Not upgrading to Weapon

[David Battistella]

Snip.

not only for the limited highspeed possibilites but for the not syncing timecodes created on the recorded clips... It´s good for reviewing but not for editing, in the end transcoding the r3d´s or as weapon, internal proress will pretty much allways win.

bjorn is correct and it is easier and faster than ever to create color graded, timecode accurate, one light Prores to work with. I work in FCP x and I have to say that it is really a dream workflow in that regard. On the fastest macs even one day turnarounds are very possible.

Battistella

 

[Björn Benckert]

bjorn is correct and it is easier and faster than ever to create color graded, timecode accurate, one light Prores to work with. I work in FCP x and I have to say that it is really a dream workflow in that regard. On the fastest macs even one day turnarounds are very possible.

Battistella

Also creating low res proxys for offline editing can be done on pretty low tech computers the 1/4 debayering option is very usefull for this. A lot of times I see DIT´s that sit and stress about rendering times on set while they turn out highly compressed proxy files for offline from full debayer... Which does not make sense at all, I think a lot of them do not know that the low debayering increase the transcoding speed a whole lot.

 

[David Battistella]

Exactly. Once you are making 1080 dailies, 1/4 Rez is the way to go. Even prores LT hold up amazingly well.

But then again I remember editing at AVR2 on AVID and that makes you tubes lowest resolution look like vistavision.

 

[Ivan Cortazar]

Also, one thing that I find quite inconvenient in the weapon upgrade is the fact the as for now I dont see any convenient way to add xlr sound input to the brain. It seems that you can do it by adding the REDVOLT Expander module. At an extra cost of $4,000!!! Really Red, $4,000??. And that adds a bulky extra part on your body if you just need the basic connecions. (xlr, hdmi,sdi, power, timecode) and don't need the redvolt. Also Offhollywood offer some options, but they all seems big/expensive and give much more than a couple of good in-cam sound inputs.

I don't understand why the basic module that ships in the updgrade option, doesn't have xlr. I guess for very light weight and ronnin mode it might be more convenient, but for that you can already have the jetpack. This is a mystery that maybe somebody can help me understand. Hopefully they'll come up with another slim mini base expander that includes xlr and is not over $1,000!. As for me paying that much for xlr, is a total deal breaker. I know many people will say, oh, you always need to have a separate sound guy on set, and record separately and now that the brain has built in scratch mic, is all you need. If you need better inputs, just get the pro module!. Well, in my world, it is so useful to have good in camera sound connections. Ive had them since I owned an hdv camera!

This is something that I just don't get it.
In the redone at least we used to have two mini xlrs. With the Epic we went down, but the form factor revolution justified it.

Now it seems that with the Weopon they "fixed" the design flaws of the epics, and have a great opportunity to add mini side modules with different configurations. But I just dont get why you need to pay for a a very over priced module to just have xlr, which is such an industry standard and in my opinion very useful thing to have on any camera, even if the main target is big studios with separate sound people.

The $5,000 accessories credit of the upgrade would go straight into this module, making the upgrade path still very expensive, as there are so many accessories that I still need to match what we have now with the Epics.

 

[Tarquin Cardona]

Ivan I had this issue ages ago about the XLR and the Redvolt expander. I had asked if we could get it swapped out with the Base expander to get it for at least a slightly lesser price and basically - had my A handed to me for being 'ungrateful.' A lot of the push back I am reading if I were in charge I would be listening. Because the sense I get is the smell of fear. The last thing Red needs is for users to feel that Red is now too cheap or too strapped to do what is appropriate to keep their loyal base in the game. I am not sure what complaining does for us in the long run except make us feel better. But I remember reading on a thread when a commenter said that the worst day for Red will be when users go quiet. Because that means they have left the building.

 

[Guidofilippi]

Hey on the bright side there are surely going to be a shit ton of used parts around from all the trade-ins.

