What would happen to other HD Cameras

[gbalaji]

Friends from Digital cinema,

What would happen to Other HD Digital cameras like Sony XDCAM HD / Cine Alta, Thomson Grass Valley Viper, Panasonic Varicam etc.

Do RED change the perception of the camera developers to create the same features and functionalities to be implemented in their camera.

What will happen to codec's like DVCPROHD, XDCAM Mpeg IMX ?

Post your suggestions to change the perception of Digital Cinema Camera manufacturers to look for and learn from RED.

Jim,

We are waiting for your update on RED Production availability, Make Sure RED succeeds. RED community is like Apple community where a small group of dedicated people supporting what they believe in. Best of Luck for last 5% update.

 

[Ace]

Right now the RED is percieved as a somewhat specialised camera in context of the industry. This role will change very soon, where the XD's, Cinealta etc will become the specialised tools (mainly for greater DOF and news applications). My prediction is that The major companies will react to RED and adapt accordingly. And its a win win for all when they do. Because we all know that RED's philosophy is to challenge the status quo. So this means that when the Sonys and Panasonics DO catch up with RED, RED will continue to one-up and bring us even more tools. Its great for everyone. The camera industry needs a consumer oriented Benchmark. Right now, RED is it.

 

[Michael Brennan]

Friends from Digital cinema,

What would happen to Other HD Digital cameras like Sony XDCAM HD / Cine Alta, Thomson Grass Valley Viper, Panasonic Varicam etc.

...

Once RED is out their and working Viper, Cinealta f900 and f23 will be affected in regard to new sales.

I reckon the other cameras you mention won't be significantly affected as these are sold by the thousands so even if 25% of REDs were to be exclusivly used instead of say XDCAM it is a small proportion of XDCAM sales.

Also interesting question is what will happen to sales of new Arri 435s?




Mike Brennan

 

[Salem Kapic]

noX

noX

Only one camera is real concurrent (price) http://www.gsvitec.com/

 

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

Jim´s not the only guy with a brain. Of course everybody has to react or close the shop (remember Polaroid?).

A camera roundup in 2 years will be quite different.

That´s a good thing.

Jochen

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Only one camera is real concurrent (price) http://www.gsvitec.com/

Wow, they certainly attempted to make one of the ugliest, boxiest cameras on the market. What's with that? I don't trust anything where they don't take the time to make the entire product aesthetically pleasing. It does matter to me, because if you respect what you have made you consider it both a piece of art and a machine of high performance. Take a Ferrari, it's the ultimate in aesthetic beauty but also in performance. That is the RED, and how a camera should look. Looks do matter! Too many people know nothing about cameras, so if they see something that looks cool they think it is good equipment.

That camera is hilarious, they actually advertise on the site, "Sometimes it's not about counting the pixels, but making the pixels count." In other words, "Our resolution sucks compared to RED but... it's not all about that!" Yeah, ok, but still your camera isn't going to compete.

 

[Curran Giddens]

While I don't feel bad for companies like Sony or Panasonic, I do kinda feel for the little guys like GS Vitec and Kinetta. I'm sure they spent a bunch on R&D, but there is no way they can compete with RED.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah, that's true, there really isn't. I'm sure they have respectable products that they have worked hard to develop, but it was just the wrong time. The RED will wash over them like a cloud of napalm.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Once RED is out their and working Viper, Cinealta f900 and f23 will be affected in regard to new sales.

I reckon the other cameras you mention won't be significantly affected as these are sold by the thousands so even if 25% of REDs were to be exclusivly used instead of say XDCAM it is a small proportion of XDCAM sales.

Also interesting question is what will happen to sales of new Arri 435s?




Mike Brennan

A Sony XDCAM camera cost roughly the same as RED..or?

I was thinking of going the XDCAM route but I decided not to (one customer less for Sony) and I am sure there are a lot like me.

In my opinion sales of other cameras will be significanly affected. DEFINITELY.

Greater success of RED will depend on how easily it fits into people's current workflow.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Wow, they certainly attempted to make one of the ugliest, boxiest cameras on the market. What's with that? I don't trust anything where they don't take the time to make the entire product aesthetically pleasing. It does matter to me, because if you respect what you have made you consider it both a piece of art and a machine of high performance. Take a Ferrari, it's the ultimate in aesthetic beauty but also in performance. That is the RED, and how a camera should look. Looks do matter! Too many people know nothing about cameras, so if they see something that looks cool they think it is good equipment.

That camera is hilarious, they actually advertise on the site, "Sometimes it's not about counting the pixels, but making the pixels count." In other words, "Our resolution sucks compared to RED but... it's not all about that!" Yeah, ok, but still your camera isn't going to compete.

Like Macs - not only are they good THEY LOOK GOOD TOO!

