Alan writes: : A response Karl's Red One post I forwarded to very knowledgeable friend : in pro video equipment field. : : Quote: : : I'm very familiar with the camera and have been watching its development : over the last two years. There is much more to this than any of their : hype suggests. The guy behind this product is the president of Oakley : sunglasses, btw. 35mm size chips are really nothing new. There are : three other much better cameras already on the market that have these : size chips and are from companies that know what they are doing: Arri, : Panavision and Dalsa Digital. but that's the thing, even an old 16mm Arri often costs more then what a red costs new ;) Red doesn't make lenses. They offer : them, but they don't make them and it is highly unlikely the ones they : offer are anything remotely as good as the Zeiss, Angenieux and Cooke : optics that the other manufacturers offer for their cameras. As above. Sadly Angenieux (also and like Cooke) once available for 35mm and other still cameras are no longer made :( I have a cooke 40-400 f4.6 fixed aperture zoom, I understood they were well over 100,000 pounds sterling when originally manufactured in the 1950's (!) but for emerging cine, the top end is a whole different league. : Those : other lenses far eclipse the cost of the Red camera. A full set of : Cooke primes would run $335,000. That $17k price includes nothing close : to what all you need to start making movies. Absolutely re the quality of lenses the manufacturer offers. but again for an entry level camera, nothing compares to the price, not by a factor of ten! For the big guys with multimillion dollar budgets what appeal is there? Peter Jackson was obviously enticed. BTW, the Arri runs at over two thousand euros a day to rent, the panavison around three thousand a day - the Sony body is over $US170,000 to buy. For those with a big budget film, the camera costs are incidental (the rental for lenses as you suggest often outweighs the lease of the camera) but for indi film makers whatever can be saved.. As to the lenses available -I have seen cooke, angineaux and leica lenses mounted to canon still cameras. : This is another example of : marketing genius combined with the naive hopes of wannabes that don't : understand the tools that are really needed. In the last analysis, it : really doesn't matter much because the filmmakers with money will shoot : either 35mm film or use an Arri D-20 or a Panavision Genesis (if going : electronic) and the folks with no money will buy the new $7k Sony : XDCAM-EX and call it a day. Mysterium chips, btw are made from : Unobtanium! the last quip sounds like another cynic who doesn't believe the camera is real ;) I've noted a lot of that while reading up on it. How proud are the still shooters of their Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Konica glass? Who here would really spend $50,000 on an Angineaux lens for their 35mm Canon? : Anyway, cell phone videos have an edgy, gritty look that is sooo NOW! hahahaha but my point in posting about the Red One here was that there is now a cheap 12Mp camera (cine) which can rack up 60 frames a minute.. and at well under $100,000. many still photographers have dreamed of being able to adapt a cine camera cheaply to allow them the pic of high quality stills from a short high frame rate burst - that's not been feasible so far. Even a clunky great 35mm cine camera only offered a format comparable to half-frame 35mm :/ Another cinematographers comment I spoke to commented 'maybe this will see the end of the million dollar cine cameras' maybe still photographers attitudes will change either way, it's an interesting development, ugliness of Oakley aside, marketing aside. k
