Ok, so here's my setup, what do you think Gibby?

[TimothyD]

Hi Gibby and everyone,

In reply to a post about Red on the Cow, I made up a list of what my kit will consist of, and how much it will cost. I thought I'd see what kind of feedback you might give on this:

(By the way, I do know that this is the cheapest 2/3" HD lens out there, but it is the best I can probably do. I'm open to other suggestions though and know this may be a weak spot in my setup...)

BEGIN PASTED POST>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here is a list of the components that I plan to order to buid a complete Red kit for HD...

***IMPORTANT*** I have no intention or allusions about shooting 4k or any narrative cinema, I plan to buy this camera because it is the best HD camera in its price range, the cinema aspect is of no interest to me personally...

Red One camera body: $17,500
Red Drive: $900
Red Power pack (2 batteries and charger): $1,450
Red Basic Production Pack: $1,250
Red EVF and Arm: $3,070
Red B4 lens adapter: $3,500
Canon KJ20X85BKRS HD Lens: $8,249.95

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469277-REG/Canon_KJ20X85BKRS_KJ20x5_8_KRS_HDgc_20x_2_3_.html

I come up with a grand total of $35,919.95

That seems like a pretty good price to me when I look at the competition in XDCAM or the HPX-500. It may be a bit more than the low end with those offerings, but it is full raster, uses a better compression codec, offers variable speed, etc.

I don't know what the people who plan to do cinema work in 35mm will be spending, but that is really not a factor to me. I just want the best camera I can get for my money, and from what I can tell this pretty much decimates everything else in the price range. That is what matters to me...

Thanks,

Tim

[JD Holloway]

Consider extra batteries and extra HDs unless this is for non pro use.

Make sure this lens is wide enough for your purposes. (x1.3 ish crop factor for 2K)
59 degrees fov on the canon (widest) will be about 37-39mm on 35 mm full frame dslr (or in this zone i suspect)

What are you shooting Tim?

[jaadgy akanni]

Canon KJ20X85BKRS HD Lens: $8,249.95


Please help me make sense of this :sarcasm: What gives? Why?

[TimothyD]

Hi guys,

In answer to JD's questions, I will be only getting two batteries and one Red Drive at first because I had to squeak under the line to even budget for the Red One. I will get more batteries and Red Drives as the need arises. For now, as long as they keep working these will suit my needs.

The crop factor is something I had not considered. Is there a wide-angle adapter that would solve this problem for me??? Maybe something I could just leave on the camera at all times???

In answer to your question about what I shoot, I work for Public Relations at a university. I shoot everything from simple news magazine style pieces to commercials and everything in-between. I cover many events, and do lots of human interest pieces that are akin to mini-docs. Pretty much everything under the sun that doesn't involve actors...

In response to Jaadgy's question...

I had to make a lot of compromises to get this camera at all, so I look at the cheap lens as something I can probably remedy in the future. If I can convince Red to offer the B4 adapter in Canon mount in addition to the PL mount then I will be able to shoot with our massive array of still glass whenever I want as well (without dealing with collimation).

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Tim

[Michael Schrengohst]

$11,750 for a 2/3" inch lens and the adapter?
And your limited to 2K
Why don't you look at some used Cine-lenses?
I am going to start with the Nikkors I have.
I figured if a bunch of guys are running around
shooting HD with 35MM adaptors mounted on
a 1/3" chip cameras then shooting RED directly
with Nikkors will not be too bad.

[Steve Gibby]

Timothy,

For your intended use, HD EFP, I think you're on the right track. JD accurately raised the FOV issues. You can put a wide converter on the front of 2/3" HD ENG zooms. Keep in mind the difference between wide converters and wide adapters. Wide converters are full zoom through, but wide adapters are only partial zoom. IMO you'd want to stick with a converter. Converters are more expensive, but you get what you pay for. Since the RED B4 adapter contains optics that correct for the use of B4 lenses that were designed for 3-chip camera systems, and you're considering adding more glass to the front of the lens in the form of a wide converter, the optical quality results of that setup need to be tested. In theory it should be fine, but in analyzing a wide converter you'll want to make sure you get one that has very good optical performance. B4 2/3" HD wide converters and adapters are made by Century (Schneider), and Cavision and 16 x 9 also make them. There is no light loss with modern technology lens-front converters and adapters.