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

haha, well that's true, I mean that was the first thing that surprised me actually about getting my first Mac about two years ago (it was March 2005). I looked inside of the case, and the computer had this nice plastic hard shell showing off the inside, really reminded me of how my dad's Ferrari has a glass area to look at the engine, sort of like, "Hey check this out, that's right, there's the power!" I was used to looking inside of a PC, which is an absolute disgusting rats nest of wires going every direction that is obviously not meant to be seen once you close up the case. Inside of a Mac, it's all in perfect order, everything has its place, and there are no wires strewn about. It actually looks like someone took their time to assemble it rather than just throwing it together.

 

[Chosei Funahara]

HDTV(Digital TV) and 4K D-cinema

HDTV(Digital TV) and 4K D-cinema

As one of a few Japanese Red reservation holders like me, I get a lot of inquiry from engineers and investors from Japan
I’m also active member of DCI (Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC.) and SMPTE.
I’ve worked on early day on HD production and still working on D-cinema standard.

HDTV is already set a standard and will officially launch Feb 17th 2009 in US and in Japan, will start July 24th 2011. D-Cinema production is on a way, but infrastructure change will cost tremendous amount of money to the entire Film Industry.

1080i/p and 720p are already HDTV’s industrial standard; Cinema 4K production, distribution and projection will follow HDTV's industry’s HD standard.


Check http://www.dcimovies.com/
And download: DCI_DCinema_System_Spec_v1_1.pdf

 

[Ronnie Silos]

"Turn your revolution into style"

"Turn your revolution into style"

Only one camera is real concurrent (price) http://www.gsvitec.com/

If you look in the FAQ section, it says "Turn your revolution into style".
ha. ha. I suppose a minimalist box thingy is a style.

I did humor them and downloaded some sample frame grab and it's not bad.

Time for a new forum site - www.noxusernot.net - even that sounds ugly.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah their camera is a box, it was probably made for people who think the Honda Element is really stylish and good looking, or maybe for Toyota Scion owners. Two. Ugliest. Cars. Ever.

 

[Craig Schober]

form and function

form and function

Wow, they certainly attempted to make one of the ugliest, boxiest cameras on the market. What's with that? I don't trust anything where they don't take the time to make the entire product aesthetically pleasing. It does matter to me, because if you respect what you have made you consider it both a piece of art and a machine of high performance. Take a Ferrari, it's the ultimate in aesthetic beauty but also in performance. That is the RED, and how a camera should look. Looks do matter! Too many people know nothing about cameras, so if they see something that looks cool they think it is good equipment.

That camera is hilarious, they actually advertise on the site, "Sometimes it's not about counting the pixels, but making the pixels count." In other words, "Our resolution sucks compared to RED but... it's not all about that!" Yeah, ok, but still your camera isn't going to compete.

it is interesting how the form of an electronic product seems to play an increasingly important role in purchasing decisions. years ago, companies like apple pioneered design choices based upon consumer preferences before consumers even preferred to own computers-much less pay extra for slick design looks. now it's standard with consumer devices but there are still some diehard industries that cling to big and ugly. panavision cam are still big blocks. to most consumers they scream professional and untouchable. yet indy filmmakers lust for that hardware even if it's more function than form. i think red walks a fine line between both consumer and professional worlds. one is never sacrificed for the other.

 

[Jiri Bakala]

XDCAM and other ENG/EFP cameras and systems are well established in the industry and not much will happen. No TV station will suddenly go start buying Red cameras because for one, they don't and won't switch their production to 4k. There is no broadcast and no easy delivery in 4k and won't be for years. Just remember how long it took to get to where we are right now - and we are still not broadcasting across the board in HD.

Red is a specialized cine camera, which will make bigger waves in the film industry, namely in the indie sector and to a degree at the higher end of the documentary world and in nature and natural history field. Basically, wherever there is still film domination.

Will one day some kind of RED-type system become the standard for most production? Yes, probably. That day is a long way off, though. Let's be realistic; there are wonderful production systems out there with far less resolution, which, however, are still more than enough for most types of productions from docs to corporate, etc.

To a degree, I think Red is already doing, and will continue to do, what Apple did with the NLE market with their FCP - lowering pricing of competing products in the field while improving their quality. Take the new upcoming Sony XDCAM EX for example. A wonderful little camera for under $8k with a 1/2" set of sensors. Coupled with their new XDCAM PDW-U1 drive it provides for a very elegant production system. It's not 4k and doesn't have the image properties we so often like to refer to as 'film-like' but for many applications it will be just fine and be assured that SONY will sell many units.

So, as much as I think the industry is surely paying attention, Red is not going to change the landscape as dramatically and as quickly as some on this board might think.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

it is interesting how the form of an electronic product seems to play an increasingly important role in purchasing decisions. years ago, companies like apple pioneered design choices based upon consumer preferences before consumers even preferred to own computers-much less pay extra for slick design looks. now it's standard with consumer devices but there are still some diehard industries that cling to big and ugly. panavision cam are still big blocks. to most consumers they scream professional and untouchable. yet indy filmmakers lust for that hardware even if it's more function than form. i think red walks a fine line between both consumer and professional worlds. one is never sacrificed for the other.

