RED-One vs. Sony PDW700 Camcorder for TV "only" ??

[George D.]

Because we are a VERY small production company, shooting mainly documentaries of wildlife and natural history for television companies like National Geographic, PBS, Discovery Channel, etc., and we are going to have to use our "own" funds to buy a new camera, it now comes down to what we can afford for our purposes.

We can wait no longer for the Scarlet, so it is now a decision between the RED-One and the Sony PDW700 Camcorder.

Considering taxes, since we live in California, the cost of the RED-One is now more than the Sony (with the exception of a color viewfinder for the camcorder). Considering the 2/3" sensor of the Sony vs. the full frame RED-One, the Sony would suit our needs better because we can use our specialty Super16 lenses, etc., and since we only shoot for television anyway.

At this point, the ONLY advantage I can see for the RED-One is that it comes with a color EVF.

I would greatly appreciate anyone's input, opinions, advise, and recommendations about the benefits or drawbacks of these two cameras.

Thanks.

.

 

[George Butterfield]

At this point, the ONLY advantage I can see for the RED-One is that it comes with a color EVF.

We have a winner!

 

[Ariel Weiss]

You can use these 16mm lenses on the redone in 2k and still have more resolution.I guess the redone mx will give you better dynamic range and option for 4-4.5k resolution when you do want it. overall, I think the images from the red would look a lot better and you will get a lot from using it mostly in 4k with still lenses if you can't afford anything else. And 120fps. look for Steve Gibby, he is the master in that field.

 

[Dave Dessel]

The Ergonomics of the Red One might not be as simple as the Sony, meaning you can't just pull it out of a bag and shoot instantly. It's not an ENG camera It's also not the ideal camera to hand hold.

That being said, the image quality of the Red is off the charts compared to a traditional 3 chip camera. There is no comparison between old school video, and a Red. I say buy a Canon 5D for the short term and wait for the Red. If your goal is to make images that are drop dead amazing you need a Red.

You should also spent some time on this board and do some research on workflow, optics and such.

The Red cinematography is a very deep subject. There is much more at hand then the simple difference of a color viewfinder.

 

[George D.]

You can use these 16mm lenses on the redone in 2k and still have more resolution.I guess the redone mx will give you better dynamic range and option for 4-4.5k resolution when you do want it. overall, I think the images from the red would look a lot better and you will get a lot from using it mostly in 4k with still lenses if you can't afford anything else. And 120fps. look for Steve Gibby, he is the master in that field.

We NEVER hand hold the camera. We always shoot on a tripod.

It is hard for me to believe the RED-One in 2K has better resolution than the Sony.

And, will the video from the RED-One be as "knock dead gorgeous" when shot under Tungston lights ?

.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You do a lot of nature shooting under tungsten lights???

The M-X Red One looks great under tungsten, though I'm not really a believer in shooting 2K on the Red One for an HD finish. You'd be better off getting some Red zooms or something that covers the 35mm sensor.

Now the 2/3" 3-CCD format is probably better suited for nature doc work (other than landscapes) because of the increased depth of field, though the M-X sensor is so low in noise that you can easily shoot at 800 ASA and higher and just stop down a 35mm lens for more depth of field. And the XDCAM format may be simpler to handle for TV work in post rather than transcoding large amounts of R3D files, and the ENG design of the PDW700 may be easier to get out of a duffel bag and onto sticks and shooting quickly, but you'd want to invest in HD-quality B4 ENG zooms, not use manual Super-16 zooms, which may not even focus correctly on a prism-block 3-CCD camera anyway.

But the PDW700 is really a 1080i/720P ENG camera -- sort of "classic HD video" so to speak -- so if you want that cinematic 24 fps look at 1080P and higher, you'd be better off with the Red One. Steve Gibby can tell you all about tricking out the Red One for ENG/EFP shooting, but I also believe he still carries and uses ENG camcorders as well.

