RED review by wildlife cameraman

[Stefan Christou]

Really interesting article. Who in his position would not evaluate all the options before investing in a camera system? I bet dinner that of he buys a camera he'll buy an Epic

 

[Charles Angus]

Steve, I think this is the point here. The author of the article pointed to things being problems that people experienced with shooting RED overcame years ago. If he had researched a little better, he could have overcame those same problems and had a more positive experience.

[snip]

But sure, if you are someone like the author of the review, then obviously the R-1 is not a great choice.

From my experience with the RED, I would say the article is very fair. When you compare the RED to, say, a Panasonic 2700, there are a lot of things that stand out as potential shortcomings.

When you rent a 2700, the camera is ready to go. It will have a lens attached, it will have the EVF attached, the battery plate is built-in, and the P2 recorder is built-in. Quite literally, all you have to do is slap on a battery and push in a card and you're shooting within 5 seconds. The hand-held experience is comfortable and well-balanced, out-of-the-box as well.

Try that with a RED - take the body out of the box, throw it on your shoulder, and hit roll. Even if you have your RED totally built in the box (something I've never seen), you WILL have to wait for the sucker to boot. If it boots, which it doesn't always.

I have never had a Panasonic ENG cam overheat. I have never had a codec fault on a Panasonic ENG cam. For that matter, I've never even heard of anyone having those problems. That said, I've never had those problems with a RED, but I have heard a lot of stories about it.

Can you make a RED work in run-and-gun or fast-paced live scenarios? Absolutely. And you can make some great images.

But to say that the author of this article should just have researched better is bull. The RED has issues for this kind of thing. Not insurmountable, but there are possibly better tools out there for this kind of thing.

Don't get me wrong - I shoot and love the RED. But if I were shooting live events, I would shoot Varicam.

 

[Elsie N]

From my experience with the RED, I would say the article is very fair. When you compare the RED to, say, a Panasonic 2700, there are a lot of things that stand out as potential shortcomings.

When you rent a 2700, the camera is ready to go. It will have a lens attached, it will have the EVF attached, the battery plate is built-in, and the P2 recorder is built-in. Quite literally, all you have to do is slap on a battery and push in a card and you're shooting within 5 seconds. The hand-held experience is comfortable and well-balanced, out-of-the-box as well.

Try that with a RED - take the body out of the box, throw it on your shoulder, and hit roll. Even if you have your RED totally built in the box (something I've never seen), you WILL have to wait for the sucker to boot. If it boots, which it doesn't always.

I have never had a Panasonic ENG cam overheat. I have never had a codec fault on a Panasonic ENG cam. For that matter, I've never even heard of anyone having those problems. That said, I've never had those problems with a RED, but I have heard a lot of stories about it.

Can you make a RED work in run-and-gun or fast-paced live scenarios? Absolutely. And you can make some great images.

But to say that the author of this article should just have researched better is bull. The RED has issues for this kind of thing. Not insurmountable, but there are possibly better tools out there for this kind of thing.

Don't get me wrong - I shoot and love the RED. But if I were shooting live events, I would shoot Varicam.

Charles, if you were writing a review that will be read by others and perhaps judge the camera based on your review, would you list as a fault that the camera overheated because you foolishly covered the factory-designed cooling system that works very well when treated properly? Do you constantly fault your R-1 because it is basically a super-computer that allows you to record images that can be improved years from now because they are recorded in RAW?

About the only comparison the author made was to a camera he had yet to even hold, the Alexa, and intimated he thinks it will be better because he is obviously probably not as proficient as you with the R-1.

I'm sure you fare very well with other choices, as he does as well. No problem with that. Choice is good. My only problem was that a professional shooter gave a non-professional review of a camera that he had obviously not researched beforehand.

 

[Stuart English]

RED in natural history applications

RED in natural history applications

When you compare the RED to, say, a Panasonic 2700, there are a lot of things that stand out as potential shortcomings.

There's some truth there but the positioning we took at the initial Jackson Hole "show-and-tell" was here is an alternative to 35mm film.

Natural history is shot on a wide range of optics and recording formats, and RED ONE has carved itself a solid niche.

And with due respect to dreams of DSLR's and Alexa, lets see what Scarlet and EPIC bring......

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As mentioned, some of the limitations he mentioned can be gotten around -- like having hot-swap battery plate. Some things have been fixed. But many of his other critiques are true.

Yep... I agree with some of his critiques, not with others. But to be fair, you have to spend quite a bit of time with a RED One or with someone who knows the camera very well, to really learn best practices and develop the best techniques to handle it out in the wild.

