Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Alex Mack]

What is really needed is a new test comparing the latest from Red with Alexa (independent moderator). That'll be interesting.

 

[Jannard]

What is really needed is a new test comparing the latest from Red with Alexa (independent moderator). That'll be interesting.

My bet is that there will be hundreds of tests with these two cameras.

Jim

 

[Martin Stevens]

Let's not forget the price difference.
I will be buying a S35 Scarlet soon, and
not an Alexa.

Also....these tests will only count when final publicly released cameras
are used, and not prototypes with outdated firmware are used.

However I still loved seeing and reading about the tests.

 

[Blaire Johnson]

The thing with Red's business model is that they will always continue to provide updated firmware that improves the image somehow. So the excuse that whatever tests were using the "old" firmware is rather mute. If a company is releasing a product to the public, in ANY form, it should be the best product that company has to offer.

I'm tired of hearing "oh they were using build xxx, so we shouldn't take that as what the camera can really do." I thought RAW meant nothing was done to the images. So why should the latest firmware matter on how the test results come out. I'm talking about test results for the M sensor not the MX. I understand they are still trying to calibrate that sensor. I'm just tired of always have to use an unfinished product from Red.

 

[delano sookha]

But all of that is technical. The reasons why a lot of directors prefer film is that they like the way it looks, it's not a question of what's technically "better", it is an emotional response, an aesthetic response.

I worked with one director who thinks that film is softer than digital, and he likes that, so my way of dealing with that with him is to use light diffusion filters. I can tell him that technically the resolution is the same, but I think the lack of grain is what is throwing him off about digital, he misses that texture. He doesn't like the clarity of digital images. Other directors, they don't like the color of skintones in any digital production they've seen. Others don't like the way that motion is rendered.

Some of these opinions are technically grounded and others are just gut emotional responses that are hard to argue with. But they are the directors so I have to make them happy. I mean, what do you say when a director tells you that he's seen almost every digitally-shot feature out there... and that he doesn't like the way any of them look? It creates a high wall to get over to convince them that they aren't going to be unhappy with the digital photography you will be creating for them.

People here are naturally pro-digital and are up on the latest trends, but that's not necessarily the case with all directors out there. This transition from film to digital for features will not be as neat & clean as some people think it will be. We are talking about an art form here, and artists, and these are highly emotional people who don't always make decisions based on logic and rationality.

Finally someone is making sense, I've been reading all the responses and had to get a technical manual to figure some of them out.

As a director who shoots commercials and musicvideos I really don't care so much about the numbers and technicalities. I care about how the final image looks.
And I trust my DP that he will present me with the best option for the look I asked him/her for.

I tried different digital cameras, shot and lit by excellent DP's, but the look I preferred still came from a 35 mm negative, scanned on a flying spot scanner. The tonal range, saturation and feel of the final image suits my style the best.

And texture, indeed. Film has a texture one can almost feel.
For some directors digital will give them a great look. It depends what you're after.

Thank you David Mullen for pointing this out.

Delano

 

[Michael Male]

The thing with Red's business model is that they will always continue to provide updated firmware that improves the image somehow. So the excuse that whatever tests were using the "old" firmware is rather mute. If a company is releasing a product to the public, in ANY form, it should be the best product that company has to offer.

I'm tired of hearing "oh they were using build xxx, so we shouldn't take that as what the camera can really do." I thought RAW meant nothing was done to the images. So why should the latest firmware matter on how the test results come out. I'm talking about test results for the M sensor not the MX. I understand they are still trying to calibrate that sensor. I'm just tired of always have to use an unfinished product from Red.

Sometimes I get tired too (I'm 54) but I don't find Red's business model so bad... my Red One was a great camera back in December of 2007, and it's been getting better all the time.

All the Best,

Michael Male

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

If a company is releasing a product to the public, in ANY form, it should be the best product that company has to offer.

It must have been, it also no longer is.

Sometimes I get tired too (I'm 54) but I don't find Red's business model so bad... my Red One was a great camera back in December of 2007, and it's been getting better all the time.

All the Best,

Michael Male

So simple, yet people still don't get it. Never in the history of RED has their camera been a bad investment if made by the right person. Far from it.