Century HD Broadcast lens add-ons page:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1085

Another consideration that waits testing is the possibility of shooting 2k REDCODE RAW using a RED B4 adapter and HD ENG zoom. Stuart English mentioned recently that 1080p is recommended, but that the B4 adapter does spread the coverage to 2k, and that quality of results in 2k with that setup remain to be tested. If, and I emphasize "if", 2k test results come out favorable in quality, and the wide converter you use is of excellent optical quality, then it may be possible to shoot your stuff with a RED B4 converter, HD ENG zoom, and wide converter combination in a choice of 2k RC RAW, or 1080p RGB. There are no tested answers to the feasibility or results of that setup yet. I've previously talked with Century about them supplying some wide converters, a PL to PL 2x to test with the RED 300mm prime, etc. for our upcoming Los Angeles tests of RED #8. I believe they'll come through on that.

If you need to shave a bit of the price of the HD ENG zoom that you mentioned, to make room in the budget for a wide converter, used HD ENG zooms can be found for as low as $5.5k if your search.

As I mentioned above, a lot of these setups need to be field tested on RED One in order to get definitive answers. The setup you mentioned is one way of solving the equipment needs of the type of shooting you described. There are other modifications of that setup possible. You’re doing the right thing to get you to your destination…searching and asking. It’s a never-ending process in this industry. Just when you feel you have most of the answers, technology updates require you to re-think your setups…but IMO that’s one of the exciting things about this business!

Hope this helps…

[TimothyD]

$11,750 for a 2/3" inch lens and the adapter?
And your limited to 2K
Why don't you look at some used Cine-lenses?
I am going to start with the Nikkors I have.
I figured if a bunch of guys are running around
shooting HD with 35MM adaptors mounted on
a 1/3" chip cameras then shooting RED directly
with Nikkors will not be too bad.

Hi RedGuy,

I only need the 2k for 99% of what I shoot, and hope to shoot with Canon still glass for the other 1%.

I don't want the shallow depth of field that 35mm offers anyway, because most of what I do is run and gun, and I need to be in focus at all times.

Peace,

Tim

[JD Holloway]

Canon makes a number of wide adapters (.6-.75 ish), they can be found new and used for a number of their ENG lenses.

I'm actually unsure if you even need an ENG lens. Its your call but...

Perhaps a nikkor/canon zoom kit would fit your bill, and cost considerably less? Still lenses can be wider/cheaper/faster/better. Plus they let you shoot 4K RAW. The advantages of this are too many to list here. The only feature that the ENG kit would give you is a zoom rocker, but it will cost you nearly 15000+ (10+k+3.5K+ wide adapter +tax) to get that feature. RED has not even promised to deliver 2k windowed RAW yet (waiting for Q.C. to say OK) from the B4 adapter.

The money you save using still glass will probably buy the REDgrip/motor (many controls), and cheap matte box and FF (if not REDgrip) (check out CVBs thread) and maybe more batteries and drives. You need the matte box anyway unless you like shooting f22-32 outside or 1/500sec exp. etc. Just hide your kit from the film dept!

I hope Gibby will contribute. The thing about B4 lenses is that many of us have them "laying about" and can put them to good use. The wider canon HD glass is rather versatile IMHO...

[JD Holloway]

LOL took me too long to post! Phone rang!
Thanks Gibby!

As for 35mm DOF, just set your lenses at f8 "and be there" as the gum shoe photojournos say.
Just have lots of NDs available in your cheesy Khaki shooting vest!

Shooting 4k and down converting to 2k/1080p output in post means incredible low-light abilities (low noise floor etc.)
This is invaluable for doc work when you have no control what-so-ever.

[Steve Gibby]

I agree with what you said there JD. There's definitely more than one way to solve the setup for what Timothy wants to shoot. I'll be analyzing those same setup, field workflow, and cost issues for my own work. We should have some good answers shortly when we can filed test a RED One with multiple lens/accessory setups.

