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 Vs Dalsa target clientel

The studios are technically conservative (and I don't blame them) and are wary of using digital cameras of any sort, especially one's based on data recording rather than an HD tape workflow. Unless the director or producer is passionate enough about using a digital camera for a major production.

But all the studio engineers and production supervisors are out there testing the RED, Phantom, etc. daily -- they want to keep up with new trends and are constantly making evaluations. But they are hesitant to jump feet first into anything new unless pushed by a powerful director.

Part of it is a simple insurance issue, you can't get away with using something "buggy" that you know has the chance of making some important shot or scene unusable. You have to provide the studio with a back-up plan if something goes wrong.

I don't think the studios feel any "safer" with the Dalsa Origin than they do with the RED or Phantom. They'll only feel comfortable when they see dozens of other productions using these cameras on a regular basis without problems, and at the faster rate of acquisition that the RED is going through, that point is more likely to be reached with RED than with Dalsa.

I'm not suggesting one camera or the other is "better" or more reliable, I'm just looking at trends -- more people are shooting regularly with the RED, bugs are being worked out at a faster rate, and eventually there will be just too much momentum for acceptance for the studios to ignore, regardless of which camera makes a better picture.

Now if Dalsa could meet RED halfway in terms of features and size/weight/cost and availability -- then it could be promoted for higher-end productions as the Rolls Royce version of the RED for people with money (unless RED builds a Rolls Royce version themselves). But I suspect that ARRI is more likely to produce the real competition for the RED for high-end studio work, just as the Panavision Genesis is already becoming accepted by the studios. Panavision and ARRI have long-term relationships with Hollywood and will work hard to keep that business. Dalsa doesn't really have that sort of brand-name loyalty to fall back on.

To me, RED is sort of like the Manhattan Project -- a lot of money and effort thrown together to push through innovation at a faster rate than current trends. The only twist is that the RED is also much cheaper. But otherwise, the speed of its development and implementation have made the Dalsa Origin and Arri-D20 look like slow-moving tortoises next to the rabbit (though that was a cautionary tale...) and RED has changed everyone's expectations. Dalsa looks underfunded in comparison.

But the business climate never stands still and someone will build on RED's example and technical innovation, and then it will be up to RED to play catch-up unless they are careful.
 
Unbiased and non-emotional.

This is the kind of feed back Red needs for its progress
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
You can shoot 6 fps faster on the Dalsa then on the RED in 4k. Dalsa = 36fps, and for me the storage doesn't matter....

(I'm assuming that's what you mean by "high speed".)
Click to expand...

True true. But 6fps is not significant. 120fps at 2k is because I can shoot with one camera and one workflow rather than have to rent a phantom or a film camera and support multiple on set data or data/film workflows.

Evolution was still a beast at NAB last year. What are they thinking?! Both Phantom and Red are tiny compared to Origin. Why can't they make it small after so many years since they released their camera?
 
It is a luxury to have David Mullen post here... straightforward and very knowledgeable. Most of the time the rest of us, starting with me, add emotion to our responses from our strong vested interest position. Just saying...

Jim
 
Jannard said:
It is a luxury to have David Mullen post here... straightforward and very knowledgeable.
Click to expand...

so very true..

What is very interesting is that he isn't just an excellent source of knowledge. He contributes by trying to learn as well. His questions are genuine and not rhetorical devices to show how smart he is. He also gives others the benefit of the doubt. He has inspired me to 'try' and be more generous in communities like this one.

Sorry to talk about David M like he isn't here.

Michael Lindsay
 
There are so many people here that know a lot more than I do, it behooves me to hang out and wring some info from them. I think of myself as a generalist instead of a specialist, so it's important for me to understand some of these issues so I can re-explain them in laymen's terms. But I'm finding that so many young people (I'm 45) are so much more savvy and comfortable with basic computer issues that it's daunting.

But on the other hand, I find myself having to explain basic digital issues to producers, directors, editors, and even post people all the time...

After all the discussions on sharpness and resolution that started over John Galt's printed comments about MTF and the Genesis (and he's a brilliant man, if you ever get to chat with him), I wonder if someday we'll have better terms to describe what we are seeing on the screen in terms of perceived resolution. Terms like "4K" and "2K" are such blunt instruments of description that can be used to promote or denigrate a product just as easily, and I'm finding myself more and more staying out of those arguments. Things are only sharp enough or too soft relative to other technologies and techniques used, regardless of the technical measurements taken. And ultimately resolution is a small piece of the puzzle in regards to image quality.

