Tested Monstro vs. Helium

[Tobi Rupp]

Check Benoit Delhomme's reel, he shot tons of crazy good stuff. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0217120/#cinematographer

Now DoP on "At Eternity's Gate". Nuts what a guy can manage to get under the belt during a life time

Very impressive, great !!!!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The quality increase is quite big. Like more than 25% less noise. And even more if finalizing for 4k.

I don't know how many projects shot on alexas this year I pushed out to UHD. I look at pixels up close uncompressed 1:1 or even zoomed in and have done so for the last 27 years. You can repeat your statement above how many times you want. I see the difference, and I see it every day all day.

Yeah, I also see the difference. I have no idea what we are debating here.
Who sees a difference/how important it is to someone/how Arri reps are stupid ?

There is no "wider perspective". There is is "wider field of view". A Perspective is actually a point.

Okay then, wording seems to be the issue here. Put "wider field of view" in that sequence I wrote.

With the same focal length you get a wider field of view with a larger sensor, but who dictates what focal length to use?

Usually the DP based on a desired composition. Many times the director as well.

So one will use a longer lens for the same shot on a larger format and get more DoF separation compared to S35.
Which is helpful when separation is desired and limitation when it isn't and light is limited.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Yeah, I also see the difference. I have no idea what we are debating here.
Who sees a difference/how important it is to someone/how Arri reps are stupid ?

I think it´s stupid of them trying to say that resolution does not matter. They keep saying it. They said so when they where selling HD cameras as cinema cameras, they said so when selling 3.2k cameras and others where selling 4k cameras, and now they say resolution does not matter, and also feel free to mix and match LF with Minis and intercut just fine...

Well, thats stupid because on a 4k display you will see a clear difference. Large 4k laser projection you see huge difference. For VFX even more so. So why is he stating that the resolution does not matter?

I think only one reason. He still want to sell his little 3.2k cameras on the side of the LF as the LF is simply to big to be used for a lot of applications.

Then he goes on and says this camera is special, it gives special "perspective magnifications" etc.

Well, it absolutely does not. And no his signature primes does not do that either. There is no picture the LF setup can do in terms of DoF falloff or "magnified perspective" or any other such feature that the a Mini with with Master primes can not mimic to 100%.

Sure the glas might look different have different coatings etc. and the focal length possibly does not match up on the mm. But they can make the same pictures. Why? Because the MPs are exactly that much faster. So the only difference between the two is that LF setup needs more light or Mini needs an ND.

So again what makes the LF special?

As each and every shot can be done equal down to one thing and that is, guess what?.... Resolution.

Again, as I wrote above he clearly says resolution difference between minis and LF does not matter, no one can see it... If thats not stupid dumb sales talk, I dont know what is.


For anyone that understands the difference between the two. He basically states a few things and then says things that contradicts what he just said, again stupid.

Okay then, wording seems to be the issue here. Put "wider field of view" in that sequence I wrote.



Usually the DP based on a desired composition. Many times the director as well.

So one will use a longer lens for the same shot on a larger format and get more DoF separation compared to S35.
Which is helpful when separation is desired and limitation when it isn't and light is limited.

Lets go this trough one more time, You loose speed when moving to a larger imager. So in reality you dont get more Dof Separation you only get more dof separation on the same stop. But the smaller imager gives you equal more stops. It´s light from the scene / FOV it can not disappear anyware it goes into the lens and onto the sensor. (sure some is lost in the glas) So if you got a smaller imager and capture the same FOV and DOF falloff your imager is hit by equaly more light per square unit.

That gives you exactly the same Dof separation and also more exposure on your smaller sensor.

People Not thinking straight about this and they start to compare using FF lenses on both cameras and does not take into account that the smaller imager can use faster lenses. Like the Arri master primes are faster than the Signature primes, why? because they only cover s35mm.

But when both the Signature primes and MP´s are used wide open together with the sensor they are intended for...... guess what happens?

Drum twirl....

At the same FOV and wide open they get the exact same DOF separation, why? because they are both pretty maxed out high speed lenses for their formats. So images are created equal down to one thing. Resolution.


Here is a chart that shows what stops should be used for other cameras to match a Signature prime 50mm wide open on a LF. Dof separation match and focal length for match FOV... See S35 with Masterprimes can do that no problem...