LOL

Guido

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Vista makes a hell of a lot of sense for fashion and big budget corporate and nature/ wildlife and... I'm surprised so many people discount it so readily. Sure, it's an investment. It will require some to acquire new lenses to take advantage of it, many already shoot on DLSR glass, so they're ready in terms of coverage. I shoot mostly high-end corporate stuff, often things that are not very exciting. Vista is going to be a huge advantage and upgrade for me, especially considering the vast majority of my work is hybrid stills/ motion.

Quite honestly, I would be very much on the fence. Even leaning towards not upgrading, if not for the Vista sensor.

Really? I shoot a lot of fashion and super thin depth of field is almost never the look we go for. You want to show the clothes, show the set. Legit fashion is not "glamour video".

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

I can't afford to buy what personally amuses me, I must buy what is important to my clients, and that I can thus amortize because they are willing to pay for it. None of my clients want 8K or Vista Vision, and Prores requests are few and far between (and quite easy to accommodate in other ways).

Things are moving too quickly now, so quickly, and rental rates are so low, that we can no longer amortize our gear before the next thing comes out. I think soon progress in camera tech will stagnate, because not that many people will continue to invest in a money-loosing proposition. As someone else said, I'm not an R&D charity. I can't be.

However, I don't think it's fair to only blame Red for this. The situation comes about from many places. Camera makers are now like a snake eating its own tail, with people like Kinefinity and BM flooding the market with substandard crap (No OLPF, No backfocus, very poor reliability) but that is just good enough to bring rentals prices down for legit tools, and loose a lot of sales for people making great tools like Arri and Red, with customers who can't understand subtle differences and only read (and naively believe) specs.

We were actually thankful that Dragon had the problems it had, so that I could very truthfully say that Epic MX is a better tool, to our clients, for the particular things we do, and that saved us sinking 10K of our already tight profit margins into upgrading.

Remember the MX upgrade? It resulted in having to rent less, not more lights, over M, so it paid for itself very fast (in our case two days of shooting with smaller light rental bill paid for it) But when there is no money saving to be had with an upgrade (like needing less light), the math falls apart really quickly. Will clients pay extra for a Weapon over a Dragon? I doubt it. They don't even pay extra, in Montreal, for a Dragon over Epic MX. So…

All I can say is, I'm glad I don't own a camera making company right now, and I hope that somehow this sorts itself out, so that technological progress can continue, and make business sense not just for the camera companies but the users too.

Of course - all this varies, per person. My wife Amber and my situation is not necessarily anything like yours, and nor is the kind of shots we tend to do, how we do post, budgets, etc.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Really? I shoot a lot of fashion and super thin depth of field is almost never the look we go for. You want to show the clothes, show the set. Legit fashion is not "glamour video".

This has nothing to do with super thin depth of field. If that's the first thing you think of when considering the larger sensor, then this is probably not for you. I'd give RED $100K right now for a brain that could shoot 12~16K. And/ or a brain that was 6x4.5 medium format. My work is high-dollar corporate, signage, architecture, etc... 30~50 MP images are commonplace these days and we're looking to go for more. To shoot this in motion would take our work to the next level. I've got clients already asking me if I'm capable of making full quality video to take advantage of those new 85" 8K touch screens Microsoft announced. If I have 8K Weapon by the end of this year, then the answer to that question will be "yes" and about three projects to fit those requirements should more than ROI the camera.

As for the DOF and looking for it to be a lot thinner than on 6K Dragon, I think those hoping for that are in for a surprise. DOF is still primarily a function of focal length. Sensor size comes into play because that dictates how large of a slice of the projected image, at a given focal length, is captured and presented within our viewing parameters. People have become accustomed to associating larger sensors with shallower DOF because our viewing parameters change very little, regardless of acquisition format, and because changes in sensor size also dictate a change of focal lengths used to achieve the desired FOV and framing. In a nutshell, unless people are going to start using longer focal lengths on a regular basis on 8K Dragon, compared to what they use for similar shots on 6K Dragon, we won't see much difference in DOF properties. Only the small amount presented by compressing the larger FOV into our relatively consistent viewing media.