It reminds me of a discussion I had with Dale Launer about audio engineering, how when digital sound first came along, an engineer could measure its superiority over analog sound, yet sophisticated listeners still found aspects of analog sound to be superior -- so were their ears "wrong" and the measurements correct? Or did audio engineers need to start finding new ways of taking measurements to explain what the ear/brain was hearing? Sometimes I think we are perceptive of image and sound aspects that simply aren't easily quantified.
 
Dalsa

Dalsa

At last years NAB I believe Dalsa was showing a mockup of a much smaller camera. This years NAB should be very interesting.

bob
 
4k, of course, refers to the number of pixels horizontally across the sensor that are recorded. It's a simple way - two characters, to give basic information. Now, resolution is a lot more complex than that.... And there's not just measured resolution, but the perception of it, and that adds in a subjective factor. You can have tonnes of resolution, but nasty sharpness or aliasing on edges that really diminishes the aesthetic of the image, but gives you a high number on the measured resolution spec sheet. Similarly, you can have a very beautiful image at a lower measured resolution - and yet both images could come from the very same sensor, or camera, and I'm not specifically talking about RED or any other camera here.

At RED, we don't aim for any one measurement spec, but for an overall aesthetic. Sure, specs are important, but the image is the most important.

Graeme
 
The question isn't why the Dalsa isn't as small as the RED or Phantom HD -- it has an optical viewing system and mirror shutter that takes up more space and adds more weight... the question is why it isn't as small as the ARRI D20, which also has a mirror shutter and optical viewfinder.

I can only assume that, compared to the D20, either the Dalsa is doing more internal processing and needs more physical circuit boards, etc., or that they haven't invested the time and money into more efficient ways of condensing that space used. Though I'm told that Dalsa has spent the last year testing the limits of pushing their circuit boards and whatnot closer together before they run into heat and thus noise problems.
 
Arri is CMOS though? Dalsa is CCD, which means off-chip AtoD, which I'm guessing must take up a fair bit of space for doing 4k.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
4k, of course, refers to the number of pixels horizontally across the sensor that are recorded.
Graeme
Click to expand...

4K also refers to an output resolution. And they are not necessarily connected.

You can shoot a 4K bayer sensor and output 4K.
You can shoot film and scan/output 4K.
You can also up-res 1080P or even SD to a 4K output.

Sensor size, output resolution and actual resolution are not necessarily (or typically) the same. At the end, all that matters is what each of these looks like on the screen.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
It is a luxury to have David Mullen post here... straightforward and very knowledgeable. Most of the time the rest of us, starting with me, add emotion to our responses from our strong vested interest position. Just saying...

Jim
Click to expand...

RED started last year with BIG DIRECTOR NAMEAS as P.Jackson the S.Soderbergh, others would follow soon,

but that is just a part of Hollywood studios game.

Panavision and Arri also have own HIGH END QUALITY cine lenses.

Mater Primes and Primos for example.

That's also keep tem in business and not only cameras.

I suggested a long ago that RED should make also wn HIGH END QUALITY cine lenses.

What we have now as a RED lens option is a consumer quality and the most reviews here already told us.

My recommendation was to join Leica Cinema GmbH and to make HIGH END CINE LENSES using Leica glass.

Not to mention that Panavision build together with ELCAN (Ernst Leitz Canada) Primo L series lenses,

also Dalsa recently rehoused couple of Leica R lenses and now you can rent them.

At the end I just wanted to say that if RED would learn from Hollywood studio history that the most successful camera brands

like a Panavision and Arri honestly have to thank their extraordinary lenses.
 
Since Hollywood studios are based on a camera rental system, they will have no problem renting high-quality PL-mount lenses on a RED camera, probably at the same rental house. So I suspect for them, the lens issues will be the same for any PL-mount camera they normally rent.

If RED were a rental business, it would make more sense to develop their own high-quality expensive optics as part of the package, but as a camera seller only, I think they can rely on the traditional lens makers to create expensive glass -- they only need to develop cheaper lenses in order to sell entire packages to independent people who want to own everything on a tight budget.

As for why there are not sets of Leica / Leitz cine lenses regularly made and sold for the PL-mount lens market, I don't know. I assume it's because Leica doesn't see a big enough market to get into it, though they don't mind selling glass to Panavision for their Primos (or to Dalsa). Maybe this is an opportunity for someone to make these sets for the broader PL-mount crowd. But I'm not sure if RED has to be that company.
 