In my wildlife shooting adventures with the RED One, I've found the biggest shortcoming is the fan noise of the system. I'm really hoping Epic will have improved in this realm. Some wildlife doesn't care about fan noise... Some does... I've had deer bolt away from the fan kicking on. The other shortcoming is the mass of the camera and necessary gear. It's a lot of gear to lug around and a heavy camera body. You'll find that's why shooters like Steve Gibby and Kennan Ward opt for using lighter glass like Canon and Nikon SLR lenses. But it's still on par with, or even smaller than, many 35mm film systems. The RED One body is nearly 7 lbs. LIGHTER than the Alexa body...

To me, one of the biggest issues for nature/wildlife is the lack of ability to delete shots in camera. One way to help with this is to pre-roll for 10 seconds, but that takes some configuring, and doesn't really excuse the lack of ability to delete clips, which I hope Epic will have.

In relation to shooting with other recent digital formats (P2, SxS, XDCam), this may be. But I can't agree here. OMG, I'm actually disagreeing with Tom, that like never happens. :biggrin: The ability to delete a clip is something we never even dreamed of when shooting film and shooting to linear tape never made it possible. Sure, you could always roll back and watch what you just shot, if you didn't like it, you could roll back again to the beginning of it and record over it. But who really ever messed with doing that in the field?

With the RED One, it's mostly for performance reasons why we can't delete clips. Deleting clips causes gaps in the data structure if you delete a clip other than the most recent one, for example. The camera then can't record directly and sequentially to the media when it has to jump around clips that are already there. I'm wondering if the new cameras and media will allow this ability? If possible, I'd love to have the ability, but I don't consider the lack of it to be a hinderance. Up until I got my HVX200, I never owned a video camera that allowed such a thing.

It would be nice if Redcine-X would allow me to delete clips in its browser, that would be more handy. As it is now, I have to right-click the clip and have it show me the file and then send its folder to the bin. Or follow along with the file tree in another window and delete as I go.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

There's some truth there but the positioning we took at the initial Jackson Hole "show-and-tell" was here is an alternative to 35mm film.

Natural history is shot on a wide range of optics and recording formats, and RED ONE has carved itself a solid niche.

And with due respect to dreams of DSLR's and Alexa, lets see what Scarlet and EPIC bring......

rock on Stuart. good things come to those who wait.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

My only problem was that a professional shooter gave a non-professional review of a camera that he had obviously not researched beforehand.

I think it's probably fair to say that this wasn't a "review", and maybe that's where some of the hostility towards it lies.
I think all that Mark was doing was describing his experience (limited) with the camera as an aid to any fellow wildlife freelancers who might be asked to similarly pick up a Red and go on a shoot with it, so they didn't have the same surprises or make the same mistakes as he did.
Possibly my mistake for calling it a "review" in the thread title, in the article he never calls it one.
I think the people who will benefit from this article are freelancers who have shot largely on Varicams etc. over the last few years and may not know that much about Red. Those people might get a job on Red and be assuming that it'll be more or less like a Varicam, and as we all know, it isn't at all!
Should these people do their research before going on a job with Red (like visiting this forum for a start!)? Of course. Almost certainly they should also either go on a detailed training course or have access to the camera for a week or so before the shoot. But this doesn't always happen, crazy though it may seem. In fact I had a producer call me up a while back asking about the Phantom HD, and towards the end of the conversation I was told that they wanted their cameraman to do the shoot, that he'd never used the Phantom before and is it easy to use?! The idea of turning up in the field with your newly delivered Phantom costing £2000+ a day and just being able to start shooting it is incredible!
Steve

 

[Elsie N]

I think all that Mark was doing was describing his experience (limited) with the camera as an aid to any fellow wildlife freelancers who might be asked to similarly pick up a Red and go on a shoot with it, so they didn't have the same surprises or make the same mistakes as he did.

In that context, I agree... the man is entitled to his personal observations.

There was a time when these passionate conversations were over different brands of automobile (my car can outrun your car) but now it's difficult to distinguish one make from another. Luckily, we now have cameras that are easily distinguishable and can have these passionate debates over cameras (my camera runs cooler and quieter than yours). Passion is good. Debate is good. Competition is good.... Life is good.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

There's some truth there but the positioning we took at the initial Jackson Hole "show-and-tell" was here is an alternative to 35mm film.

Natural history is shot on a wide range of optics and recording formats, and RED ONE has carved itself a solid niche.