PastedGraphic-4 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

So the Arry guy try to sell his LF and mention it has more resolution... but says that does not matter, then he makes some false statements, that it create uniqe "magnifications of perspectives"... it does not.

I say thats dumb and I stick with that.

He could have said: "here is a LF camera that provides better imagery due to it´s large sensor with higher resolution. That would be true but the rest is not. The rest he allready have on all the other arri cameras together with the MP´s that they also sell.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

So again what makes the LF special?

I have no idea.

Please go ask Red what makes VV special.

So in reality you dont get more Dof Separation you only get more dof separation on the same stop.

Okay then...if that is the REALITY those guys must have been talking about the theoretical yet unrealistic scenario of using the SAME STOP to get the SAME EXPOSURE on a larger format. Which is nothing special.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I have no idea.

Please go ask Red what makes VV special.

Resolution makes the LF special, it got more resolution than the mini and XT´s.

VV / monstro as I see it is very special. Not only does it utilise the FF format lenses to the rim with a 2:1 aspect ratio, It does so at a quite astonishing 8k resolution. Lot of people shooting red use such glas and lot of people do not master in 4:3 so having such square sensor within FF is for a lot of scenarios, like when shooting sphericals for cinema or TV not really ideal. 2:1 sensor that is even wider than a FF 4:3 sensor to me has way more appeal.

One exception, when shooting anamorphics. But it´s quite rare for anamorphics to cover FF 4:3 height. So in that sense monstro to me is a great sensor size and provides great resolution. Also @ 6k Monstro is a hell of a S35 camera. It´s to me second to none for such lenses so monstro with it´s resolution and size kind of cover all bases. The LF sure you can shoot it cropped to S35 but that still gives you the quite low resolution, not enough for Netlix etc. And that leaves you with slower lenses. On monstro you can shoot high speed S35 glas and still land a beautiful 4k image down sampled from 6k.

Okay then...if that is the REALITY those guys must have been talking about the theoretical yet unrealistic scenario of using the SAME STOP to get the SAME EXPOSURE on a larger format. Which is nothing special.

Ok... Maybe this is new to you but Arri sales people, actually are just sales people. In the past they put out quite elaborate charts, pdfs and explanations. Lots of info that stated that all you ever need is a HD alexa...And yes it does not need to shoot raw. The human eye can not see the difference etc, etc. And every year around this time of the year, right before nab they come with a new round of explanations why they done things the way they did. When looking in the rear view mirror it´s quite clear that they said so just because they simply did not know or had the skills to do it differently. Remember the whole talk about raw not being needed? Then the Codex recorders, then internal raw recording... still not needed, right?

Then their talk about swappable mounts being inaccurate, not good enough for arri. Red titanium mounts where not accurate enough as you could take them on and off. And flange distance was more important to arri than that... Arri´s high standards demanded mounts hard mounted to the sensor block... Then not much later. They release Mini with swappable mount.... And now this LF thing, strutting what? a constant adapter for PL glas? Are they sure? The wind now blows the other way so sensor block does not need to be hard mounted to the mount any more?

So they changes this talk as they go, as sales people do.

So the guy in this video he simply makes false statements about something he calls "magnified perspectives" And its a sales talk nothing else. And Im sure it will work great for them, as normally people have difficulty to think in more steps than one, And when people compare and put those signature lenses on the LF they will shine compared to when they put them on the mini... And that will make lots of people just as happy as the film school kids are when they try a 5D instead of a 7D, again using the same lens. If giving the 7D a proper ASP-c lens then the 5D would get great difficulty to impress on anything, except one thing... again resolution.

 

[Tobi Rupp]

VV / monstro as I see it is very special. Not only does it utilise the FF format lenses to the rim with a 2:1 aspect ratio, It does so at a quite astonishing 8k resolution. Lot of people shooting red use such glas and lot of people do not master in 4:3 so having a square sensor within FF is for a lot of scenarios, like when shooting sphericals for cinema or TV not really ideal. 2:1 sensor that is even wider than a FF 4:3 sensor to me has way more appeal.

