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 :)

Is 1k more really worth $24,000 more

agcohn said:
And do you honestly believe than Panavision or Sony couldn't have developed a 4K camera if they had actually wanted to devote the resources necessary on such a venture? They didn't see the market for it. You see how difficult it's been managing the data on Dalsa shoots? The support technology isn't where it needs to be right now.
Click to expand...

RED doesn't fit the same category as Dalsa though, because Redcode is compressed such that it is as manageable as HD.

I think its clear that Mr. Jannard is creating the market for the material coming from his cameras. He's showing both filmmakers and movie-goers that they can have 4K "everything" with existing technology + a little help from RED. If this reality isn't clear to you, I'd strongly suggest you look a little deeper.

IBloom
 
Peter Majtan said:
RED vs FILM

Film has ONLY two advantages over RED:

A) Dynamic Range (not for long)
B) Archival quality original negative that (when properly stored) will survive 100+ years (there are alternatives that in fact could exceed this)
Click to expand...
On the first one, we can both even agree. But on the 2nd one, are you really sure of such (point) as an advantage?
 
Seán_T said:
Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales and the new camera is more fairly priced, particularly if its going to be shipping in smaller numbers.
Click to expand...

I think this is the real story.

Ever since I heard about Epic I have been thinking, "Ah, so Jim is planning to actually make a profit with this one."

My guess (and I could be wrong) is that Epic will be marketed to studios and rental houses, etc, and will actually make a profit for Red, whereas most Red One owners have really gotten a free ride and quite a discount on Red One. Far from being a "bait and switch" it's actually the people who buy Epic that will in part be financing your Red One. ;)

Anyway, Jim is already giving Red One as sensor upgrade next year. Do you think Canon is going to offer a "sensor upgrade" on 1Ds Mark II? No, you have to plop down 7 grand on a Mark III.
 
"Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales"

RED (JJ) has stated in the past there is profit in Red one ...
and YES, it is priced at a point where it must sell large #'s ...
if Red had only planned to make 200, the camera would be priced at a much higher price and 25% of us would be renting it, the other 70% would be wishing we could rent it and 5% could afford it ...

Red one could have been priced at 40K and in todays market it would still be conisdered a good DEAL ...
 
But it wouldn't be selling so many units as today...
 
donatello said:
"Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales"

RED (JJ) has stated in the past there is profit in Red one ...
Click to expand...

I don't know if Jim has claimed directly that Red One is profitable. I think he has said "we're profitable" or something like that. I'm not sure I would believe him 100% if he claimed that "Red One is profitable." He's just been too generous and put too much upfront money into Red One. Ask any business man -- that kind of investment takes time to recoup, and my guess is that Epic is part of his plan to be profitable. Being "profitable" within 1-2 years is a remarkable feat for a startup like Red.

Jim is a business man, and Red is his private company, so he doesn't have to report this kind of profit/loss info as far I know.
 
Emanuel said:
On the first one, we can both even agree. But on the 2nd one, are you really sure of such (point) as an advantage?
Click to expand...

Well it is the ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION right now: How to sort out long term archival of digital "master negative" (and digital data in general). I did handle personally one of the first original negs and prints of Akira Kurosawa and no matter how bad they were treated - we were able to restore them. You can't say that about digital - not yet anyway...

This also led me to design optical archival system for digital cinematography data (will not work for any other type of digital data) that matches and rivals actual analog film. We have worked on this with ARRI and KODAK, but the concept and design is mine and I only "took advantage" of their current products to fit into my solution. Without them however it would have been very difficult to develop...

Who ever sorts this out for "normal" digital data will become filthily rich (and can start its own camera company :biggrin: )...
 
Tom said:
(...) I'm not sure I would believe him 100% if he claimed that "Red One is profitable." (...)
Click to expand...
Why not? Do you still believe in the Santa Claus?
 
Emanuel said:
Why not? Do you still believe in the Santa Claus?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I could be wrong. But if you look at your own post, Jim says "Red is profitable today." He didn't say "Red One is profitable." His quote could mean anything. And it could be aimed at competitors who are speculating about Red and its profits.

Again I could be wrong, but the math doesn't add up to me for Red One to be profitable at this point. Jim has just been too generous, and set the price very low. Any new business like this has a ton of startup costs. Salaries, R&D, legal, accounting, manfacturing and marketings costs, etc, make it unlikely that a couple thousand sales of Red One would make it "profitable" this early.

I'm not sure why you are stuck on this point, Emanuel.
 
Tom said:
I'm not sure why you are stuck on this point, Emanuel.
Click to expand...
'cause this is 'the secret' of RED: ...'into the hands of many' -- got it?

For the same reasons, we can buy one of these beauties* for US$1,500.00:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VDCTCI/?tag=kenrockwellcom

The RED ONE introduction follows the same principle of economies of scale.

You wouldn't get it if the RED ONE had been thought like the EPIC will be. That's why the RED ONE will always be a higher milestone than any 1k more resolution.