And with due respect to dreams of DSLR's and Alexa, lets see what Scarlet and EPIC bring......

Hey Stuart,

At this point, my concern is not wondering if Epic will be a step up, it's just wondering when I will actually SEE it.

Kind of wondering when those cameras will really ship!

Jay

 

[Elsie N]

Not sure quite what you mean by that? This is one of the top wildlife cameramen in the world, he's worked on Planet Earth and loads of the big David Attenborough series of the last 10 years or more, he knows his stuff.
Steve

This whole thread has me thinking... maybe in future as those in power realize the power of (Redcode) RAW and Digital future proof archiving, maybe they will not look so much as what a person has done, but whether or not he can do it using the most modern technology. I wonder if the author of this article hasn't done himself a disservice by revealing that he isn't comfortable or even happy shooting with the RED. If I'm in the position where I've got a job to be done and I've got money to spend, I want to put it where I'm confident in the abilities of the shooter using the method of capture that I have chosen.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Jay Gannon]

The camera doesn't make the magic the cameraman/cinematographer does.

 

[Steve Phillipps]

This whole thread has me thinking... maybe in future as those in power realize the power of (Redcode) RAW and Digital future proof archiving, maybe they will not look so much as what a person has done, but whether or not he can do it using the most modern technology.

Fair point for sure.

Steve

 

[Elsie N]

The camera doesn't make the magic the cameraman/cinematographer does.

And the check-writer makes it possible.

 

[Brian Petrie]

The camera doesn't make the magic the cameraman/cinematographer does.

For the record, I am not trying to take a side in any of this, just stating my opinion. Also, Im not involved in wildlife productions in anyway, however, I do enjoy viewing anything non-fiction nature oriented:smile:

Anyways, I completely agree with Jay's statement for all most all aspects of storytelling. However, I feel that when watching wildlife shows in particular that having excellent imagery can greatly improve the story. For me this isn't nearly as necessary in fiction, but in wildlife shows I think filming in 35mm or with high end digital definitely makes the show more enjoyable to me. Therefore, using a camera that is able to show great detail like the Red and other high end cameras improve wildlife story telling. Just my 2 cents

 

[dustin lindgren]

This is my favorite wildlife shot! Not sure what camera it was shot with. But its epic. Lol!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

 

[Jay Gannon]

For the record, I am not trying to take a side in any of this, just stating my opinion. Also, Im not involved in wildlife productions in anyway, however, I do enjoy viewing anything non-fiction nature oriented:smile:

Anyways, I completely agree with Jay's statement for all most all aspects of storytelling. However, I feel that when watching wildlife shows in particular that having excellent imagery can greatly improve the story. For me this isn't nearly as necessary in fiction, but in wildlife shows I think filming in 35mm or with high end digital definitely makes the show more enjoyable to me. Therefore, using a camera that is able to show great detail like the Red and other high end cameras improve wildlife story telling. Just my 2 cents

Ah but a good wildlife cameraman won't choose a rubbish camera =) No, I agree what your saying is true, but there are also other (More expensive, lower res etc etc) camera systems that also produce amazingly beautiful pictures, Varicam in particular, F900/F800 and others. Not forgetting 16mm is still widely used.

My point was more that the skill of the camera person is paramount in wildlife when you don't get a second take if everything is not pulled off perfect. And allowing them to use the camera system that they feel is most suited to the environment is a very good idea for any producer who is not a megalomaniac (Is that an oxymoron?)

Producers have often ruined great scenarios by skimping on costs or by being dictatorial and not allowing the skilled people who they have employed to practice their craft.

 

[dustin lindgren]

Xgames has some wildlife!!!

 

[Steve Phillipps]

in wildlife shows I think filming in 35mm or with high end digital definitely makes the show more enjoyable to me.

Does that mean you didn't enjoy Planet Earth much? That was mostly lowly Varicam with a 720P chip.
I'm not disagreeing with you idea that picture quality is important in wildlife shows, it definitely is, just that for TV use you'll get a tiny image quality (if any) benefit from a 4k camera over a Varicam, and for most uses it's just not worth dealing with the issues cameras like the Red 1 present.
Steve

 

[Stuart English]

RED / Varicam

RED / Varicam

for TV use you'll get a tiny image quality (if any) benefit from a 4k camera over a Varicam.

Er, Steve, nah... I'm quite familiar with Varicam, and although it's good, that's an incorrect statement.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Er, Steve, nah... I'm quite familiar with Varicam, and although it's good, that's an incorrect statement.

The statement about Planet Earth being mostly shot on Varicam is also incorrect.