One exception, when shooting anamorphics. But it´s quite rare for anamorphics to cover FF 4:3 height. So in that sense monstro to me is a great sensor size and provides great resolution. Also 6k Monstro is a hell of a S35 camera. It´s to me second to none for such lenses so monstro with it´s resolution and size kind of cover all bases. The LF sure you can shoot it cropped to S35 but that still gives you the quite low resolution, not enough for Netlix etc. And that leaves you with slower lenses. On monstro you can shoot high speed S35 glas and still land a 4k image down sampled from 6k.





Ok... Maybe this is new to you but Arri sales people, actually are just that. In the past they put out quite elaborate charts, pdfs and explanations. Lots of info that stated that all you ever need is a HD alexa... The human eye can not see the difference etc, etc. And every year around this time of the year, right before nab they come with a new round of explanations why they done things the way they did. When looking in the rear view mirror it´s quite clear that they did it because they simply did not know or had the skills to do it differently. Remember the whole talk about raw not being needed? Then the Codex recorders, then internal recoding... still its not needed, right?

So the guy in this video he simply makes false statements about something he calls "magnified perspectives" And its a sales talk nothing else. And Im sure it will work great for them, as normally people have difficulty to think in more steps than one, And when they compare and put those signature lenses on the LF they will shine compared to when they put them on the mini... And they will be as happy as the film school kids are when they try a 5D instead of a 7D, again using the same lens. If they would put a good ASP-c lens on the 7D the 5D would get great difficulty to impress... on anything except one thing, again resolution.

WORD :iagree:

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

VV / monstro as I see it is very special. Not only does it utilise the FF format lenses to the rim with a 2:1 aspect ratio, It does so at a quite astonishing 8k resolution. Lot of people shooting red use such glas and lot of people do not master in 4:3 so having a square sensor within FF is for a lot of scenarios, like when shooting sphericals for cinema or TV not really ideal. 2:1 sensor that is even wider than a FF 4:3 sensor to me has way more appeal.

That's good. And folks who shoot Alexa and don't want 8K now have Alexa in FF crop.
Don't see the problem.

In the past they put out quite elaborate charts, pdfs and explanations. Lots of info that stated that all you ever need is a HD alexa... The human eye can not see the difference etc, etc. And every year around this time of the year, right before nab they come with a new round of explanations why they done things the way they did. When looking in the rear view mirror it´s quite clear that they said so just because they simply did not know or had the skills to do it differently. Remember the whole talk about raw not being needed? Then the Codex recorders, then internal raw recording... still its not needed, right?

I remember all kinds of talk and choices from many manufacturers which didn't turn out quite well, so let's better not go there. Mistakes are integral part of evolution. And entail lessons.

Resolution choice is not based on ignorance. Quite the opposite. It was well thought through.

They shoot raw on-board now and I still get mostly Prores 444 from Alexa for post. Not everyone wants raw.

Then their talk about swappable mounts being inaccurate, not good enough for arri. Red titanium mounts where not accurate enough as you could take them on and off need to be hard mounted to the sensor block... Not much later. They release Mini with swappable mount.... And now this LF thing, strutting what? a constant adapter for PL glas? Are they sure? The wind now blows the other way? Sensor block does not need to be hard mounted to the mount any more?

You never re-considered something ?

So the guy in this video he simply makes false statements about something he calls "magnified perspectives" And its a sales talk nothing else.

Or just terminology which you find the problem with. They probably meant "wider angle of view".

 

[Björn Benckert]

That's good. And folks who shoot Alexa and don't want 8K now have Alexa in FF crop.
Don't see the problem.

I remember all kinds of talk and choices from many manufacturers which didn't turn out quite well, so let's better not go there.

Sure but red or the others are not really known for making statements that holds back, says further developement is not needed etc. Arri does that all the time. I guess it´s due to the fact that they are very much a market leader, even though on a lot of points their stuff is simply not peak performance.

The resolution choice is not based on ignorance. Quite the opposite. It was well thought through.

They shoot raw on-board now and I still get mostly Prores 444 from Alexa for post. Not everyone wants raw.

You never re-considered something ?

What people use and not use RAW is another thing, as long as Arri could not do it it was "not needed". Now quite a lot of people think it´s beneficial even if others shoot on go pros, iPhones or prores 4444.

I reconsider things all the time and I actually like to be proven wrong as that ment I learned something. I´m here on reduser, and I´m here a lot just to reconsider.

Or just terminology which you find the problem with. They probably meant "wider angle of view".