 

[Stuart English]

Comparison

Comparison

We NEVER hand hold the camera. We always shoot on a tripod.

Then no on-the-shoulder form factor advantage for the Sony.

t is hard for me to believe the RED-One in 2K has better resolution than the Sony.

It's very similar, at 3K it's no contest, at 3.8K or 4K or 4.5K it's off the charts.

And, will the video from the RED-One be as "knock dead gorgeous" when shot under Tungston lights ?

Absolutely. See the latest RED REEL MX for examples of that.

http://www.red.com/experience/red_reels

 

[Ken Willinger]

Why do people think it wouldn't? That issue was put out to pasture so long ago. I've been using the Red for years with Tungsten. The pictures are far better than anything I've ever produced with a 2/3" chip camera.

 

[Anson Fogel]

We are also a very small production co shooting outdoor sports, 2nd unit for regular TV clients, and mid-tier advertising, as well as producing our own work. I often work as a red DIT or operator, and on other cases, RED is a critical part of our work. But when shooting for TV, we could shoot Sony EFP, and often do! We shoot red run and gun on skis, backpacks, etc as well - when we really want the best possible image.

RED footage at 2K does NOT look as good as a high end 3 chip cam - the results of debayering, and my practical experience bears it out (that is my experience after testing, YMMV). RED should only be shot at 2K if you need to shoot at 100FPS+. Red well shot at 4K+ produces the best moving images available short of 35mm film, but at 2K, it does not.

RED does not "come with" the EVF, it does not "come with" anything when you buy the body. In your/our work a RedRocket is basically required as well as quite a few other things.

If you are not in need of the higher framerates and improved image quality, don't want to invest in new lenses, and are not ready for the learning curve and changes in our post pipe, you should stick with the 700. As you note, its perfectly fine, and in many ways, better, for your needs.

 

[George D.]

You do a lot of nature shooting under tungsten lights???

The M-X Red One looks great under tungsten, though I'm not really a believer in shooting 2K on the Red One for an HD finish. You'd be better off getting some Red zooms or something that covers the 35mm sensor.

Now the 2/3" 3-CCD format is probably better suited for nature doc work (other than landscapes) because of the increased depth of field, though the M-X sensor is so low in noise that you can easily shoot at 800 ASA and higher and just stop down a 35mm lens for more depth of field. And the XDCAM format may be simpler to handle for TV work in post rather than transcoding large amounts of R3D files, and the ENG design of the PDW700 may be easier to get out of a duffel bag and onto sticks and shooting quickly, but you'd want to invest in HD-quality B4 ENG zooms, not use manual Super-16 zooms, which may not even focus correctly on a prism-block 3-CCD camera anyway.

But the PDW700 is really a 1080i/720P ENG camera -- sort of "classic HD video" so to speak -- so if you want that cinematic 24 fps look at 1080P and higher, you'd be better off with the Red One. Steve Gibby can tell you all about tricking out the Red One for ENG/EFP shooting, but I also believe he still carries and uses ENG camcorders as well.

Thanks David, but some of the things you just mentioned is what makes the decision so difficult for us.

Yes we use Tungston lighting, because much of what we do is small animals and macro on sets, combined of course with exteriors and landscapes. If using manual S16 lenses, or any manual still lenses (like Nikon) on the Sony is a problem, then that fact alone blows it out of the running. Yes, it would help with depth of field which we need at maximum extremely importantly, BUT it looks like the limitations are overcome with the RED-One, even in 2K shooting, and we'll just have to dump more light on the subjects. "Wheeeeew!!".

Both cameras are on the National Geographic primary camera approved list, and that is our guide to which cameras we will consider and which we can afford. I guess we're just going to have to find the extra $3,000.oo somewhere.

Thanks again.

.

 

[Adam Eden]

Hi George

I own both a PDW-700, PDW-F800 and a RED MX.
They are very different cameras.

I feel that if I was in your situation I would rent both for a few days and make a decision from there.