IMEPO (my extremely personal opinion) Dalsa saw and sought to market itself as a specialist tool, something not for the everyday shooter but for high end productions. In trying to make its technology acceptable and understandable to the studio/Hollywood crowd, they had to use terms like 4K and 35mm DOF, which is something both impressive and relatable for those people. But the rest of the product remained an obscure, science project like, unproven and very expensive proposition. Thus, I don't think a SINGLE studio movie has yet been made with the Dalsa.

Where RED hit a sore spot with them is that, however knowledgeable they are about the fact that resolution and numbers aren't everything, as pointed out by Graeme, RED also promoted itself as a 4K, 35mm DOF, pl lens mount tool, thereby emulating the same "sweet spot" properties, BUT with the portability and onboard recording feasibility (which is a MUST in the corporate system) of a regular HD camera, alas not recording to tape but flash media and drives, AND a price that allowed many people that work in, around, and float in and out of the studio system to purchase their own cameras and sort of introduce them on their own to their more conservative counterparts. If your AC just bought a RED and brings it to a film shoot and offers the DP and director to test it just for kicks, why not? This has happened in many variants and will continue to happen, and I think is what ultimately has driven RED's acceptance factor higher and faster than any other camera. We say constantly, and rightly so, that pricing is not a point of importance for the big dogs in the studio system, and this is true, but the fact that RED is attainable to many of us has made it impossible for them not to notice it and come across a RED here and there in many different shoots. Imagine what will happen when there are 5000 RED's out there by year's end?
 
MANXLX said:
arri don't have own lenses,
they only have a contract with zeiss, that zeiss is not permittet to sell pl-lenses. you only could buy it from arri.
Click to expand...

There are lenses that say Arri on them. Who cares where they came from or who made different parts? Arri has seen fit to put their name (and reputation) on some lenses, so Arri has lenses.

Would you say that Lincoln doesn't make the Town Car simply because they are built on the same assembly line as the Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis?
 
MANXLX said:
arri don't have own lenses,
they only have a contract with zeiss, that zeiss is not permittet to sell pl-lenses. you only could buy it from arri.
Click to expand...

ARRI design and makes lenses based on Carl Zeiss glass.

Thay are called for example ARRI/ZEISS Master Primes.

David Mullen ASC said:
Since Hollywood studios are based on a camera rental system, they will have no problem renting high-quality PL-mount lenses on a RED camera, probably at the same rental house. So I suspect for them, the lens issues will be the same for any PL-mount camera they normally rent.

If RED were a rental business, it would make more sense to develop their own high-quality expensive optics as part of the package, but as a camera seller only, I think they can rely on the traditional lens makers to create expensive glass -- they only need to develop cheaper lenses in order to sell entire packages to independent people who want to own everything on a tight budget.

As for why there are not sets of Leica / Leitz cine lenses regularly made and sold for the PL-mount lens market, I don't know. I assume it's because Leica doesn't see a big enough market to get into it, though they don't mind selling glass to Panavision for their Primos (or to Dalsa). Maybe this is an opportunity for someone to make these sets for the broader PL-mount crowd. But I'm not sure if RED has to be that company.
Click to expand...

David you rock!

Well said.
 
If I was being totally honest... if I was a gojillionaire and could afford to buy a couple of D20s... or hire them when i needed them without financing... then I would be very tempted to... but I'm not a gojillionaire...

and I hear this Red thing aint a bad substitute.. :)
 
A few other titbits of the conversation I forgot to post earlier included that the Dalsa chap was sure the red glass is Sigma re-housed (maybe no surprise there) He also said that they had taken a red apart and recognized the mysterium sensor as a re-worked still camera sensor. (canon was it?)

They did have their smaller new camera at the bsc show in london yesterday, its still three times as large as red (ie not portable) although they freely admit its a camera designed not to be used on the shoulder.

I was mightily impressed with their fibre glass cabling ensuring no dropped frames whatsoever and is hard as nails. Wasn't there a Red Fibre glass cabling option with direct RAW at one point? Not saying I would want this feature, recognizing the RAM drives coming soon, but Dlasa are pushing this as a "plus"

Oh, and the most interesting thing I found at the bsc show was a new camera about the size of a red brick which does 720p at 1400fps and can be operated by one person, not a three or more like the phantom. Forget its name at the moment, but I'm sure there'll be a few about as they cost approx £30k/$60k and a new 1080p version is supposedly coming in a few months. Images looked fantastic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top