Nikon to Acquire US Cinema Camera Manufacturer RED.com, LLC

[Josh Rainey]

This might not apply 1 to 1, but it should be noted that Oakley was sold to a foreign multinational, and hasn't really changed its vibe since then.

Different industries and Oakley was much bigger. It's not Jannard's first rodeo.

I did like Red for being indy and American, but some of the positive scenerios being floated do sound appealing.

Glad I resisted RF glass. Z mount is not really prevalent on all the new mirrorless cine glass. But I wasn't aware you could adapt other mirrorless mounts to Z. Sounds like the most flexible.

 

[AndreasOberg]

I've witnessed the opposite, maybe that's why I'm more of a pessimist in this case. But then again, I've been the forum pessimist for years now. I just think that there's a lot of bias towards the positive due to an overwhelming trust in Red. But I've seen questionable choices made by Red in the past and I'm not sure this was made in the interest of Red, but instead a way to opt out of the market before it gets saturated by cheaper cameras with cinema camera capabilities. It's telling that we see this at a time when movies like "The Creator" gets made.

I think that can definitely be the case. Just thought I would point out that in my experience it can also be a good thing so it is not just black and white. More work on software and more accessories for Red would be great. I think they peaked a bit in the Red Epic area where there was so many things one could buy, I miss that a bit (but yes they were not cheap).

 

[Han Vogen]

I’m feeling like the parties over. I wouldn’t hold my breath for new models. Be grateful for what remaining firmware updates we see. Things are likely going to get dodgy from here on out. These are uncharted waters.

In the upside, Sony’s new full frame global shutter is reported to have exposure latitude that matches the V-RAPTOR 8K VV… so that likely means we can expect big things for their cinema variants moving forward. Always good to have options if things seem uncertain.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think that can definitely be the case. Just thought I would point out that in my experience it can also be a good thing so it is not just black and white. More work on software and more accessories for Red would be great. I think they peaked a bit in the Red Epic area where there was so many things one could buy, I miss that a bit (but yes they were not cheap).

I’m feeling like the parties over. I wouldn’t hold my breath for new models. Be grateful for what remaining firmware updates we see. Things are likely going to get dodgy from here on out. These are uncharted waters.

In the upside, Sony’s new full frame global shutter is reported to have exposure latitude that matches the V-RAPTOR 8K VV… so that likely means we can expect big things for their cinema variants moving forward. Always good to have options if things seem uncertain.

Main thing I go by is to try and decode the intentions of this acquisition, beyond marketing press releases and whatever is written about it and pierce through the biases that exist. Essentially, if I were the head of Nikon, what, in my most selfish perspective will I gain from this acquisition? What do I gain in being part of the competition against Arri and Sony? Subsequently, what do I gain if I were to just assimilate the tech into Nikon's own lineup of cameras?

Key strategy I would look at is how cameras are developing overall. Keeping within the realm of cinema cameras seems like an uphill battle with the dominance of Sony and Arri in that area. Further down towards the mid-range prosumer video and still photography mirrorless cameras there's a huge dominance by Canon and Sony. And a lot of the revenue for Red comes from customers who use the cameras for purposes that could very well be rendered redundant by things like Sora AI in a few years. So where does Red fit into this?

A key area that is untapped is to actually just disrupt the entire industry and break it. If I were head of Nikon I would produce a Nikon branded mirrorless camera, maybe even a "box camera" with tech from Red; 8K, Global shutter 16-17 stops of DR, large format, 60 fps top, R3D file format; priced at $2000-$3000. Do a first generation of it that might not break even, but will kick off Nikon into a disruption of the industry that could very well put Sony and Canon into an awkward position. Remember, Red had to be careful with lowering prices on their cameras so as to not disrupt their own lineup and anger customers, Nikon can just ignore that and start from "scratch".

Doing that, then focus on influencer marketing of that camera, pushing the independent film focused tech into a ridiculously cheap solution for cinema, factory mass produce it, getting a Netflix approved stamp, co-fund a major streaming show or movie shot on the camera, focusing much of the marketing on that process (much like the marketing of "The Creator"). Maybe even have a rebranding version of Nikon into "Nikon Cinema" to really drive in a stake into the hearts of Canon and Sony.