And no, F that. it´s not me being picky with terminology. If they ment a wider angle of view.... You mean they built a whole new camera with larger sensor more data and all that shit instead of swaping to a wider lens? I doubt it heavily.

I´m pretty sure what he is trying to say is simply that the size of the LF alone comes with a new look. It´s the same odd claim as the guys from PA has made, they also tried to visualise this with strange tests films. The guy from Light iron clearly says in one of those films that the reference models face got a rounder shape due to larger sensor.... Nope thats a false statement, in their test the only reason for the face being rounder was a shortened distance between nodal point and face, has nothing to do with the sensor size, or not more to do with the sensor size than the tripod, or any other bit of the camera gear...

 

[C. Burkhart]

Bjorn, no one is not saying that there is not a difference between Alexa tech from 10 years ago and the most recent iterations from RED.
However, it seems to me that the real question is how much that difference makes in terms of the perception of the image from the audience's perspective. And the answer, generally speaking, is not very much.

Further, it is fruitless to defend a camera company which you seem to state is superior on every level and yet still is not being as well received by the vast majority of DP's, who by and large like yourself are not ignorant people either.

There must be a reason for this beyond ignorance, conspiracies, fashion, the powers that be, silly clients, silly reps, poorly informed scientists, herd mentality and just generally sheeplike artists.

The fact remains for every two RED cameras, a rental house will own at least 10 Alexa's and they still go out more often than RED cameras.
Arri cams represent such a better long term investment that is just frankly, no contest.

I think your logical and didactic arguments really are missing the essential. Simplicity Bjorn. Simplicity. Arri cameras are solid and they deliver for what they are meant for. Guaranteed.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but I think that many American companies (I am American myself by the way) tend to get lost in the technology. They overthink things. They become enamored with tangential considerations, the flashy and the new and in the end create far too fragile and ephemeral ecosystems.

However, build quality is just as important, maybe more important. This is what Arri has, and what RED really needs, more than even advances in their image quality.
I love the images I am seeing coming from Monstro. However, I probably wouldnt choose it for a marathon production.

On any given day, I may need to deal with an actor, director or producer who is losing his or her mind because that's...just what they do. The fading light on a set which is an hour and a half behind schedule and an assistant which left the goddam grey card in the truck.

I do not want to fool with a multitude of endless factors, regardless of their added functionality. Though I can certainly see how you would appreciate those things yourself personally. For myself though, I do not want to pick up a Swiss Army knife with 75 diffferent components to unfold. I want a simple Leatherman blade which always seems to cut well, a bottle opener and maybe a screwdriver. And I want it to last for fucking ever. That's the one I am likely to carry on my belt loop day in and day out without it feeling like it is I, who am an accessory to my own pocket knife.

And just like that pocket knife, I do not want to feel like it is I who am an accessory to my own shooting device.
I do not want to constantly have to go on a forum to figure out what is once again going on with my camera.

So end of the day, when it comes to choosing a camera, it's the same for me as good dialogue.

Keep it SIMPLE and STRONG...and if in doubt, throw it out.

Voila.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Sure but red or the others are not really known for making statements that holds back, says further developement is not needed etc. Arri does that all the time. I guess it´s due to the fact that they are very much a market leader, even though on a lot of points their stuff is simply not peak performance.

We have drifted 50 nautical miles off the coast of Topic.
Based on comment of a comment of a company PR statement.

So anyway....

Arri holds back ? Really ? What exactly ? Resolution ?

They have the best highlight performance in the business, the most filmic texture and most filmic image aesthetics. And their cameras are most chosen for cinema. And they had zero rolling shutter problems. Apart from weird st-st-stutter aesthetic in the early Alexas. And they don't need wavelets with 3K data rates. And they had Prores 12 bit on-board first. Please explain the logic on which you conclude they are holding something back. What is your reference of "proper development speed" ? Who defines it ?

And no, F that. it´s not me being picky with terminology.

It is common expression "wider perspective" in spoken everyday language, we use it as well.
PR folks are not engineers or VFX specialists.

If they ment a wider angle of view.... You mean they built a whole new camera with larger sensor more data and all that shit instead of swaping to a wider lens? I doubt it heavily.
I´m pretty sure what he is trying to say is simply that the size of the LF alone comes with a new look. It´s the same odd claim as the guys from PA has made, they also tried to visualise this with strange tests films. The guy from Light iron clearly says in one of those films that the reference models face got a rounder shape due to larger sensor.... Nope thats a false statement, in their test the only reason for the face being rounder was a shortened distance between nodal point and face, has nothing to do with the sensor size, or not more to do with the sensor size than the tripod, or any other bit of the camera gear...