 

[Jannard]

The thing with Red's business model is that they will always continue to provide updated firmware that improves the image somehow. So the excuse that whatever tests were using the "old" firmware is rather mute. If a company is releasing a product to the public, in ANY form, it should be the best product that company has to offer.

I'm tired of hearing "oh they were using build xxx, so we shouldn't take that as what the camera can really do." I thought RAW meant nothing was done to the images. So why should the latest firmware matter on how the test results come out. I'm talking about test results for the M sensor not the MX. I understand they are still trying to calibrate that sensor. I'm just tired of always have to use an unfinished product from Red.

Everything gets better over time. That means from every camera company. We just don't make you buy a new camera every time we make something better.

Jim

 

[Tony Augustinack]

Everything gets better over time. That means from every camera company. We just don't make you buy a new camera every time we make something better.

Jim

Thats why I love this company! :thumbsup:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

As a director who shoots commercials and musicvideos I really don't care so much about the numbers and technicalities. I care about how the final image looks.

Delano

What those numbers and technicalities tell you though is that if the new digital cameras' capabilities are greater than film's the manufacturers can 'degrade' their image to match.

It's like the ol' haircut analogy. You can only take away, you can't add.

If you have more resolution, little to no noise, more dynamic range and a greater color gamut you can reduce all of the above to replicate film.

You're right though, that's all hypothetical until one of them actually offers that feature. But it would truly 'kill film' because even the subjective would be covered. The only thing left would be the whir of film mag (which I suppose could be replicated with a small internal speaker if the director was really that attached to film).

Film isn't alchemy. Anything that it can offer can be simulated.

 

[Martin Stevens]

Film isn't alchemy. Anything that it can offer can be simulated.

I totally agree, and one can even simulate gate weave, dirt, scratches,
color fading, torn sprocket holes, the look of old nitrate stock, etc. etc. etc........

 

[Blaire Johnson]

Everything gets better over time. That means from every camera company. We just don't make you buy a new camera every time we make something better.

I'm not aware of any other camera company that made us buy a new camera because they enabled or fixed:

-Multiple video outputs simultaneously
-Industry standard frame rates
-Audio recording
-Black Shading (a very basic camera calibration method)
-In camera audio playback
-Pre recording
-Timecode out
-Safe/Title frame lines
-Various recording/playback errors for whatever reason
-Entire audio board

I also don't know of a camera mfg. that promised a bunch of features, which were never delivered, in the cameras they were shipping.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I'm not aware of any other camera company that made us buy a new camera because they enabled or fixed:

-Multiple video outputs simultaneously
-Industry standard frame rates
-Audio recording
-Black Shading (a very basic camera calibration method)
-In camera audio playback
-Pre recording
-Timecode out
-Safe/Title frame lines
-Various recording/playback errors for whatever reason
-Entire audio board

I also don't know of a camera mfg. that promised a bunch of features, which were never delivered, in the cameras they were shipping.

I can name some that made some small improvements and made you buy a whole new camera, but we all know who and I'm not necessarily saying it was the wrong thing to do.

RED could argue they delivered beyond what was originally promised. I know some with say that's debatable, but regardless, the way that RED does business either works for people's business models or it doesn't. If the camera can't do what one needs/expects it to do, not the best option in my opinion. One must find another camera, another camera company. Many people are using this camera successfully and have been for quite some time, even in the days when it was missing some features, working out some bugs, etc.

If RED had stopped developing the firmware after one of the earlier builds and decided to start from scratch and tried to sell people a new camera, that would be one thing. That's not what happened though. Instead, they have operated very similar to Sound Devices. The 744T was out for a few years before the 788T came along and they frequently updated it with firmware, making improvements and offering new features. When I owned a 744, I always felt like they were trying to perfect that machine, rather than on a fast track to sell you a new one.

I always try to keep things in perspective. This was RED's first camera out of the gate. They have learned a lot in the past three years. All indications point to them having a more mature product with Epic and Scarlet. Not a bad track record if you ask me. The RED One has had a huge impact, hard to deny that.

 

[Blaire Johnson]

I totally agree that they have had a huge impact on the industry. And it's because of people like me that they understand they need to improve things and which things they need to improve.