None of that features Red being anything other than stripped for parts and its R&D merged into Nikon's own product line. But it makes a lot of sense as a strategy when looking at how the camera market is doing. All companies are right at the edge of releasing a disruptive camera that's low-cost but high in cinema features and quality, but they're not doing it because it would eat into their own lineup of cameras and planned progress. But Nikon doesn't have anything like that, which means they can just do whatever disruptive act they like without risk and only gain, especially since they need something powerful to regain relevance against Sony and Canon.

It's logical as a strategy, but it would also mean the end of Red and the start of "Nikon Cinema". That's why I'm skeptical that Red will keep going like nothing happened. And I think Nikon will eventually absorb Red entirely.

 

[Les Hillis]

I'm generally positive and optimistic about these developments.

I think Nikon is genuine in their stated aims and reasons for buying RED and see no reason to assume they're going to take a 'buy it out and gut it' or 'put it on the shelf so no-one else can use it' corporate-take-over type approach, which, for one thing, usually only applies when the buyer already has a competing product in the same market (like Sony and Minolta did). If Nikon already had a presence in the Digital Cinema Camera space or had been trying to get into it (like Canon), I'd be getting more of a 'hostile' loot-and-pillage vibe from it, but I'm not getting that impression. Not sure buying the RED brand out and then ditching it for some kind of Nikon Digital Cinema brand makes much sense either, from a business or marketing perspective.

Without further information, the insinuation that Jim and Jarred are just cashing in and bailing out while they still can is also a bit of an insult imo. Even if they did personally want to step out of the business, to suggest they wouldn't hand it over to others who could continue the RED legacy as part of the Nikon group of companies is also a bit insulting and doesn't line up with all they've managed to do up to this point.

I definitely think there's an aspect of 'reading the writing on the wall' behind these moves on RED's part, but there's more than one thing written on that wall.

I get the part where it looks like RED are now just a division of Nikon, but to me this looks more like an extension of RED's working with third parties approach that they've basically had to take over the years (in order to stay focused on their core aims and not diversify and grow the company into other areas). And I think in that regard, choosing to integrate with Nikon is the best move they could have made, and that Nikon could be the best company they could have chosen for that, especially when looking at it from a global perspective.

The degree of autonomy RED continues to have is an open question, but it's not like RED haven't been answerable to the bean-counters all along. Even when Jim was bank-rolling part of it at the start, it still required accountability and responsible decision-making to keep the whole thing going. That same way of making the company viable now just has another layer of accountability as it becomes subject to Nikon's checks and balances, while at the same time, potentially benefitting from the resources and expertise of that same company, who now have a vested interest in making sure what RED have already achieved is built upon and expanded.

RED and Nikon both have a huge opportunity here to walk the talk and actually push the development of Digital Cinema and stills camera's in ways they can't do alone and that no other company can do either.

How it all translates into products we end up being able to buy is obviously a complicated process with no guaranteed outcome, but at this point and based on the limited information we have so far, I'm looking forward to seeing what RED and Nikon can come up with.

 

[andrewhake]

The only unsurprising thing about this acquisition is some of your speculation and reactions to it.

 

[Mike McEntire]

It has been an amazing ride. Thanks Jim and Jarred and the rest of the folks who have made Red what it is so far. Looking forward to what will come next. Congratulations!

 

[Ryan Chernin]

*Sora AI is released*

*Land and Jannard sell RED*

Yep nothing to see here

 

[Tom Hanmer]

“Everything is subject to change”. It’s been an amazing wild ride, feel like it might calm down a bit now!
I can’t believe how much change Red has inflicted on the industry and how much the company has empowered us all to be able to play with the big boys whatever camera we use. 15 years ago I wouldn’t have believed the images I am now able to make. Thank you all at red for mixing it up. Hope the company still continues to be a disruptor.

 

[TYLER STOOKSBURY]

We can speculate on things till the cows come home. We do have a little bit of an attachment to the tools of our trade. When ever I capture something awesome, I do think a lot about how the tools im using got me there and how they contributed to the final image. Speculating about what direction those tools heading is a natural thing.

Just personally, I fail to see how this will hurt the camera industry. I think in order to be competitive, RED as a company wasn't positioned to be able to keep up with some of the Tech Giants in terms of AI and can benefit the camera industry. Nikon is. I can't speak for anyone in leadership at RED, but i think they're looking at what they've made, and this seems like a way to give it, its best chance to continue to propser, while also getting what I assume is a great paycheck in the process.

