Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

EPIC's Price Point can be justified...

A. Bastaki

A. Bastaki

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
817
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Abu Dhabi, UAE
if there's 13 stops or more of latitude at a given ISO level.

I honestly wouldnt care for the extra 1k.. its absolutely meaningless. as the 4k we are getting now is pretty good... and most screens out there are 2k.. when you down-rezz redone's footage you lose a lot of that noise. And with the B16 coming up im really hoping i could shoot at ISO 500 without much noise.

if RED wants to bump up the price, it better add way more dynamic range to their new sensor, or this epic thing may go kaput...

I'd want a 16-bit image with 13.5 stops of lat.
that would justify the extra big chunk they're asking for epic.

At the 40k price-point thats what i think would justify its price. because noise-wise.. we can pretty much suppress it with the 4k we have now.

4k screening isnt happening yet.. by not happening.. i mean out of every 1000 theatres there'd be one that prolly could be one.
hence leaving the whole point of a 4k sensor for noise reduction would be rather pointless.

.. just mumbling my thoughts... i can be corrected..... hell.. what do i know.

as for redray with its 4k.. movies we are watching now on hd really look fake on bravias... it would take atleast a couple of years for the consumer market to go 4k. And HD displays are still having a difficulty crossing all over europe because well.. hd broadcast is the main issue.

so unless we find cheap 4k screening solutions and have them sold all over the world.. by say 2009... yeah.. having the whole industry going 4k could be seen as happening. but truth be told.. people are satisfied with HD.. they are not satisfied with HD content distribution.

i say.. 4k it all. cheap 3k projectors for home... cheap 4k projectors for theatres. and the red ray/epic could be sold.
________
Ryoko tani
 
If they got a 16bit image and 13.5stops, they could be charging $400,000 because that's what they could get away with.
 
The value proposition for Epic is a little more complicated than just the DR of the sensor and the bump to 5k. Things that make it interesting are: high-frame rate 4k/5k shooting, four pounds lighter, improved sensor, standard sized connectors, higher quality real-time outputs, higher bit-rate recording/encoding.

Each of these differentiating features will appeal to some segment of pro users. I believe there will be a sizable pro market that won't be sensitive to the price difference between Epic and Red One -- they'll just want the additional features and pay what it takes to enjoy using them.
 
Akube said:
i say.. 4k it all. cheap 3k projectors for home... cheap 4k projectors for theatres.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that i even understand this thread. If all of the above is true for you, you should be thrilled with your RED ONE and not even considering an EPIC.

For many of my applications, the 4 lb. weight reduction and standard XLRs are the main attractions. 5K is more like an add-on. I don't know yet if I'll pull the trigger, though it is tempting.
 
I think people aren't thinking hard enough about what can be done with more resolution. I remember reading the cover of, I think, PC World years ago and the big title on the front was "Do we really need more than 400mhz?". Look where we are now with 3ghz+ processors, not just single processors but dual, quad and, pretty soon, octo configurations. The same goes for resolution. Some are obviously aware of what 4K gives over 1080P, physically 4K is four qaudrants of 1080P material. If you want to move in for a closeup instead of a wide shot, you can do it with a little post work without anybody noticing too much. Imagine what we could do with more than 4K. Take 8K for example; you basically could use a wide angle lens all the time and zoom in post for all of your shots. Too close? Okay, scale it back. Too far away? Punch in a bit.

Remember the scene in "Blade Runner" when Harrison Ford is zooming in on the picture? I always laugh at that scene because they start out fine but then turn into more of a 3D picture when he starts moving around corners and stuff. But, even so, the idea is there. Everything is crisp and clear even when zoomed in. Imagine the possibilities for composition during editing. We may not have the ability to film from one angle and move the image in a 3D space in post for OTS shots, but with people working on those weird insect-eye 3D lenses, we're getting there.

Epic's 5K resolution is just the first step in that direction.
 
Maybe some folks are never satisfied or forget to spend more time on their scripts and less time figuring out the K/$/f-stop ratios in their head. Here's a hint- there's no magical one that will lead you to a better movie...

Noah
 
it's not a 1k difference as u think.
1- red one records 4k, but actually the image is 3k so epic is at least 2.76 times bigger.
2- red epic will have full frame, equivalent of a 35mm film camera, that would work natively with any 35mm film lens and can take full advantage of any 35mm lens and any anamorphic lens.
3-red epic would record 100MB/s

just using a 35mm lens without an adapter alone is enough to make red one look like a consumer hd camera.
 
amrrahmy said:
it's not a 1k difference as u think.
1- red one records 4k, but actually the image is 3k so epic is at least 2.76 times bigger.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that Epic's 5k will actually be 5K?

amrrahmy said:
2- red epic will have full frame, equivalent of a 35mm film camera, that would work natively with any 35mm film lens and can take full advantage of any 35mm lens and any anamorphic lens.
Click to expand...

Just like RED ONE

amrrahmy said:
just using a 35mm lens without an adapter alone is enough to make red one look like a consumer hd camera.
Click to expand...

