Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Red one today

Luka Sanader

Luka Sanader

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
387
Reaction score
54
Points
28
Location
Montreal
today when we have bunch of new cameras: Alexsas, Dragons, F55 and bunch of cheep and cameras that in there right offer unique features like A7s or S16 Blackmagic; when we have new "game changing" camera announced every few months... is there stil place for Red One?

i shot several things wth One and MX but it was differant time back then, in a first place because i was still shooting film and I was in digital denial, hoping that fill will be forever. in full honesty i didnt like Red One, not because of how it performed but what it represented to me at that time. i guess i was scared :)

Looking back it was good camera for that time. But by today standards, how is it holding compared to some new technology? used URSA and used One MX are about the same price, but is One already "digital vintage" and therefore bad investment?

if i had Red One at the moment, i would not care less and i would shoot with it. but if i am about to spend 5k is it worth putting money in to?

why am i asking? well i was offered One MX for 4k. Basically i shoot my projects, i love RAW and for all comercial projects i rent (mostly Alexsa)... so just by this MX will fit but so will Ursa and int the way One MX will fit better because i have a lot of BNCR and OST-19 lenses.


what do you guys think?

thanks
 
Personally, I've never understood how cameras that made gorgeous images on Hollywood films five years ago somehow cease to be able to make gorgeous images just because there are two or three newer generations of equipment available. As to whether it's a bad investment or not, only you can answer that, as there are so many variables. What accessories are included in that $4k? What's the best platform for your workflow and style of shooting? How does the R1MX fit in with your other gear, or would a newer camera be a better choice? What are your media needs - is the R1MX CF or SSD, and how does one or the other affect your shooting options, and compare to e.g. the Ursa?

Digital vintage, in the sense of there being newer and fancier cameras available, and in the sense that the R1MX is no longer at cutting edge of cinema technology? Sure. In the sense of the images you can make on it being somehow inferior or not up "today's standards"? Hell no.

So to the original question - a good investment or not - impossible to say. But no matter what route you take, if you focus on doing beautiful work, ultimately 99,9% of your viewers won't really care what camera the piece was shot on. :smile5:

Cheers!
 
Image quality is good, but it has some downsides.

Weight
Boot time of 30 secs
Higher compression may show some artifacting
It gets really hot
No warrenty - If it breaks down it'll cost you the price of a new second hand Red One to get it repaired
It's used so who knows what it's been through
 
Dunkan Wolf said:
Image quality is good, but it has some downsides.

Weight
Boot time of 30 secs
Higher compression may show some artifacting
It gets really hot
No warrenty - If it breaks down it'll cost you the price of a new second hand Red One to get it repaired
It's used so who knows what it's been through
Click to expand...
Weight - Only an issue if you are doing lots of handheld. Otherwise I have never found the weight to be a problem. Then again, I keep mine rigged fairly light.

Boot Time - 60 seconds is about the best you'll get

Compression - RC42 is equivalent to 7:5:1 on the REDcode compression scale. So, yes it's not as clean as Epic compression but if you give it the light it wants and don't shoot all of your scenes in dense forests I think it's a good codec even by today's standards.

Heat on the R1 is always interesting. Some claimed their cameras overheated yet I was able to use mine all day in 95 degree weather. Perhaps it came down to individual cameras. The body itself does get hot.

Warranty would be the biggest reason to not get one now. It is a risk.

Some people flat out don't like the images this camera produces, even when the lighting is optimal. To each their own. I will probably end up doing a test of the Ursa 4.6k vs the R1 4.5K when I'm able to get a hold of one. I think it will be very interesting.
 
You are right Sir ! at the end of a day no one cares what camera did you use and how did you make it as long as it good film. Last night i watched Kevin Smith Red State shoot on Red One, still looks good and that fill would be the same if it was shoot today with Dragon or Alexsa...

on the other hand as a cinematographer you want to get equipment working for you in order to tell better story and there i wish to get some things that will make my work look better. if i can shoot Raw i will because that will make a differance at the end of the day... in general i dont like to hoard equipment, specially electronics, because i am forced to use them and sometimes that's not a best choice for the project. several times i did that sort of thing: rent equipment from my self just because i need to pay it of, knowing thats not best option for a project. on the other hand its good to have something that i can use on small or non budget projects; something to make my life easy, not running to rentals for every small job and so on...

i used to work way more 10 yers ago then today, so even if i would to win Loto i cant justify having Epic Dragon; it would be a waist of resources! on the other hand if i am about to spend 5 k on a camera that is build like walkman or kitchen appliance (Mini URSA) and has a life expectancy of 2 years max i think its legit to consider One MX as alternative.

At the end of a day it moms down to my workflow and equipment that i already have. At the moment only camera i have is A7s, that i really dont like but i am enjoying ability to shoot under existing light at 12000ASA and just for that i will keep it for days to come. i already have Angenieux 25-250mm, small 3 lens set Cooke Panchro (work in progress) and spherical Lomo set that i absolutely love. Non of my current lenses are PL (BNCR and OST-19) and just for that Mini Ursa will be pain in the neck. i am looking at around 5k worth of macjinig to turn everything to PL and yes that would be grate added value for my lenses, however that is not an investment i need to make now. One more stong argument for One MX

this One MX is local and i will go and see it, see how it "talks" to me.

thanks for your input i really appreciate this
 
Still a owner of a RED One M and have been for 3 years now. I have wanted in the RED ecosystem since 2007 and was finally able to get one in '12. I was so excited to have it and still am today. I personally never liked the MX sensor, I always thought it was too scientific and clean. I never liked the skintone reproduction on it, not to say I haven't used one, but I have always liked the M more.