When it's a one-off program of project, rental of needed lens/accessories is a real good consideration. I'll be acquiring most of my footage in 4k REDCODE RAW @ 24fps and 30fps with 35mm cine/35mm still/SuperGrip, RED motor setups, and 2k RC RAW @ 60fps (action, high motion) with various lens/accessory setups (including B4 2/3" HD zooms), and occasional 1080p RGB with B4 2/3" HD ENG zooms, so lens, accessory, and size/weight of my rigs will be constantly changing. The multiple options for configuration, resolutions, formats, and setups of RED One give us a lot of ways to go, depending on what we're trying to produce.

[JD Holloway]

The only problem with so many configurations is,

A) so much more gear to drag about!
b) little time to get truly comfortable with one setup, I will have many.

While operating off a dolly is one thing, the need to feel as if the camera is part of my body when doing ENG/EPK work is invaluable to me. I fear there will be much practice before we find configurations that feel "in the zone" when we have so many options. Next winter will be busy.

[TimothyD]

Excellent info all around...

Gibby, before I forget, I am crossing my fingers that you get #8 and get to do that testing before I have to turn in my RFP next month, it had seemed likely, then the 1 month delay:(

I am going to have to find out if we could get a full refund if for some reason there is a problem with using the camera for ENG/EFP that was not anticipated. It seems very unlikely, but is a scary situation for me.

Another big problem is that if they don't release prices soon for the Supergrip and Redmotor, I won't be able to order them anyway... So 2/3" or still glass it is.

I have access to literally TONS of Canon still glass here, and can use it whenever I want. So that is definitely an option, but the powered zoom is a major conundrum.

I also had read that there are lots of problems with breathing (not even sure what that means) with still lenses, and inconsistent aperture over the range of a zoom. I need a true run and gun configuration, so that is a major concern for me.

Any thoughts on this, how feasible is still glass for run and gun?

My boss thought it was a bad idea when I told him that a zoom would be cobbled together with either a zip-tie style gear attached, or retrofitted with a gear for a price... He did not like that idea at all.

Ultimately, here's my dream config:

1. 2/3" zoom reworked to get rid of the glass that is meant to make it work with a prism.

2. Canon mount version (in addition to PL) of B4 adapter so I can just swap still and 2/3" glass whenever I want without collimation. (Still no word from Red on if this can or will be done, no reply to my posts about it. But someone did say it was IMPOSSIBLE, so I'm guessing Red can and will do it, but I need to know...)

Thanks so much folks,

Tim

[TimothyD]

By the way, my 2 cents worth on 2k RAW with a 2/3" lens is that I am going to shoot it that way even if only a tad beyond the 1080 frame is usable. That way I can pan and scan, zoom a bit, and more importantly, stabilize the images. I don't want to be locked into RGB if I can avoid it. Plus, Jim says RGB "SUCKS" so maybe they will go with 1080 and 720 RAW too, and just drop RGB... Who knows...

[JD Holloway]

...must have (clip-on?) matte box.

[TimothyD]

...must have (clip-on?) matte box.

Planning to try screw on filters as per Gibby's suggestion, at least at first to see how I do with it. Typically I'm either outside or inside for long periods. Very occasionally I have to follow someone from indoors to outdoors, or vice-versa, but very rarely.

Tim

[Steve Gibby]

Timothy,

"Breathing" is simply when a lens' optics change the focal length slightly when you focus the lens. Almost all lenses have some degree of breathing, but the better lenses only show a small amount of it. An example of when it could affect a shot is when you are racking focus between subjects. If the framing shifts slightly then that's the effect of breathing. The less breathing the better, but there are budgets to consider too - the less a lens breathes, usually the more expensive it is, with some definite exceptions when you're talking about 35mm still lenses.

The B4 lens option, in tandem with the 1080p/720p acquisition options, were included on RED One because RED knew that RED One, beyond its obvious digital cinema uses, would also be used extensively for broadcast EFP productions. The B4 option is the most economic and logical for those entities that already have B4 2/3" HD ENG lenses for their present cameras, will shoot with RED One mostly for their HDTV and other HD projects, and are not seeking 35mm DOF. They simply have to add in a RED B4 adapter and they're all set. You're not in that category. You don't already have a 2/3" HD ENG lens, so the setup costs for you are higher than those entities that already have a lens. Thus it's a more complex situation for you to solve fiscally.