?????
 
cause it says full frame, and not a 1.5 factor weird one.

no the 35mm lens doesn't fit the 16:9, where the epic would use the whole lens in 4:3.
 
Both EPIC and Red One have the exact same size sensor (which is why You can upgrade Red One to Mysterium X). Also they are both 16:9. It is clear You don't have Red One and have never seen one in person. And saying that it "look like a consumer hd camera" is crossing the line between constructive comments and outright flaming. What are You shooting on?
 
The reason for EPIC being 5K is to produce brilliant 4K imagery, same as the 3K Scarlet to produce brilliant 2K imagery, without any aliasing and with reduced noise and improved DR... Red One (for now) threads in the middle between 2K and 4K delivery. Some say it is "overkill for 2K" and "not enough for 4K". Some like that You can do both at a very reasonable price point. With B16 the 4K quality of Red One has risen to whole new level...
 
well, i use film now(i dont use epic yet, it's not available yet - and i'm not sure how good would it compare to the arri cam), but epic was announced to be full frame(and not a form factor sensor), and was a 40% upgrade in the sensor that would make it(4:3), it's not the same size sensor in used pixels, it's the same size sensor in physical space,the red one sensor throws away allot of pixels right now.
there is a big difference between the ability to mount a lens and use all it's potential.

i meant pro consumer hd camera of course(something that can mount 35mm). and don't compare camera's with different lens and say that the red camera is better, use same lens in both cameras.

i have seen allot of images and videos, and dont think that it's a motion camera, it's missing allot of things, it's a fast digital camera(still), not a video or cinema camera.

and i don't know if i want one right away with that price range. since i still would want to get master primes to go with it. that would definitely go over budget(the lens alone would go over my budget).
 
A) Full-frame S35 cine sensor - not 35 mm still size. Apples and Oranges...

B) The 40% relates to increase in speed (read-out/reset), rather then size...

C) You did say specifically:
like a consumer hd camera
Click to expand...
No mentioning of "PRO". Plus I really don't know of any HD camera on the market that is "PRO" and "CONSUMER" at the same time... The HD cams will have at most 2/3" sensor. So You can't compare the same lens on HD and Red One (S35 sensor). If anything - it is going to be the RED sensor that utilizes the 35mm lens closer to its potential then any other HD on the market...

D) If You can't classify Red One as a digital cinema camera - then what is? Or is main problem with Red One that is too "cheap" to be considered a cinema camera???

E) You don't have to get primes - You can get great footage with affordable 35mm still glass, as it has been proven number of times... I would be personally surprised if You were serious about digital cinematography and did not own a 35 DSLR with some decent glass already. But maybe that is just me...
 
i didn't see the s35 part, so it's still a still camera with fast fps.

i thought i read on the forum, someone said that jim said it's basically a 40% increase in the sensor.not that data transfer and boot time would be 64% more in epic and scarlet.

yes, high end consumer cameras are consumer cameras. that goes all the way to broadcast cameras, they r consumer cameras.

the potential of the 35mm is not in the size of the sensor.

it is a fast still camera.

that's exactly the point, it's not for cinematography, it's for stills.
it doesn't do well with motion.

i have been using slr cameras for a long time, u can't use a still camera to make a film, u can't use a still lens to do a film, if a d3 would do 24fps it wont work as a film camera.

but a "cheap" canon or jvc would make a gr8 film camera.
also a "cheap" sony would make a gr8 video camera.

it's not the price. but it's not a cinema camera, it's more like the fast fps cameras that do hundreds of fpss (but only does 60-120fps?). it's not something that can be used as a cinema camera.
 
i still like the camera and think it's gr8. but not for film.
 
amrrahmy said:
yes, high end consumer cameras are consumer cameras. that goes all the way to broadcast cameras, they r consumer cameras.

it is a fast still camera.

that's exactly the point, it's not for cinematography, it's for stills.
it doesn't do well with motion.

i have been using slr cameras for a long time, u can't use a still camera to make a film, u can't use a still lens to do a film, if a d3 would do 24fps it wont work as a film camera.

but a "cheap" canon or jvc would make a gr8 film camera.
also a "cheap" sony would make a gr8 video camera.

it's not the price. but it's not a cinema camera, it's more like the fast fps cameras that do hundreds of fpss (but only does 60-120fps?). it's not something that can be used as a cinema camera.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Peter Jackson, Terence Mallick, and Steven Soderberg. And You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
 
The day I start thinking of reasons for companies to charge more, is the day I start shooting myself in the head for a laugh. Red need to keep their prices as low as they can, otherwise its not a revolution no more.. And I don`t think they`ll have a problem recovering their research and development costs, or turning a very healthy profit mid to long term :)
 
other than Steven Soderbergh, the rest are director and not cinematographers....

and steven soderbergh is not an impressive cinematographer even when he's making beautiful stories, he's average.
didn't he make:
ocean's thirteen(no comment)
ocean's twelve(no comment)
solaris(no comment)
ocean's eleven(watch the original)
traffic(no comment)
erin brokovich(that's exactly how u turn a great story into a (good at best) film).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top