I do see your perspective. Totally understandable. I also don't rent out my equipment. Used to do that, had to face up to the hard reality and it came to a decision where I either had to grow massively and become the major player rental house in my market. Ugh, didn't want to do that. Or downsize into a more streamlined operation with less equipment and more focused projects and just not worry about trying to do rentals. The latter has proven to be a great decision. I'd love to do more narrative work and creative filmmaking, do a feature or two and all that, but none of that pays the bills. At least not where I'm from. And in my local market, I see people owning EPICs and renting them out for peanuts. There are times it would be cheaper for me to rent other cameras than to pay for the insurance on mine. I don't get it. But the market works in funny ways.

 

[Guidofilippi]

Still cheaper than this.
https://www.abelcine.com/store/Panasonic-VariCam-3700-P2-HD-Camcorder-PN-AJ-VARICAM3700/

Warranty: 5 years (includes sensor array)

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

This has nothing to do with super thin depth of field. If that's the first thing you think of when considering the larger sensor, then this is probably not for you. I'd give RED $100K right now for a brain that could shoot 12~16K. And/ or a brain that was 6x4.5 medium format. My work is high-dollar corporate, signage, architecture, etc... 30~50 MP images are commonplace these days and we're looking to go for more. To shoot this in motion would take our work to the next level. I've got clients already asking me if I'm capable of making full quality video to take advantage of those new 85" 8K touch screens Microsoft announced. If I have 8K Weapon by the end of this year, then the answer to that question will be "yes" and about three projects to fit those requirements should more than ROI the camera.

As for the DOF and looking for it to be a lot thinner than on 6K Dragon, I think those hoping for that are in for a surprise. DOF is still primarily a function of focal length. Sensor size comes into play because that dictates how large of a slice of the projected image, at a given focal length, is captured and presented within our viewing parameters. People have become accustomed to associating larger sensors with shallower DOF because our viewing parameters change very little, regardless of acquisition format, and because changes in sensor size also dictate a change of focal lengths used to achieve the desired FOV and framing. In a nutshell, unless people are going to start using longer focal lengths on a regular basis on 8K Dragon, compared to what they use for similar shots on 6K Dragon, we won't see much difference in DOF properties. Only the small amount presented by compressing the larger FOV into our relatively consistent viewing media.

I do see your perspective. Totally understandable. I also don't rent out my equipment. Used to do that, had to face up to the hard reality and it came to a decision where I either had to grow massively and become the major player rental house in my market. Ugh, didn't want to do that. Or downsize into a more streamlined operation with less equipment and more focused projects and just not worry about trying to do rentals. The latter has proven to be a great decision. I'd love to do more narrative work and creative filmmaking, do a feature or two and all that, but none of that pays the bills. At least not where I'm from. And in my local market, I see people owning EPICs and renting them out for peanuts. There are times it would be cheaper for me to rent other cameras than to pay for the insurance on mine. I don't get it. But the market works in funny ways.

I see what you are saying, but really we do end up using longer focal lengths for the same desired field of view. For example, 24 mm on Red One at 4K is about the same as 35 mm on Epic MX 5K FF. On Medium Format 85mm is actually very wide - so the same f-stop yields shallower depth of field in the same field of view on the larger sensor, because 85 mm at say f2.8 is a much larger physical hole than 24mm at f 2.8. You're right though, we don't need to use VistaVision that way, but I think many people are thinking of that purpose.

You're right, oft forgotten insurance is another reason why owning is often financially less viable than renting. It adds up. We pay over $400 a month (we have more than just cameras though).

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

As for the DOF and looking for it to be a lot thinner than on 6K Dragon, I think those hoping for that are in for a surprise. DOF is still primarily a function of focal length. Sensor size comes into play because that dictates how large of a slice of the projected image, at a given focal length, is captured and presented within our viewing parameters. People have become accustomed to associating larger sensors with shallower DOF because our viewing parameters change very little, regardless of acquisition format, and because changes in sensor size also dictate a change of focal lengths used to achieve the desired FOV and framing. In a nutshell, unless people are going to start using longer focal lengths on a regular basis on 8K Dragon, compared to what they use for similar shots on 6K Dragon, we won't see much difference in DOF properties. Only the small amount presented by compressing the larger FOV into our relatively consistent viewing media.