I'll be exploring the 35mm still lens for EFP possibilities thoroughly. Today's modern 35mm still lenses, which are designed for digital work, give us a great performance to cost ratio. Those on a budget, and especially those of us who already have access to quality 35mm still lenses, should take a hard look at the possibilities there. The Birger adapters make it even more interesting. Today's 35mm still lenses can give you near-35mm cine lens performance, but there are workarounds involved to solve the setup and field workflow. Make no mistake about it though, good cine lenses are the best glass you can put on a RED One. That's why I've also ordered all of the RED lenses. But then again I work in a real broad spectrum of cine-style and EFP style productions, so I need an equally wide assortment of lenses, adapters, and accessories. Your needs are more narrow, so you should be able to figure it all out soon.

Yes, the testing of RED #8 will help give everyone on RED User some data to make decisions with. It's my camera, but I will be taking an essentially hand off position for the testing, and simply letting the experienced team of testers from all genres of the cine style and EFP style industry, get the hands on work with the camera. I've asked Evin Grant to direct the testing, and he has accepted. The testing team has been selected, and their names will be released shortly.

Hope this helps...

[TimPipher]

Thanks for all the great info., guys. And especially to you, Gibby, for this thread and all the others.

What would the advantage be of the Canon lens for $8,200 vs. the Red zoom for $6,500?

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks for all the great info., guys. And especially to you, Gibby, for this thread and all the others.

What would the advantage be of the Canon lens for $8,200 vs. the Red zoom for $6,500?

When I'm here on RED User, I'm always glad to help...

The Canon lens is a B4 2/3" HD ENG zoom lens. Timothy is used to that form factor of lens. His current camera is a standard definition Sony DXC-637 BetaCam with a 2/3" ENG zoom. What he shoots is essentially mobile EFP stuff around his college campus. As his school upgrades to RED One, he's hoping to be able to use a B4 2/3" ENG zoom with a zoom rocker - which is enabled by RED One's 12 volt auxiliary power. His problem is that B4 lenses on RED One require use of an adapter, plus his current SD zoom doesn't have the optical quality to be used on RED One.

I'm buying a RED 18-50 zoom. When I handled the 18-50 at RED on 4/3, while shooting DSLR pics for my NAB article, I was impressed by the size, workmanship and seeming potential for the lens in my mobile workflows. I'll use it with a REDGrip, RED Motor, lightweight follow focus (still deciding which), and a lightweight clip-on matte box. I think that setup will be excellent for mobile EFP work, especially docs, sports (not action, but behind-the-scenes), commercials, music videos, business media projects, some reality, stabilization units, jibs, housings (minus FF & MB), etc. With it I'll either shoot 4k RC RAW or sometimes 2k RC RAW for higher frame rates. I think the RED 18-50 zoom could end up being an excellent addition to anybody's lens kit.

Hope this helps...

[Mike the beginner]

I guess we could sum up with this thread that until proper testing is done, perhaps we should hold fire........

Glad JDHolloway posted his possible set-up, my set up would be pretty similar.

Gibby i was panicking a bit until JDs post and your own, which is now starting to include the birger option and the canon still lenses.

I wonder if the colimation issues with changing the mounts whilst important are not being overly stated!

I worked in the auto industry for some years being a fully technically qualified on dealing with fuel injection equipment where fine tolerances where common. Keep the conditions clean and be careful in what you do allows you to raplace shims with tiny micro thin tolerances without any problems. Done with respect and due care and attention i hope the mount changes from PL to birger mount without any colimation etc.

The new canon lenses like the 16mm-35mm L series seems an exciting route with the only seemingly drawbacks as stated i.e. the breathing and possibly even more drawback with the short focusing issues with still lenses in general.

I am pleased Gibby is offering to do this testing and all the others invloved with him. My thanks to him and his team in advance. You guys are great.

Edit: re-short focusing, i am refering to the small amount of movement on the focusing ring in comparison to cine lenses. Thus making it extremely difficult to follow focus on a moving target.

Mike the beginner

[TimothyD]

Hey everybody,

Sorry it took me a while to respond...

Thanks once again Gibby for all the great info. So, since I do have access to a lot of still glass, perhaps I should go that route? And on the other hand, a simple way to have a similar setup and characteristics to 2/3" glass, without the compromise in terms of light and FOV is obviously to use S16 glass instead. So...