Your welcome.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If RED had stopped developing the firmware after one of the earlier builds and decided to start from scratch and tried to sell people a new camera, that would be one thing.

If Red hadn't continued developing the firmware I don't know that their reputation could have survived the REDOne.

Personally I prefer the release and add methodology of RED. I'm pretty firmly entrenched in the camp of "If I can use it now, I want it now, give me a patch later." Not everyone likes that way of doing things. But I think he has a point that RED started from a pretty barebones place with the REDOne. You could easily say that now everything being added to RED are bonus features, but some of the earlier builds were just bringing RED up to spec with some pro-sumer cameras.

 

[Mike Gross]

If Red hadn't continued developing the firmware I don't know that their reputation could have survived the REDOne.

Personally I prefer the release and add methodology of RED. I'm pretty firmly entrenched in the camp of "If I can use it now, I want it now, give me a patch later." Not everyone likes that way of doing things. But I think he has a point that RED started from a pretty barebones place with the REDOne. You could easily say that now everything being added to RED are bonus features, but some of the earlier builds were just bringing RED up to spec with some pro-sumer cameras.

Practically everything in the film industry evolves from "if I can use it now...". From apple boxes to flags to DI software to film recorders. If everything was finished and perfect the first time out, we wouldn't have any gaff tape around.

 

[Nova Invicta]

I dont think the tests will purely be Red One X / Epic / Scarlett / Alexa but also the Sony HDC-9000 with the 35mm sensor and next year Sony 4K camera which will show in prototype at NAB.
One thing thats VERY misleading Sanjin is comparing Red One X & the Arri Alexa on price, the Alexa out of the box does more (for a starters it comes with the viewfinder) if you kit the Red to match it the price difference whilst still in the Red favor in real world terms is very small. The fact is they are similar products and production managers will see it that way with the decision coming down to choice.
Hundreds of rental houses have invested hugely in Arri accessories this will also be a factor in Arri favor as will the much bigger agent network.
What digital cameras do miss over film is any characteristic, both Fuji & Kodak among there various stocks offer a "known" characteristic which helps the narative with digital this has to be artificially added and whilst maybe you get a similar finished product it does alter the way in which you think about the show.

 

[IAN SUN]

One thing thats VERY misleading Sanjin is comparing Red One X & the Arri Alexa on price, the Alexa out of the box does more (for a starters it comes with the viewfinder) if you kit the Red to match it the price difference whilst still in the Red favor in real world terms is very small.

Did the the cost of the RED evf rise dramatically without me noticing?
Is the entry level Alexa not coming in north of 65Gs?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Bomb EVF adds $3200 to the price. The approx $70k (50k Euro) for the base Alexa will get you two Epics with viewfinders at ($28k+$3.2k) * 2 = $62.4k and some cash for other bits - CF unit, REDMote, Batteries etc.

Then there's the Epic featureset...

Graeme

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

I totally agree that they have had a huge impact on the industry. And it's because of people like me that they understand they need to improve things and which things they need to improve.

Your welcome.

I don't have the best hearing, but I'm pretty sure I failed to hear anyone say "thank you".

Your comments would be useful if they were not so late. Do you really think RED built a camera, and then three months later said "Oh Wait!! CRAP!! Hey, did someone turn on the audio?!"

They were new, they were honest about what it would do and not do.

It was stated early on that this was an open development. RED has CHOSEN to make their cameras in this way, they were not forced into it. If you don't like numerous builds, then stay with one you want, and go on with your life. If it fails to match up to another camera you are comparing too, then buy that one.. Simple.. Right?

Camera companies love to say "we went to the industry and listened to what they wanted, blah blah"... RED has over 4000 beta testers of their camera providing realtime feedback 24/7. There are both advantages and disadvantages..

The fact is, what you see as RED's weakness is also it's strenght. Because it's "never finished" it also never stops improving.

I for one LOVE RED's business model, and hope it does not change. However, I can tell you that Epic and Scarlet will be different.. Once again (and long before you mentioned it) Jim said almost a year ago that Epic and Scarlet would not be released to the general public as "prototypes" and would be far more polished before release.

Jay