With all respect I believe this is incorrect. Given the same FOV, a larger sensor will give a more shallow DOF. Focal length also does not matter if you achieve the same magnification grade (which is a function of focal length and focal distance). Here is a 45-page article by a professor from Zeiss:
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln35_en_web_special_bokeh.pdf

Quote: "If we select the suitable focal length to ensurethat we always display the same field withdifferent film formats, then things go just theother way round: reducing the size of thesensor format increases the depth of field,and enlarging the sensor format reducesthe depth of field, as long as we always usethe same aperture setting. "

On the other hand, focal length does matter when it comes to bokeh and how blurry things are that are outside of the DOF. But that is a different discussion (also covered in the Zeiss article).

Cheers
Jonas

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

With all respect I believe this is incorrect. Given the same FOV, a larger sensor will give a more shallow DOF. Focal length also does not matter if you achieve the same magnification grade (which is a function of focal length and focal distance). Here is a 45-page article by a professor from Zeiss:
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln35_en_web_special_bokeh.pdf

Quote: "If we select the suitable focal length to ensurethat we always display the same field withdifferent film formats, then things go just theother way round: reducing the size of thesensor format increases the depth of field,and enlarging the sensor format reducesthe depth of field, as long as we always usethe same aperture setting. "

On the other hand, focal length does matter when it comes to bokeh and how blurry things are that are outside of the DOF. But that is a different discussion (also covered in the Zeiss article).

Cheers
Jonas

He was not contradicting what you say here. I think you misunderstood - unless I did.

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

He was not contradicting what you say here. I think you misunderstood - unless I did.

How is DOF still primarily a function of focal length? It's a function of sensor size, magnification grade and aperture as per the article.

But I guess in a technical way it's correct that focal length is important, just not in a very actionable way. Say you want a CU (=magnification grade), then focal length is irrelevant whereas sensor size and aperture determine the DOF.

 

[Christopher*Seguine]

I'd give RED $100K right now for a brain that could shoot 12~16K. And/ or a brain that was 6x4.5 medium format. My work is high-dollar corporate, signage, architecture, etc... 30~50 MP images are commonplace these days and we're looking to go for more. To shoot this in motion would take our work to the next level. I've got clients already asking me if I'm capable of making full quality video to take advantage of those new 85" 8K touch screens Microsoft announced. If I have 8K Weapon by the end of this year, then the answer to that question will be "yes" and about three projects to fit those requirements should more than ROI the camera.

or you could save $100k and just educate your clients.

The Microsoft HUB displays are not 8k. The 55" is only 1080p and the 84" is UHD, plus they are really designed for collaborative design work - video quality is not that great. You may be confusing the windows 10 announcement for 8k support, but that is just support for Metro apps to scale properly to 8k, currently they are limited to 2560x1600. The HUBs will be on display here in SF next week at the Microsoft build event if you want to check them out.


Moving the envelope forward with 8k capture is great, but as a business plan - 4k display is going to be with us for a little while. I wouldn't expect red to be the only 8k game in town for very long, Sony sat out this year's round of upgraditis, and the 2020 Olympics are in TOKYO.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

or you could save $100k and just educate your clients.

The Microsoft HUB displays are not 8k. The 55" is only 1080p and the 84" is UHD, plus they are really designed for collaborative design work - video quality is not that great. You may be confusing the windows 10 announcement for 8k support, but that is just support for Metro apps to scale properly to 8k, currently they are limited to 2560x1600. The HUBs will be on display here in SF next week at the Microsoft build event if you want to check them out.