I always have more questions every time you give me answers Gibby:) So now that I am considering the possibility of shooting with either still or S16 glass, I am wondering which would be easier in terms of run and gun?

I heard that moving up from SD to HD or any higher rez format makes camera moves more difficult? If so, that seems like it could be a reason for me to go with S16 over 35mm? 35mm certainly would give me the most versatility in terms of lens choices (more than one:), but can I really run and gun with it?

Considering that you have tons of experience with all manner of formats, how would you describe the difference between SD and higher rez shooting?

BTW, I certainly also would consider the Red zoom, but I assumed that it would not reach out as far as I need to. I currently have a 16x zoom, and need even more reach to manage to get candid shots of students enjoying the campus. (They either: scatter, wave or make faces if they see me with the camera aimed at them)

Thanks in advance for your help Gibby,

Tim

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Great discussion that looks at real world issues for convergence shooters. Thanks, once again, to Gibby for the time he devotes to these subjects.

My bias is toward a PL mount S16 zoom for Tim and here's why: a more direct optical path (the B4 and converter is a kludge full of compromises for a single plane sensor), DoF that suits run and gun, used Angie zooms are easy to find in Tim's price range, with the right rigging it should allow servo control with the RED control grip - if that is too pricey or seems like too much of an add on then just practice using the manual zoom ring on the lens barrel MAKE SURE YOUR LENS IS CLEAN AND LUBED OR YOU WILL HATE THE MANUAL ZOOM.

I know that the rocker type zoom control is probably your comfort zone but unless you need a slow silky push or pull the manual allows quite a bit of artistic control - snaps, presses that pick up speed with the action, etc. For the stealth stuff you can just frame up and then roll.

[TimothyD]

Thanks Blair,

I think Gibby must be doing some shooting since he never replied to this:)

Here's praying that he is somehow shooting with #8 already so we can hear his feedback!

Anyway, I am definitely leaning toward S16. I wonder though if I could run and gun with a still lens if I put a filter on it to increase the depth of field? If so that would be the absolute cheapest way to go... The question then would be: how a still lens would respond when zooming, and what a good lens for my main stuff would be that doesn't have many problems with breathing. Maybe there are other problems I am not forseeing with still glass too?

I can't go without a zoom control of some kind. I floated that idea to my boss and he wasn't too hip to it:) I'd personally be willing to try it, but I do need to do real nice slow pushes and pulls sometimes, so it might not work like you said...

So I'm thinking that if I can somehow get Red to give me a price on a supergrip and redmotor (even a high estimate) then, providing they were within my price range I would be able to go that route. I am interested to see how the joystick works on the supergrip though. When I hear it described I picture something like a thumb stick on a video game joystick. I can't imagine that would be as easy to do a smooth zoom with as a rocker, but maybe I'm just not understanding how it works.

I'm sure there is a picture of one of the prototype supergrips on here somewhere, but I can't find it by searching to get an idea of what the zoom control would be like.

I'd personally love a simple rocker that I could mount anywhere I wanted on the camera. I know other companies make rockers, but I'd like a Red rocker that is a little nicer and could easily mount to any of the points on the camera.

Thanks again for the info. I'm still in daily deliberation.

Any thoughts on still vs. S16? Also, any suggestions of good places to find used S16 glass if I go that route? Gibby had mentioned rental houses, which seems like a safe bet, but I'm not sure what ones I should contact. Do you know if Abel carries any used equipment?

Thanks,

Tim

[Damien Molineaux]

<cut>
I wonder though if I could run and gun with a still lens if I put a filter on it to increase the depth of field? If so that would be the absolute cheapest way to go... The question then would be: how a still lens would respond when zooming, and what a good lens for my main stuff would be that doesn't have many problems with breathing. Maybe there are other problems I am not forseeing with still glass too?

<cut>

Hi Tim,

About the points above, if you want increased depth of field, you need to stop DOWN therefore you need to minimize ND filters.

I also think S16 is the way to go, with a Red motor and Super grip if you want motorized zooming. I've found a reasonably priced Zeiss S16 T2.4 12-120 mm, but the lens I would really like is the Canon 8-64mm T2.4

It's supposed to have superb image quality and 8mm is a lot wider than 12. For S16, a 16mm lens corresponds pretty closely to a normal angle of view.