That is true. I was not a fan of the initial iMacs, though, because they were advertising them as too much about "OOO look it's a BLUE computer, how KEWL!" It was also a lousy computer, so colored or not, it was garbage. That was back when I was die-hard PC, though, and it annoyed me that they were selling computers to computer-idiots just because the computer looked simple enough and colorful that even a n00b could use it. But, I have to say, there is great appeal for me to have gadgets that not only perform well but look cool, too. I like everything that surrounds me to be aesthetically pleasing and it bothers me if it's obvious the people who made something just focused on the inside with no concern whatsoever for how their product looks, when that's probably the easiest part of the package. It just seems... lazy.

The RED looks pretty incredible, the first time I saw it I was basically already in love with it, and the more I learned the more I thought I have to buy this camera. That's a big purchase to make for someone new to the industry, but I was convinced.

 

[Craig Schober]

red looks

red looks

The RED looks pretty incredible, the first time I saw it I was basically already in love with it, and the more I learned the more I thought I have to buy this camera. That's a big purchase to make for someone new to the industry, but I was convinced.

i agree but pro dp friends of mine laughed at red 6 months ago. they thought the 4k stuff was great but that it wouldn't fit in a professional workflow (aesthetically) and looked like it was trying too hard to be cool and futuristic. i guess they would say the same thing about oakley sunglasses. i think was before the red cage and body redesign though.

anyway, i think it's a bit silly to base purchasing decisions solely on looks. if two products function similarly and one just happens to look better for a small premium, that's fine. now compare red to uglier, 100k competition and i think it's a no-brainer.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah Wigby, that's what I'm saying. Obviously I wouldn't just buy something because it looks cool, but if I have options then I'd like something that does look at least nice. The argument reminds me a lot of when a friend of mine said something like, "I could trip out a Honda Civic for $85,000 and make it even faster than your dad's Ferrari!" My other friend said, "Uhh, yeah, but dude, it's still just a Honda Civic, and a Ferrari is still a Ferrari." I don't care if there are other faster, better performing cars out there (and there are), for me I'd still rather pay more money for a Ferrari because it's a Ferrari, and the look of the car plus its performance is awesome regardless of whether there are less-nice-looking cars that are faster or something.

But then again, it depends on your style, I'm not an American muscle fan either, I think those cars are a joke and look terrible. Give me a European car any day over "American muscle," which just screams piece of junk to me. I'm more of an Oakley guy, I like things to be very stylish and sophisticated, sleek, not boxy, etc.

I don't want to say I'm the world's biggest Oakley fan, but I'm one of them! Haha, I have 8 pairs of Oakley sunglasses, all but two cost more than $300, and some people think it's insane to pay that much for sunglasses. Actually that's 8 not including two Thumps, so 10 I guess. But first off, the difference in optics is extremely noticeable, I don't feel like I'm wearing sunglasses that actually skew my vision, they enhance my vision and block out more sunlight than any other glasses I've used, and they look extremely cool, plus you have to have glasses to go with every shirt (I'm wearing Oakley cargo pants and an Oakley t-shirt now actually, lol).

Basically, I'm a sucker for anything Oakley, and so it was a given that I'd like the design preferences of the RED. It is kind of alien and futuristic looking, and I love that, it's tight. It looks like a weapon out of Doom or something. Now of course it's how it performs that matters most, that's 99% of it, but boy that extra 1% can sure add a bit of fun.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's just that pros have seen non-functioning mock-ups before, so whether or not they look cool, it's hard to give it much thought until the real camera is closer to being released. I was one of those people who didn't think much of the original RED cage design, but I like the current one, which makes more sense.

As long as the camera is easily and quickly configurable for ergonomic handheld and Steadicam shooting, shooting on a tripod, etc. I don't really care what it looks like as long as it takes good pictures. There are only so many shapes a handholdable camera can be anyway. (But then, I'm also someone who doesn't care what car they drive as long as it is reliable and gets good gas milage, has low emissions, etc.)

To some extent, the smaller and lighter a camera is, the less its shape matters because it can be configured with accessories to do different things. It's the big & heavy cameras that really have to think carefully about how they will be configured for different situations, like going onto a Steadicam or a remote crane.

A cool-looking camera isn't going to seem so cool after awhile if it doesn't lend itself to your shooting style.

As far as news stations, they will go with whatever camera works with their in-house post set-up and their mobile news vans, their transmitters, etc. And whatever works as a field camera that can be set-up quickly (i.e. an ENG design or even prosumer gear sometimes). If they are already heavily invested in an XDCAM infrastructure, they might stick to it for awhile until it stops doing what they need it to do. Sony's success has been selling complete production and post packages, which then feed each other business as new units are bought over time. I'm not ruling RED out of the news business though - someone building a station from the ground-up may be considering something like the RED as a starting point, who knows.