Steve's right give it the light it needs and it will make some beautiful images for you. While the M isn't the most popular camera anymore, I still get work with it shooting interviews and music videos when they can't afford a dragon or an epic but I use it on every personal project and friends project I can and no one ever has a complaint. It still makes beautiful images.

My camera is fantastic there are many like it but this one is mine. I now have a Scarlet-Dragon on order, the first new camera I have bought since the 5D Mk2. It is not what you have, it's how you use it. Market yourself, not the camera.
 
Derek, I know Gunleik is always mentioning his affinity for the M over the MX. I think in some ways I have kind of forgotten about the M look. I'll have to dig through footage and compare. There's also old footage I'd like to try new color science on and see what improvements can be made. The fun of RAW.
 
Steve that is exultant point made. M from 2007 wont produce same image as it did back in the days and as well it will have different workflow.
 
M baby, M... ;)

It has its quirks and is less allowing as to DR than MX, but when shot within its limits. That was a great camera with beautiful skintones.

Remember the milk girls!
 
Gunleik Groven said:
M baby, M... ;)

It has its quirks and is less allowing as to DR than MX, but when shot within its limits. That was a great camera with beautiful skintones.

Remember the milk girls!
Click to expand...
I still have that Milk Girls footage. :-)

So, now you're making me feel all nostalgic about the M camera. One thing that also changes between the two versions was the OLPF. If I remember correctly, the M had a less aggressive IR cutoff correct? It's been a while, so trying to remember the details.
 
Just watched our first feature, "Works in Progress" two nights ago for the first time in several years. It was shot on two original M cameras. And, MAN, was I ever impressed with how good that film looked.

We shot our second feature with the MX, and I'm finishing up the color on that one right now. It looks great, too.

We are going to be shooting our third feature next spring. Guess what? We'll be using the old girl yet again.

Any lacks in our filmmaking have nothing to do with the camera, that's for sure.

Stephen
 
Stephen, what did you notice between the 2 Red One versions having shot 2 features with them now? I think opinion differs on the aesthetics of those cameras. Some felt MX was better overall and others like Derek and Gunleik feel the M looked better when shot properly. For me personally I feel I've lost track of the original's look. I do know that I rarely push the MX into troublesome territory. Always lighting to ISO 320-800.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
I still have that Milk Girls footage. :-)

So, now you're making me feel all nostalgic about the M camera. One thing that also changes between the two versions was the OLPF. If I remember correctly, the M had a less aggressive IR cutoff correct? It's been a while, so trying to remember the details.
Click to expand...

I would love to get a copy of the milk girls again. I lost that so long ago.
 
You know, the looks of our two films are so different (one being a romantic comedy and one being a drama) that's it's really hard to tell what the differences really are. I'd have to leave that to the real DP experts. All I know is I sure do love the One. I'll really miss the old girl when we retire her after our next film.

Stephen
 
The Social Network looked great in 2010, it looks great in 2015, and it'll look great in 30 years. Still an awesome camera.
 
The URSA does not even have an OLPF, bad for skin texture (makes actors look older as their pores and wrinkles are emphasized) let alone it rears an ugly moire head here and there, and the 3rd party Mosaic OLPF looks like a 35mm adapter from 2005.

RED RAW has a LOT of info in it, and is very light. 42 Redcode looks great.

I still use our Red One as a B cam on high budget commercials. WHy not? It's better than most new cameras sold today in many ways.

Heat and all that have never actually been a real problem. Weight is perfect for actual use and lighter than very popular Alexa. It's not a DSLR.

ISO 2000 not really a problem on One MX - once in a while you have to slap on some noise reduction to the darks at 2000 - how hard is that? It's actually more sensitive than Dragon with SKin Tone OLPF, by a full stop, and about the same as an Alexa.

That said M was a real problem. It cost too much to light vs Alexa and lacked dynamic range. NX has never let me down. This whole thing that MX is too clinical I find odd and not based in hard facts about the technologies. I you color grade MX can look far better than anything M put out as there is more info in there and less noise, plus the noise in MX is not fixed pattern like M and current BM cameras 0 which si uglier noise which post noise reducers don't catch very well. On top of that, the M sensor emphasized freckles and age spots much more than any other camera I have ever seen.. It was a real problem.
 
thanks guys, its good to put things in a perspective.

Robert- i understand your point. MX look did become a standard and if we look at films shot on Red most of them are MX. on the other hand, talent skin will be more affected with a way we light and lenses that we choose then what sensor can set for us. Using Kinoptik 100mm or Deep Feald Panchro on a one side and 100mm MP or UP on same MX will render totally different skin texture, spots, and skin tone... i am shooting human faces for last 25 years, form Large format photography to cinema and in all this time i never had two skins that are the same or face's that are the same. for sure it would be grate if there was a quick fix for this and if camera sensor is the one making skin looks beautiful.

again my digital experience is really limited, compared to you guys who are shooting Red since day one. All feature's i shoot ware on 35mm and all the things i shoot on Red and Alexsa ware commercials and music videos and therefore all heavily post produced, colored and loaded with effects. i would love to try shoot digital straight up, like a we did with film prior to DI pipe line and see how this actually looks. I am afraid that it will look way more like TV then anything.
Maybe, probably, i am wrong in this but i really think that Digital Cinema cameras have way less specific look then film ever had and that today we are setting the look more with a grade and lens then we are limited with a choice of a sensor.
 
Every camera has it's quirks. Even the latest and greatest. We bought the BT R1MX deal a few years ago and we're still getting great images out of it. Sure, it's heavy. Yes, it's slow to boot. But for the majority of setups, on sticks, it works like a charm. The only camera that I'm considering selling it for would be the FS7, but it would cost more AND I'd lose some functionality. I'm not a huge fan of RED's current lineup. Just too expensive for our needs. Saying that, I think it's hard to fault the Red One and it's lifespan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top