It comes with a new look. As Monstro and DXL do. With subtle difference. And faces won't look the same. In closer shots. Because focal length.

I tried to explain roughly-about-circa-approximatively-somewhere-around-oh-lets-say 6539862.25 times so far, and shot the tests to show it. But some people just don't want to hear it. "No it isn't, it is something else." Okay, then. It is AC dandruff on the lens combined with Moon's gravitational pull effect on nodal point. And something about the lens design. Something else which is not related to focal length used on a larger format. It is not specifically extrapolated online, confirmed by a perceived authority, so it can't be true.

Hence, ergo, therefore - Arri folks and Panavision folks are stupid with these larger formats when they could just go with S35 and standard format ultra sharp lens and avoid all the fuss with large sensor readouts, cooling, optics, and image processing. Arri is especially stupid with the lower pixel count.

Because of course, larger format is only about RESOLUTION and nothing, absolutely nothing else, it cannot be, until some Oscar winner says otherwise.
Because RESOLUTION for the analytically dominant mindset, is actually that "magic" of beauty and aesthetics, "how much you see", which you can valorize through obvious easily quantifiable figures and blog online for the 2 minute attention span "200 is better than 100"......and no, absolutely in no way, it cannot be the proportions.

 

[Misha Engel]

Bjorn, no one is not saying that there is not a difference between Alexa tech from 10 years ago and the most recent iterations from RED.
However, it seems to me that the real question is how much that difference makes in terms of the perception of the image from the audience's perspective. And the answer, generally speaking, is not very much.

Further, it is fruitless to defend a camera company which you seem to state is superior on every level and yet still is not being as well received by the vast majority of DP's, who by and large like yourself are not ignorant people either.

There must be a reason for this beyond ignorance, conspiracies, fashion, the powers that be, silly clients, silly reps, poorly informed scientists, herd mentality and just generally sheeplike artists.

The fact remains for every two RED cameras, a rental house will own at least 10 Alexa's and they still go out more often than RED cameras.
Arri cams represent such a better long term investment that is just frankly, no contest.

I think your logical and didactic arguments really are missing the essential. Simplicity Bjorn. Simplicity. Arri cameras are solid and they deliver for what they are meant for. Guaranteed.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but I think that many American companies (I am American myself by the way) tend to get lost in the technology. They overthink things. They become enamored with tangential considerations, the flashy and the new and in the end create far too fragile and ephemeral ecosystems.

However, build quality is just as important, maybe more important. This is what Arri has, and what RED really needs, more than even advances in their image quality.
I love the images I am seeing coming from Monstro. However, I probably wouldnt choose it for a marathon production.

On any given day, I may need to deal with an actor, director or producer who is losing his or her mind because that's...just what they do. The fading light on a set which is an hour and a half behind schedule and an assistant which left the goddam grey card in the truck.

I do not want to fool with a multitude of endless factors, regardless of their added functionality. Though I can certainly see how you would appreciate those things yourself personally. For myself though, I do not want to pick up a Swiss Army knife with 75 diffferent components to unfold. I want a simple Leatherman blade which always seems to cut well, a bottle opener and maybe a screwdriver. And I want it to last for fucking ever. That's the one I am likely to carry on my belt loop day in and day out without it feeling like it is I, who am an accessory to my own pocket knife.

And just like that pocket knife, I do not want to feel like it is I who am an accessory to my own shooting device.
I do not want to constantly have to go on a forum to figure out what is once again going on with my camera.

So end of the day, when it comes to choosing a camera, it's the same for me as good dialogue.

Keep it SIMPLE and STRONG...and if in doubt, throw it out.

Voila.

That is a very nice description of the majority of the American people and businesses.

The strange thing is that the succesful ones (people and businesses) are the ones that think out of the conservative box(the crazy ones).

Just some succes stories:
Google mapped the internet and the people on it.
Facebook gather more personal data than google and the NSA combined.
The big banks made people and businesses dependant with loans and creditcards they couldn't afford.
Hollywood film makers make stories people want to watch.
Tesla is a well know brand for electric cars and is still praised despite the fact that they are still far behind schedule.