My personal hope is that RED is still some what separate from Nikon, and just benefits from Nikons Funding and R&D.

*Sora AI is released*

*Land and Jannard sell RED*

Yep nothing to see here

Speaking of this, Im really interested to see where we go with generative AI. Someone mentioned to me that eventually we will be able to feed an AI Camcorder VHS Footage and that i'll be able to make it look like it was shot on a high end cinema camera.

I think purely AI Generated footage will make 95% of stock footage come from AI. There will be some things that you will still want the real thing for however. For example I needed a shot of the World of Coca Cola in Atlanta for a project for Coca-Cola one time. I was able to source it as stock footage, however Im not certain that even a really good AI version of it, would've cut it. No matter how realistic it looks, it's not the real thing. You also have to consider that maybe legally, AI will not be allowed to generate that. That goes down to even things that are AI modified. The AI will have to fill in gaps in your footage one way or another. At least for now there will still be a need for solid source material. At least modern cellphone footage in a situation where it performs well.

I expect the Documentary world to change a bit, but for some styles you're still going to need to be on set filming those things. When you need it to be real and not a re-enactment type thing, you're going to be on set. When you need to capture real and raw human emotion, I don't believe that generating that with AI is going to be something that has the same impact as the real thing. It's not genuine and we are all going to face some ethical dilemma's in this space.

It's going to be a very interesting few years to see exactly what generative AI does to our industry. Make no mistake, for some it's going to be a bloodbath. But I think the need to have quality cinema cameras is not going to go away. To bring this back full circle, Nikon as a company is better positioned to figure out how to integrate AI powered technologies. Especially now with the most powerful compressed raw codec in their portfolio.

 

[Adrian Sims]

This is a pretty big deal for both companies and for us, the filmmaking community. I'm curious to see how Nikon's expertise in photography meshes with RED's innovation in cinema cameras. Better user experience? More resources? Hopefully, it means we'll see some cool new tech and improvements in camera systems. I can see future Red cameras having a low retail price. Let's keep an open mind and see where this partnership leads us.

 

[Rick Lang]

There seem to be a few possible directions that may each gain strength or may die off. Think of the evolutionary branches of the animal kingdom as an example. It not easy to predict a winner. When you’re recognized as a top predator like a saber tooth tiger, why did you not survive? Homo sapiens number in the billions, but we know how delicate and fragile complex life forms are when faced with a simple but voracious virus.

In that analogy, perhaps the sudden reliance on computational software is the latest threat, like a virus, that forces us to rethink the status quo of our imaging tools that continue to evolve over the last few hundred years that improved upon the limitations of the original pinhole view.

Red began as a disruptive force in that evolution, in terms of how cinema was done and defined an evolutionary branch for digital cinema that was affectionately termed a revolution. In less than a generation of time, it’s astonishing what a smartphone camera can do at one extreme of computational imagery from tiny photosites working with a SOC using nanometer sized circuits. We know today that images from smartphones have significant limitations too, but will we be able to ignore what disruptions a year or two from today will bring?

Right now we’re thinking a lot about right now, today, and maybe tomorrow. I’m confident that Nikon, who seemed to own the high end of 35mm stills cameras and lenses when I was young, is looking years ahead in making this acquisition yesterday. It’s possible they’re thinking it’s their turn to be a disruptor. But their time is not tomorrow. Every voyage begins with the first step.

We are blessed with a plethora of options from competing companies, where many may be seen in retrospect as disrupters in one way or another. Blackmagic Design has been and may continue to be a price disrupter. Nikon will be well aware that price may be their avenue to disrupt the cinema world, but price combined with support. Yes, ARRI holds a special place atop the mountain with their approach to innovation and probably superior support. Would Nikon have the resources annd aspirations to make a play for that level of excellence?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

In terms of branding, Nikon's marketing peeps will make the call on whether to keep the RED name in the mix. If they think it will have a halo effect enabling them to charge a larger price premium they'll keep it, either whole or something like NikonRED. If polishing their existing brand equity as Nikon is the goal, then something like Nikon Cinema would make sense. Any known brand has a financial value in and of itself, a few years ago I read that the Coca-Cola brand was worth $500 million USD as an asset on their books - just the brand - bottling plants, distributors, etc not included.