The concept counts. Jim invented and had guts for the RED ONE. This camera (our proud) is the most sales success (comparing apples to apples) since Henry Ford had launched the model T.

I'm referring to him as cameras' dreamer but also as visionary business man. When he said he wouldn't expect to sell only 1000 units, this should mean something, right? Perhaps, the break-even point...somewhere over the rainbow? For a 35mm cinema (!) camera, can't we infer the 4,000 mark as enough (even if for 17,500.00) ?


*I mean, professional 35mm glass = same glass quality than the pricey similar sisters on the motion picture side.
 
hey, we are talking of about 3 megapixels difference, between the two cameras! Isn't even this fact more then enough to make the Epic a higher class product? How could anyone consider it a small improvement?
Cameras have been stuck with PAL/NTSC resolutions for decades, yet they used to come with a new "improved" camera every year.
Come on...
Epic doesn't need anything more than the specs we already know, to be the best camera in the world, and vastly better than Red One.
Given those specs, being worried that Epic could not deliver enough "difference" to justify it... sounds like a nonsense to me. how much are competing cameras in the market, and what do they offer?
 
I'm looking forward to the "How do I post 5K" discussions :)
 
Wow, I haven't read this thread in days. I had no idea it had gotten so heated.

For the record, as far as I'm aware I'm the only DALSA employee that ever posts on Reduser. In fact, I think I'm pretty much the only DALSA employee that posts on any Cinematography forum CML/DCS/.com with any regularity.

I don't know what the perception is, but as far as posting on forums... I'm it. And I have to squeeze it in around all my other duties. I think if I didn't do it, it probably wouldn't be done at all. And believe you me, I've wrestled with thoughts of there truly being any benefit to my efforts. If it weren't for the frequent "thank yous" I receive, I probably wouldn't bother. My goal is really just to make sure incorrect information is not perpetuated.

Here's an example from this discussion.

reality said:
florian, what you're talking about is a frame transfer ccd. it does not by it's nature have any more dynamic range than other technologies. it does have advantages over interline ccds but its not necessarily an ideal technology either. it can't do high frame rates and requires a physical shutter.
Click to expand...

Actually Florian is correct. It's sounds to me as if he is referring to a photogate frame transfer sensor, which especially if he is speaking specifically of the Origin II/Evolution sensors, they do have inherently far more dynamic range than any comparable photodiode based CMOS or CCD sensor, interline transfer or otherwise. It's primarily about fill factor. Which as far as I know, we exceed every other manufacturer by a very wide margin.

Although I suppose to be fair I should say that I can't be 100% sure of that; because AFAIK DALSA is the only Digital Cinema camera manufacturer to publically state our fill factor, so I think it's fair to say.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc
 
Illya Friedman said:
Actually Florian is correct. It's sounds to me as if he is referring to a photogate frame transfer sensor, which especially if he is speaking specifically of the Origin II/Evolution sensors, they do have inherently far more dynamic range than any comparable photodiode based CMOS or CCD sensor, interline transfer or otherwise. It's primarily about fill factor. Which as far as I know, we exceed every other manufacturer by a very wide margin.
www.dalsa.com/dc
Click to expand...


As far as I know the Phantom 4k has a much greater pixel size and fill factor than the origin sensor.

Fill factor only tells you about the maximum number of photons can be collected but it doesn't tell you how efficiently it can transfer the charge (and be less noisy). Both are important for dynamic range. You can have great fill factor but not so great dynamic range. Double the fill factor also
means just 1 stop gain so it's not as great as you're suggesting.
 
reality said:
As far as I know the Phantom 4k has a much greater pixel size and fill factor than the origin sensor.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that information was available. What is the fill factor of the Phantom 65? It is a CMOS sensor. Despite larger pixels I don't think it has a higher fill factor. Are you aware of the actual fill factor of any other digital cinema cameras?

reality said:
Fill factor only tells you about the maximum number of photons can be collected but it doesn't tell you how efficiently it can transfer the charge (and be less noisy). Both are important for dynamic range. You can have great fill factor but not so great dynamic range. Double the fill factor also
means just 1 stop gain so it's not as great as you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

Please consider for just a moment that you are minimizing one of the PRIMARY factors in determining dynamic range of an imaging sensor. Your example cuts both ways, if you can only collect a few photons it really doesn't matter if you can transfer those few photons extremely efficiently.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc
 
Tom said:
Like I said, I could be wrong. But if you look at your own post, Jim says "Red is profitable today." He didn't say "Red One is profitable." His quote could mean anything. And it could be aimed at competitors who are speculating about Red and its profits.

Again I could be wrong, but the math doesn't add up to me for Red One to be profitable at this point.
Click to expand...

4000 units at 25K each is projected sales of 100 million dollars. Seems more like profit than loss to me.
 
it would be nice if RED solved the archival issue with some kind of optical archival system. they could solve it for the whole industry. they seem to be solving all the other pieces of the puzzle with 4k displays , projectors , red ray players , accessories , its like the final piece
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top