Tesla beats RED on marketing but RED beats Tesla big time on quality and delivery times.

One of the reasons ARRI is so big in the film industry is not just their quality product, but more that they know their customers very well and knwo how they think(conservative).

In general I think your right about your observation that western europeans are more open for something new (we lack the crazy ones).

 

[Björn Benckert]

Whatever Horjve, If you like to think large sensors change the shape of things then go for it.

 

[Misha Engel]

Whatever Horjve, If you like to think large sensors change the shape of things then go for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryDOy3AosBw

This guy should buy himself a 70 mm IMAX camera ;-)

 

[H Dewey]

Bjorn, no one is not saying that there is not a difference between Alexa tech from 10 years ago and the most recent iterations from RED.
However, it seems to me that the real question is how much that difference makes in terms of the perception of the image from the audience's perspective. And the answer, generally speaking, is not very much.

Further, it is fruitless to defend a camera company which you seem to state is superior on every level and yet still is not being as well received by the vast majority of DP's, who by and large like yourself are not ignorant people either.

There must be a reason for this beyond ignorance, conspiracies, fashion, the powers that be, silly clients, silly reps, poorly informed scientists, herd mentality and just generally sheeplike artists.

The fact remains for every two RED cameras, a rental house will own at least 10 Alexa's and they still go out more often than RED cameras.
Arri cams represent such a better long term investment that is just frankly, no contest.

I think your logical and didactic arguments really are missing the essential. Simplicity Bjorn. Simplicity. Arri cameras are solid and they deliver for what they are meant for. Guaranteed.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but I think that many American companies (I am American myself by the way) tend to get lost in the technology. They overthink things. They become enamored with tangential considerations, the flashy and the new and in the end create far too fragile and ephemeral ecosystems.

However, build quality is just as important, maybe more important. This is what Arri has, and what RED really needs, more than even advances in their image quality.
I love the images I am seeing coming from Monstro. However, I probably wouldnt choose it for a marathon production.

On any given day, I may need to deal with an actor, director or producer who is losing his or her mind because that's...just what they do. The fading light on a set which is an hour and a half behind schedule and an assistant which left the goddam grey card in the truck.

I do not want to fool with a multitude of endless factors, regardless of their added functionality. Though I can certainly see how you would appreciate those things yourself personally. For myself though, I do not want to pick up a Swiss Army knife with 75 diffferent components to unfold. I want a simple Leatherman blade which always seems to cut well, a bottle opener and maybe a screwdriver. And I want it to last for fucking ever. That's the one I am likely to carry on my belt loop day in and day out without it feeling like it is I, who am an accessory to my own pocket knife.

And just like that pocket knife, I do not want to feel like it is I who am an accessory to my own shooting device.
I do not want to constantly have to go on a forum to figure out what is once again going on with my camera.

So end of the day, when it comes to choosing a camera, it's the same for me as good dialogue.

Keep it SIMPLE and STRONG...and if in doubt, throw it out.

Voila.

In respect to keeping it simple, I boil it down to ARRI, being a mature camera company, appeals to the members of the movie industry who have been used to their product and its results. They are mostly renters.

But the RED lines of cameras appeal to the newer members and the more accepting movie makers who actually own their cameras. Interestingly NASA seems to prefer the REDs, so there must be something going on that RED has done to pass their muster. And it is only a guess, but I suspect RED cameras outnumber ARRI sales in a multiple way.

But the debate here seems to be about the larger-budget DoPs choices. Just sayin' that there's much more to it than that tiny segment of content creation.

 

[C. Burkhart]

In respect to keeping it simple, I boil it down to ARRI, being a mature camera company, appeals to the members of the movie industry who have been used to their product and its results. They are mostly renters.

But the RED lines of cameras appeal to the newer members and the more accepting movie makers who actually own their cameras. Interestingly NASA seems to prefer the REDs, so there must be something going on that RED has done to pass their muster. And it is only a guess, but I suspect RED cameras outnumber ARRI sales in a multiple way.

But the debate here seems to be about the larger-budget DoPs choices. Just sayin' that there's much more to it than that tiny segment of content creation.