However the branding goes, it will be interesting to see what market segments Nikon wants to enter with new products that utilize the RED tech they now have. Would there be enough sales volume to justify the investment required to keep up with ARRI and Sony? How did that work out for Canon and Panasonic? Unless I've just been on the wrong sets, they did not get serious traction. To hazard a guess, and because they are used to selling in volume, I'd expect them to aim at the market that needs something more pro than even the best cell phone camera, but still a step below ARRI and Sony CineAlta. What is the right price point for that strata? IMO, $3-5K is the sweet spot, but I'm not privy to marketing surveys on the subject.

Note: New school AI tools have the potential to "fix" some of the issues that reveal the limitations of second tier motion cameras. If Nikon can sell a camera for $3,000 that generates a sweetened image on par with current top end RED, Sony, ARRI offerings... My example is the camera tech in the iPhone which compensated for the limitations of tiny optics via inversion maps and other DSP tools to pump out an image so good that all but the pickiest photographers gave up on carrying around a DSLR, point and shoot or new school mirrorless. Even if Nikon could go toe to toe with ARRI and Sony, is there a large enough market that the juice is worth the squeeze?

It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon is primarily interested in RED's engineers, patents, etc - not the company. I can also see then leveraging their competencies to put a disruptive product into the mix. As Christoffer notes, companies like Sony are in no rush to undercut their existing product lines. OTOH, Nikon could sell a new lineup at low margin to grab market share then make it pay off selling high performance lenses with well integrated AI. Phil noted that Nikon is the 3rd largest camera company on the planet, but are they still selling as many premium (high margin) lenses as they did 10 years ago?

Cheers - #19

 

[dio Zafi]

I'm sure both companies will do great....I hope "Red" stays Made in America.. my favorite digital camera... along with my favorite film stock manufacturer which is also Made in America. (maybe it's time now for a new super 16mm cam)

 

[Dustin Schmidt]

I can see future Red cameras having a low retail price.

I keep seeing this comment, or some variation of it, regarding the RED acquisition. I can assure you, no company buys another company's exclusive tech and then says, "How can we use this to make less money."

I don't see things getting cheaper for the most part. Some features may migrate over, but this acquisition is not for our benefit, it's for Nikon's.

 

[Javier Badet]

Jim and Jarred right now!



I'm just going to say good for them! Hopefully Jarred posts and updates won't stop! This is what I think it makes a company good, REAL interaction and feedback with users.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Jarred is live on Scott Balkum's Youtube channel.

 

[David Collard]

If I were a betting man, Jim might soon resurrect the "Hydrogen" in some shape or form to target cameras like the Sony FX3. He had already designed lens with the notion that things were getting smaller and more powerful. This could happen more easily with newfound partners and connections in Japan and Red as a wholly owned division of Nikon. So conceivably RED will go on in the higher-end and a new "Hydrogen-like" camera line, subject to Nikon approval and negotiations, will become a reality with either Jim or Nikon at the helm.

 

[DJ Meyer]

The doom and gloom crowd reflexively jumping out of the window is hysterical.

Go for a walk outside. Touch some grass.

Then go and shoot something amazing with your Raptor.

If Nikon shits the bed with Red as a subsidiary, then next time you're ready for a new camera in 3-4 years, buy something else.

Life will go on

 

[lumiere]

Correct, but it seems that people don't understand what wholly-owned subsidiary means. And we have zero idea about any terms that are hinted at.

It's um... in Nikon's best interests to keep RED growing as well. From a market point of view, RED had 4 of their biggest years likely majorly fueled by Komodos mainly and certainly Raptor playing a big role.

I'm sticking by the obvious. Nikon gains a lot of tech. RED gains a lot of resources. Nikon is who owns all of that not. RED as a subsidiary just got access to so much it's freaky.

I'll just put one crazy thought out there. RED hasn't implemented H.265 in cameras mainly due to licensing costs (ironical), but Nikon being big has put that in their cameras. So for those that want that, I think that's now possible financially speaking.

Nikon revenue is $4.5B
RED’s revenue is $160M. At a 10X valuation RED is a $1.6B acquisition (seems high). NIKON can shut down RED, own more of the market, the tech, the patents. Can a ZXX with RED tech convert some RED customers and recapture market shares from Canon? I think so. It’s a good move for them.
Also, I don’t see Jarred reporting to the NIKON board… I could be wrong.