But if you are using the camera you purchase for primary reason to shoot for Nat Geo and nothing else, then I would lean to the PDW-F800 as it is a great camera for filming TV programs.
ND wheel built in, over cranking and especially GAMMA curves like the F900 HDCAM.
A good Fujinon 23x Broadcast lens and you are away.

I love my RED and use it primarily for shooting TV commercials and Music videos, but I also shoot TV programs and would always use my XDCAM gear for that. As the main reason is that in Australia people prefer to shoot interlaced and have something tangeable to edit with IE a DISC/Tape.

Shooting longform on RED (FOR A TV SHOW) adds a lot of extra time in processing the files compared to inserting a disc.

 

[George D.]

Hi George

I own both a PDW-700, PDW-F800 and a RED MX.
They are very different cameras.

I feel that if I was in your situation I would rent both for a few days and make a decision from there.

But if you are using the camera you purchase for primary reason to shoot for Nat Geo and nothing else, then I would lean to the PDW-F800 as it is a great camera for filming TV programs.
ND wheel built in, over cranking and especially GAMMA curves like the F900 HDCAM.
A good Fujinon 23x Broadcast lens and you are away.

I love my RED and use it primarily for shooting TV commercials and Music videos, but I also shoot TV programs and would always use my XDCAM gear for that. As the main reason is that in Australia people prefer to shoot interlaced and have something tangeable to edit with IE a DISC/Tape.

Shooting longform on RED (FOR A TV SHOW) adds a lot of extra time in processing the files compared to inserting a disc.

Those are very good points Adam, but what concerns me the most is what everyone is saying about the incompatibility of S16 and still lenses on the Sony because of it's 3 CCDs.

By the time we added all the bells and whistles we'd need to make the Sony PDW-F800 work for us, it would be out of our financial reach, especially when you consider the extra purchase of their color viewfinder.

Exactly what do you have to go through to "process the files" from a RED-One to make it usable by National Geographic ?

.

 

[Adam Eden]

You wouldn't use super 16mm lenses ever on an XDCAM. The broadcast fujinon or Canon are vastly superior than getting an adapter. And you would definately not use still lenses and a 2/3 camera. The 3 CCD's have nothing to do with it.

You can however use 35mm lenses via a P+S Technik adapter, but again if you are after awesome clarity and depth of field (IE Sharpness rather than shallow depth) buy a Fujinon 4.5 x 13 and a 23X they would be the only two lenses you would ever need.

Re the "File process".. Usually the people that work on Nat Geo stuff that I know produce entire programs for them and deliver of HDCAM. So I can't comment on that.

 

[Dan Kanes]

George - if you want me and my mx to come up and visit for your next shoot let me know. With my setup we can use nikon, contax and pl mount glass.

I'm sure we can work something out and I can showcase why you'd want a red.

I could easily become your "house red guy" until epic or scarlet come
Out if you really prefer to own. Owning is not always the beat option though...

Feel free to call me:
Dan three two three four four five zero nine nine nine

 

[George D.]

"And you would definately not use still lenses and a 2/3 camera."

NOT true. I used one of our special Nikon lenses on the Panasonic JHX900 (?) very successfully about a year ago, producing excellent results. Blew the clients away.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Exactly what do you have to go through to "process the files" from a RED-One to make it usable by National Geographic ?

.

If you use a Red Rocket, transcodes will be slightly faster than realtime. They are only $3K now used in the RED STORE and I dont know how people work without them... look, you are shooting nature stuff. That footage can last a lifetime, versus commercial work etc.

Steve Gibby has made a career shooting Nature and will gladly advise you on the "smarts" of shooting 4K as it will FUTURE proof your work.

i.e 5 years from now when 4K is the standard, you can resell your library for more $ versus trying to upres Sony 1080P footage to 4K. The latter will be like upresing SD to HD... only worse.

FInally, there are some incredible M-X sensor bargains for sale on here in the for sale section that should render the difference moot.