In actuality, I know quite a few RED camera owners who are turning to alternatives. They are fed up with the rapid loss of value on their investment and the endless and extremely expensive upgrade cycles. Even the fact that they have to pay $6k just to have a 2 year warranty extension pisses them off. With the advent of the higher end Monstro and Helium products their Epics and Dragons are now regarded as $300 a day rental kits. That means they are on par with Sony FS7 renters. Further, one person who does a lot of corporate told me that he was so impressed with the quality of a Sony A7S Mark II which he had bought as a little corner cam, and which cost one twentieth the price of his RED, that he honestly thought about selling the latter.

I think that RED needs to fundamentally rethink their strategy if they wish to maintain the lower end client, and on the other hand it appears that the higher end which they are shooting now for doesn't appear that enticed either. I say simplify their lineup. Make fewer, slightly less expensive, but sturdier workhorses, reduce the price of their accessories, cut the price of the warranty extension by two thirds and concentrate on who their core is. Right now, that seems unclear. The next thing they need to do is visit EVERY rental house in the US, Europe and Asia and ask lots of questions about their product. Get that essential feedback. Then they need to overhaul their line based on this feedback and make sure that their next line of products gets in those people's hands. An ongoing relationship with the rental houses is the only way they are going to ever compete with ARRI for the higher end market. They need to lose the barbed wire tattoos, the scruffy "dude" who explains their latest Gemini camera, the dumb skull logo on the side of their "weapon" and the idea that the California/West Coast bubble is anything close to a representative sample of the owners that use their cameras around the world. In short, it's time to stop thinking so locally and go global in their strategy. Panavision was a good step, but right now it feels like the same old horse with new clothes. They need to go further and they need to conceive their next camera from the ground up like a market leader who cares about durability over time and heavy duty production issues, not as an afterthought with a strategic partner.

Heck, even I as a long term, truly hardcore skeptic of RED, but for the first time a fan with their latest sensors, even I would do the legwork for them if I felt that they were truly willing to alter their mentality and be open to a new approach towards reorganizing themselves towards a more productive set of goals. However, this the latter, seems the hardest thing of all, and where I have the greatest doubt. Because it means setting aside some egos, in order to be truly open, to listen and to be willing to grow. Who knows, perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that they do need someone to go on the road for them, who's job it is to just listen to the rental houses, to ask the right questions and then to go back and begin to implement change around a core set of ideas. They really need to do this, if they ever truly want to get beyond the perceived chaos of their current headquarters culture and take the next step in terms of respect from the industry.

Just my two cents.

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

In actuality, I know quite a few RED camera owners who are turning to alternatives. They are fed up with the rapid loss of value on their investment and the endless and extremely expensive upgrade cycles. Even the fact that they have to pay $6k just to have a 2 year warranty extension pisses them off. With the advent of the higher end Monstro and Helium products their Epics and Dragons are now regarded as $300 a day rental kits. That means they are on par with Sony FS7 renters. Further, one person who does a lot of corporate told me that he was so impressed with the quality of a Sony A7S Mark II which he had bought as a little corner cam, and which cost one twentieth the price of his RED, that he honestly thought about selling the latter.

I think that RED needs to fundamentally rethink their strategy if they wish to maintain the lower end client, and on the other hand it appears that the higher end which they are shooting now for doesn't appear that enticed either. I say simplify their lineup. Make fewer, slightly less expensive, but sturdier workhorses, reduce the price of their accessories, cut the price of the warranty extension by two thirds and concentrate on who their core is. Right now, that seems unclear. The next thing they need to do is visit EVERY rental house in the US, Europe and Asia and ask lots of questions about their product. Get that essential feedback. Then they need to overhaul their line based on this feedback and make sure that their next line of products gets in those people's hands. An ongoing relationship with the rental houses is the only way they are going to ever compete with ARRI for the higher end market. They need to lose the barbed wire tattoos, the scruffy "dude" who explains their latest Gemini camera, the dumb skull logo on the side of their "weapon" and the idea that the California/West Coast bubble is anything close to a representative sample of the owners that use their cameras around the world. In short, it's time to stop thinking so locally and go global in their strategy. Panavision was a good step, but right now it feels like the same old horse with new clothes. They need to go further and they need to conceive their next camera from the ground up like a market leader who cares about durability over time and heavy duty production issues, not as an afterthought with a strategic partner.

