a small offense to that because i have been a huge supporter since day 1 but i was in film school and not able to afford a camera now that im getting out and have had DP work i can finally purchase one but i feel like one of the people who had bought one from the start Im just as big as a supporter if not more just could not get a camera at that time i feel like you are saying those who don't have cameras or did not buy them from the start were not supporters.

 

[Michael Dalton]

Gibby: your right on here. I think a lot of people miss the importance of the beyond-cinema market. For the nature stuff you and I do the more resolution the better as it future proofs the stock footage material.

In addition, if you think about the non-CGI Imax stuff it is almost all nature and documentary stuff - but right now it is prohibitively expensive to shoot. .

Agreed, when a movie like Disney Nature makes 100 million, it certainly makes me think twice about what I am shooting. also how many of us in nature programs have a lot of stock footage in SD that is worthless now. HD is ok, but if we are thinking long term, we need to think beyond HD. Not to mention, that if we are rolling on something cool, we can pull stills. It's like cloning yourself.

It really does revolutionize the industry completely, not only ours, but many others as well!

How many people could say that were responsible for changing the way who industries work? Jim for President!

 

[Joshua Brown]

Jim,

You keep saying... thanks to our supporter who from the start bought the cameras and those who dont will wish they had and things along those lines.. i take a small offense to that because i have been a huge supporter since day 1 but i was in film school and not able to afford a camera now that im getting out and have had DP work i can finally purchase one but i feel like one of the people who had bought one from the start Im just as big as a supporter if not more just could not get a camera at that time i feel like you are saying those who don't have cameras or did not buy them from the start were not supporters.

OMG. :sosp: But it's true... without those purchases none of this would happen. Maybe don't be a such a sensi. :nono:

-Josh

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Jim,

You keep saying... thanks to our supporter who from the start bought the cameras and those who dont will wish they had and things along those lines.. i take a small offense to that because i have been a huge supporter since day 1 but i was in film school and not able to afford a camera now that im getting out and have had DP work i can finally purchase one but i feel like one of the people who had bought one from the start Im just as big as a supporter if not more just could not get a camera at that time i feel like you are saying those who don't have cameras or did not buy them from the start were not supporters.

That just makes us the supporters of the next wave of RED cameras.

 

[Shane Nassiri]

Jim,

You keep saying... thanks to our supporter who from the start bought the cameras and those who dont will wish they had and things along those lines.. i take a small offense to that because i have been a huge supporter since day 1 but i was in film school and not able to afford a camera now that im getting out and have had DP work i can finally purchase one but i feel like one of the people who had bought one from the start Im just as big as a supporter if not more just could not get a camera at that time i feel like you are saying those who don't have cameras or did not buy them from the start were not supporters.

Just wait 'til round 3 of cameras, and you'll feel special

 

[Michael Lindsay]

...The RPPs appear quite nice, but I can tell you that the Compact Primes are quite good lenses as well. And unlike any of the other new prime sets out there, the Compact Primes cover FF35, not just Super-35 or 5K.

These lenses will really sell when the FF35 ships. People, like myself, who have good sets of UP, MP, SS etc will want a few of these lenses for special shots. Basically wides and particular moments that need the different look or resolution. I think I'll buy 3 to augment our UP straight away (28, 50, 85)!

They also will go on the camera when I'm scared of damaging the UPs.

I think they are great for people who already have a working set of lenses.

regards

Michael L

 

[Duncan Hill]

This looks awesome. You can still be a Red supporter even if you don't own one. I don't own one, but I shoot with them all the time and recommend shooting on them. Just wait though, you'll be seeing a lot more people becoming "fans" of the Red after the Scarlett and Epic release. I still haven't met anyone that hates the Red that has actually shot anything on it! I'll look forward to more pics.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Agreed, when a movie like Disney Nature makes 100 million, it certainly makes me think twice about what I am shooting. also how many of us in nature programs have a lot of stock footage in SD that is worthless now. HD is ok, but if we are thinking long term, we need to think beyond HD. Not to mention, that if we are rolling on something cool, we can pull stills. It's like cloning yourself.