Ketch Rossi has a couple kits for sale that the hours are so low, they are praticially new. Andrae Palmer has one that is less. AND Opitek among others are offering lower cost EVF options every month.

This is a big decision, but the M-X clearly has a lot more LIFE in it than a 700 purchase... upfront costs should not be your only consideration... cost of ownership and ROI are key... imho

 

[Samual Murman]

George, I would make sure, above all else, that you're buying a camera your clients are comfortable with, a camera that gives them confidence.

The EX1/3 are starting the be very well thought of at Nat Geo and Discovery. All the pro panny cameras (guessing there may be issues with the AF100 because of the codec) are well thought of, including, we found on our last Discovery show, the original tape-based Varicam. Make sure your clients are willing to embrace the RED, even if their reasons for not doing so are suspect/dumb.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

George, I would make sure, above all else, that you're buying a camera your clients are comfortable with, a camera that gives them confidence.

The EX1/3 are starting the be very well thought of at Nat Geo and Discovery. All the pro panny cameras (guessing there may be issues with the AF100 because of the codec) are well thought of, including, we found on our last Discovery show, the original tape-based Varicam. Make sure your clients are willing to embrace the RED, even if their reasons for not doing so are suspect/dumb.

Sigh, this comment is so 2009. Sorry, but that has not been an issue (at least in our market) for well over a year. Never ever heard a client say. "Oh, you shoot (X) im sorry, I cant use you."

part of the job of owning an innovative camera is EDUCATING the clients... trust me, they will want 4X the resolution and future proof images ... all in the telling

 

[Samual Murman]

Sigh, this comment is so 2009. Sorry, but that has not been an issue (at least in our market) for well over a year. Never ever heard a client say. "Oh, you shoot (X) im sorry, I cant use you."

part of the job of owning an innovative camera is EDUCATING the clients... trust me, they will want 4X the resolution and future proof images ... all in the telling

Then I'm afraid you've never tried to sell Discovery on using the RED as the A-cam of a high end doc. And - I'm not joking here - you don't 'educate' a client like discovery. You work with them.

This reminds me of a conversation I heard years ago of a guy talking about his service on the wrong side of things in WW2. Someone in the audience asked: Why didn't you just quit?. The answer: Sir, you apparently have never served in the military.

That said, we did work hard on reeducating that client. They wouldn't have it, and, I kid you not - and I'm sorry how 2009, or even 2006 this sounds - we ended up being asked to shoot it on tape. Original Varicam. I wasn't happy, but we didn't loose the gig and the show went on.

So, point is: make sure they gear you buy will please your client. That's it.

 

[Jannard]

Then I'm afraid you've never tried to sell Discovery on using the RED as the A-cam of a high end doc. And - I'm not joking here - you don't 'educate' a client like discovery. You work with them.

This reminds me of a conversation I heard years ago of a guy talking about his service on the wrong side of things in WW2. Someone in the audience asked: Why didn't you just quit?. The answer: Sir, you apparently have never served in the military.

That said, we did work hard on reeducating that client. They wouldn't have it, and, I kid you not - and I'm sorry how 2009, or even 2006 this sounds - we ended up being asked to shoot it on tape. Original Varicam. I wasn't happy, but we didn't loose the gig and the show went on.

So, point is: make sure they gear you buy will please your client. That's it.

Sorry to disagree. Maybe most people will just roll over and not educate their client, but mercifully there are some that actually do just that. This whole industry has had to receive an education. Projects that never would think of shooting RED because "it overheats, can't shoot tungsten, and has no post solutions..." have all be re-Reducated. Now, it seems to be the primary choice of most every new feature film with a budget. That didn't happen because everyone sat back and had no opinion.

On the other hand... some institutions have old methodologies that seem hard to give up (like tape). That doesn't mean they won't change. They will. The question is "when?". That depends on how well someone makes a presentation to them why they need to change.... the sooner the better.

Jim