Heck, even I as a long term, truly hardcore skeptic of RED, but for the first time a fan with their latest sensors, even I would do the legwork for them if I felt that they were truly willing to alter their mentality and be open to a new approach towards reorganizing themselves towards a more productive set of goals. However, this the latter, seems the hardest thing of all, and where I have the greatest doubt. Because it means setting aside some egos, in order to be truly open, to listen and to be willing to grow. Who knows, perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that they do need someone to go on the road for them, who's job it is to just listen to the rental houses, to ask the right questions and then to go back and begin to implement change around a core set of ideas. They really need to do this, if they ever truly want to get beyond the perceived chaos of their current headquarters culture and take the next step in terms of respect from the industry.

Just my two cents.

THIS!!!

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

It comes down to one thing, until monstro and maybe now gemini, arri just had more dynamic range and held color better at the extemes. Oddly this isn't talked about. I think part of the problem with red historically is that redusers weren't that realistic about actual performance since they are too willing to believe that red is as good as Alexa. Realistically dsmc2 dragon and helium are still about a stop short of an old alexa and yet some people still seem to pretend they are just as good, what's worse is that people have been doing it for years, pretending dsmc1 dragon wasn't 2 stops short and mx wasn't 3 stops short (approximately). Only in the past year has red caught up to a 2009 Alexa in this regard and it's going to take a while for people to start believing that a red might be as good as Alexa for real now since it's been falsely said so many times in the past 8 years.

Moral of the story is red seems to finally have a chance and there has been a shift just very very recently. Now red just has to work on stability and possibly phasing out inferior models to avoid confusion and distance themselves from their models that just weren't as good as the competition. It's going to take a while but it seems like red only now may have a chance to gain a bit more marketshare vs arri on higher end productions.

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

Realistically dsmc2 dragon and helium are still about a stop short of an old alexa and yet some people still seem to pretend they are just as good, what's worse is that people have been doing it for years, pretending dsmc1 dragon wasn't 2 stops short and mx wasn't 3 stops short (approximately). Only in the past year has red caught up to a 2009 Alexa in this regard and it's going to take a while for people to start believing that a red might be as good as Alexa for real now since it's been falsely said so many times in the past 8 years.

THIS.

 

[Phil Holland]

It comes down to one thing, until monstro and maybe now gemini, arri just had more dynamic range and held color better at the extemes. Oddly this isn't talked about. I think part of the problem with red historically is that redusers weren't that realistic about actual performance since they are too willing to believe that red is as good as Alexa. Realistically dsmc2 dragon and helium are still about a stop short of an old alexa and yet some people still seem to pretend they are just as good, what's worse is that people have been doing it for years, pretending dsmc1 dragon wasn't 2 stops short and mx wasn't 3 stops short (approximately). Only in the past year has red caught up to a 2009 Alexa in this regard and it's going to take a while for people to start believing that a red might be as good as Alexa for real now since it's been falsely said so many times in the past 8 years.

Moral of the story is red seems to finally have a chance and there has been a shift just very very recently. Now red just has to work on stability and possibly phasing out inferior models to avoid confusion and distance themselves from their models that just weren't as good as the competition. It's going to take a while but it seems like red only now may have a chance to gain a but more marketshare vs arri.

For me Dragon was where and when the "transition" happened.

Especially in reference to color, dynamic range, and other image quality related things like IR contamination protection.

Mysterium-X was real close to the Alexa in technical merit in a lot of categories. Dragon pushed it through.

Monstro is in another space entirely.

Then again, it's all how you work all of these technologies to get the most out of them. I can certainly shoot Dragon "not well" and come to a different conclusion. But most caught on and rated/exposed accordingly.

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

For me Dragon was where and when the "transition" happened.

Really? Did you shoot epic dragon at iso1600 base? Isn't that how you'd have to shoot it to match Alexa's highlights and sensitivity at iso800? I don't know many people who were comfortable with that, in fact most people I knew kept it in the iso400-800 range.

Which isn't to say you couldn't get very nice images out of it. I still see great images coming from mx even but mx and dragon you still had to be careful with in a way that you didn't have to be with Alexa. And then it took dsmc2 and helium to clean up shadows to near Alexa levels but it lost a stop in the highlights doing so and gained some color shifts and some odd contrast issues in the shadows as well.