It really does revolutionize the industry completely, not only ours, but many others as well!

How many people could say that were responsible for changing the way who industries work? Jim for President!

HeHe - I cringe when I look at my wall full of Betacam/DV etc. SD footage.

My grandson liked Nature as much as most of the other Disney fare.

As easy as it is to sit them down in front of a DVD, it is still nice to take the kids on an outing and an hour and 45 minute movie is a great way to do it. Interesting nature stuff is a no brainer - it's nice not to worry about the content and (even though I can enjoy Toy story/Monster's Inc, etc.) if it is good it is more interesting for the adult. An Imax size screen at the multiplex with 8K or so resolution and good content could make this kind of program viable again on a regular basis. Unlike Imax with that high priced film to ship around - it could just be a hard drive (or REDRAY). The major expense would be the 8K projector but that is a capital expense that can be amortized rather than the ongoing film and shipping expense.

If I were RED I would think about skipping a generation (like they did with RED1 skipping 2K to go to 4K) and go for an 8K projector.

Of course if Jim wanted to really spend some of that 2.8 billion he could create a chain of 8K imax sized theaters so we would all have an outlet for that super high res content we are going to create with Epic 645!:biggrin:

 

[Joshua Brown]

Of course if Jim wanted to really spend some of that 2.8 billion he could create a chain of 8K imax sized theaters so we would all have an outlet for that super high res content we are going to create with Epic 645!:biggrin:

Oooh RED brand theatres and films. I'm uneasy but also stoked about that idea.

-Josh

 

[Victor Noir]

I know the tech of the camera will be amazing, its image acquisition making all the negatives well worthwhile.... but this thing looks kind of flesh-hostile to me.

The number of scratches, scrapes, gouges and bruises the Red has left on me, as well as numerous first and second AC's and even the occasional innocent passerby qualifies it as a lethal weapon. I hope there's also some effort being expended on making future cameras a LOT more ergonomically friendly than has been seen so far.

Also have to note that while it looks like something designed for a Terminator movie, this is an awful lot of black-on-black for a camera that's fantastic particularly for its sensitivity to the dark. From an industrial design perspective, this is counter-intuitive.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

How is it any more dangerours than a film camera?

 

[Ace]

Also have to note that while it looks like something designed for a Terminator movie, this is an awful lot of black-on-black for a camera that's fantastic particularly for its sensitivity to the dark. From an industrial design perspective, this is counter-intuitive.

Why would you have it anything other than black.. Would you want to see the camera's reflection in window shots?

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Why would you have it anything other than black.. Would you want to see the camera's reflection in window shots?

I'm happy with the Black, but wouldn't mind seeing some limited edition "Platinum" scarlets as well. :emote_popcorn:

 

[Häakon]

Also I'm not certain you're right about the reduced resolution. I thought that before but looking at sensor sizes.

Here's an old topic about it... I don't have all the numbers, but it was something that was discussed pretty thoroughly awhile ago:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22782

Don't mistake my post for being on the s35 bandwagon; I've been championing for a FF35 motion camera before Epic was even announced. But I personally would like to see a widescreen format FF35 camera as I don't prefer to shoot with anamorphics. Making the frame ratio taller doesn't do us any good if we're just cropping away the top and bottom of the frame anyway.

 

[Justin Anderson]

It should be understood that if you shoot a S35 area (or with lenses that only cover S35) with your FF35 camera, you're actually getting less resolution than you would just shooting with a S35 camera.

You sure? I thought that the pixel density is the same on both cameras.

 

[Häakon]

You sure? I thought that the pixel density is the same on both cameras.

It's possible... here are the numbers David Farland put up in that topic:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384831#post384831

RED removed that info long ago.

I tried to do the math, but it just made my head hurt. Someone who's smarter than me can get to the actual density numbers. IIRC, it was something like Monstro had bigger physical pixels (by a little) but a s35 crop would net a smaller number overall than the s35 Mysterium camera.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Making the frame ratio taller doesn't do us any good if we're just cropping away the top and bottom of the frame anyway.

Haha, well your match movers will thank you.

 

[Jannard]