Moving the envelope forward with 8k capture is great, but as a business plan - 4k display is going to be with us for a little while. I wouldn't expect red to be the only 8k game in town for very long, Sony sat out this year's round of upgraditis, and the 2020 Olympics are in TOKYO.

Since, at normal viewing distances (Imax is closer -but how many of you are working on Imax projects?) , most people can't even see resolution above 2K, 8K seems like, I'm sorry but... huge overkill. How much post reframing do you really need to do? This is all getting kind of silly. I have never been a fan of cinema technology for its own sake - it should serve an artistic purpose that is meaningful to viewers and set efficiency. Then again some forms of post might benefit from that many more pixels . Not sure. Likely they would - but that's an acquisition issue not a delivery issue. 8K delivery is ludicrous.

 

[Neal_Norton]

DOF is still primarily a function of focal length. Sensor size comes into play because that dictates how large of a slice of the projected image, at a given focal length, is captured and presented within our viewing parameters. People have become accustomed to associating larger sensors with shallower DOF because our viewing parameters change very little, regardless of acquisition format, and because changes in sensor size also dictate a change of focal lengths used to achieve the desired FOV and framing. In a nutshell, unless people are going to start using longer focal lengths on a regular basis on 8K Dragon, compared to what they use for similar shots on 6K Dragon, we won't see much difference in DOF properties. Only the small amount presented by compressing the larger FOV into our relatively consistent viewing media.

.

No, Jeff that is not correct. The focal length of the lens does not change the depth of field for any given field of view. For example a medium close up using a 50mm lens at F.4 will have the same depth of field as an MCU using a 200mm at F.4. The background will be more compressed but the depth of field is the same. The size of the sensor on the other hand does have an impact on the depth of field for a given field of view.

Kind regards,

Neal Norton

 

[Zeb B]

No, Jeff that is not correct. The focal length of the lens does not change the depth of field for any given field of view. For example a medium close up using a 50mm lens at F.4 will have the same depth of field as an MCU using a 200mm at F.4. The background will be more compressed but the depth of field is the same. The size of the sensor on the other hand does have an impact on the depth of field for a given field of view.

Kind regards,

Neal Norton

Really? Semantics then? Kilgroe . . . I got your back here

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

It has to do with physics and facts, not semantics.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

No, Jeff that is not correct. The focal length of the lens does not change the depth of field for any given field of view. For example a medium close up using a 50mm lens at F.4 will have the same depth of field as an MCU using a 200mm at F.4. The background will be more compressed but the depth of field is the same. The size of the sensor on the other hand does have an impact on the depth of field for a given field of view.

Kind regards,

Neal Norton

Actually no. Not true. The size of hole at 200MM at f4 is much larger than the hole at 24mm otherwise you could not take light readings without inputting the lens, because a long lens, in a way, is a form of cropping out of light gathering, so the hole is bigger to give you more light, to compensate for the fact that you are seeing a narrower slice of the light emitting world outside the camera when your lens is longer.

Bigger hole = thinner depth of field. This is why a 100mm lens at f2.8, when used with a doubler, effectively gives you a 200mm f4 lens, not a 200mm f2.8 lens.

If you think about it, otherwise your larger sensor claims would not make sense, because a smaller sensor is just a cropped sensor view, and if depth of field difference were equal, you could put a 2.8 16mm wide angle on lens a 16mm camera, and get as much depth of field differences as with a 50 mm 2.8 on an s35 sensor. This is not what happens.

Another example, on a EX1 or EX3, the lens goes to f1.8 - so how come I get almost no depth of field differentiation when I am zoomed all the way out? Because zoomed out, to give me the same field of view as 33 mm with s35 sensor size, I am actually at 6 mm on the lens, and the tiny 1/2 sensor is filming a crop of the center of the lens, and showing me a 35 mm field of view that way.

A 6mm lens has a tiny, tiny hole at f 1.8 - like the size of hole at f16 (I'm guessing, have not done exact math) one an actual, "normal" 35 mm.

This myth has come about because when you get farther from a subject, differences in depth of field require greater distance differences, and so it has confused people.