S16 vs still lenses : wider range, not many 8 to 64mm zooms for still. The widest Canon ultra wide zoom is 10-22 and opens f3.5-4.5, next one up is the 16-35 f2.8, which is supposed to be very nice, but on a 2k sized sensor that barely gives you a normal angle of view. I mention Canon lenses here because they can be remotely zoomed with the Red/Birger mount for Canon lenses, and a Super grip.

Still lenses are made for large sensors (or negative), doesn't mean you can't use them for an S16 sized sensor (2k windowed) but personnaly, I'm planning to go the still (Nikon) route for 4k capture only.

I'd love to have pricing on the Red motor and Super grip, it would nicely complement my Zeiss zoom, but I think I'll have to hold on that purchase for a while, unless it's really agressively priced.

Cheers,
Damien

[TimothyD]

Hi Earthling,

Well I feel like an idiot on the DOF question. I had it backwards because I was thinking the extra light from a larger lens was the reason for the shorter DOF. The whole sensor size and lens size thing as it relates to DOF is pretty confusing to me.

As far as the lens choice goes, I do think S16 would be the simplest way to achieve what I am used to. I also think the reduced file size of cropped 2k would make a lot of sense in terms of data storage.

I guess I'll be trying to find a good price on an S16 lens, and praying they release the prices for the supergrip and redmotor before I have to put in my order...

Thanks,

Tim

[Steve Gibby]

TimothyD,

You're right...I've been on location in Yosemite shooting, but not with RED #8 (don't have it yet).

S16 is a definitely viable option for what you want to shoot, and especially since you don't already own a B4 2/3" HD ENG zoom.

If you decide to go with a S16, RED motor, SuperGrip setup, do some searches on RED User for "S16mm lenses" etc. and you'll find several threads about them. For your stated uses you'll need a fairly long focal length zoom, which narrows down the selection somewhat. Some are huge and heavy and you mentioned that hand held and shoulder mounting are some of your uses. The average B4 2/3" zoom weighs between 4 and 6 pounds. S16mm long zooms can weigh much more than that. Consider all ergonomic and weight issues carefully.

Before you complete the purchase of any used lens, research out the performance characteristics of the lens here and elsewhere on the Web, and insist on having an independent lens technician examine the lens for problems. Reserve the right to decline completing the purchase if the lens technician finds problems you don't want to deal with.

Though you mentioned that 4k shooting isn't a priority for you, keep in mind that the upward ability to shoot 4k will not be an option with either S16mm or B4 2/3" lenses.

The RED 18-50mm zoom sounds like too short a focal length for your stated needs. If RED was offering a longer focal length S35mm zoom, maybe a 25-200mm, I'd suggest you explore that option for use with a RED motor/SuperGrip setup. I have no knowledge of such, but it wouldn't surprise me to see RED announce a longer focal length S35mm zoom sometime in the future. A S35 lens will obviously cover the 2k and 1080p formats you will be shooting in.

You're doing the right things: asking questions and exploring options. That's what each one of us does to satisfy the needs of the genres and sub-genres that we shoot. Keep asking and exploring...it's a career-long process.

[TimothyD]

Hi Gibby,

So good to see you back!!! Though I do wish that you somehow already had number 8 and had test reports for us:)

I am definitely thinking that S16 is the safest bet, but I do have one major hurdle, I have to turn in my list of the equipment I want to purchasing very, very soon. That means that without a price on the Redmotor and Supergrip I cannot order them. In my initial plan I had specified the Red 18-85 zoom and a separate motor and zoom controller, but it sounded like the zoom controller was intended to work on a tripod handle...

So I am wondering if forced to go with a non-Red zoom controller would I actually be able to use it in the fashion I am accustomed to? I also realize that I would have no record button affixed to the controller, so that adds another level of difficulty.

All of these issues with lenses are quite daunting, and dare I say it, are forcing me to look at other options, none of which are very appealing to me.

For the sake of argument, knowing my situation, which "competing" ENG camera would you suggest? I am thinking XDCAM (PDW-F330) or AG-HPX500, but don't really like the compromises that each require. Do you know of any other camera that would fit the bill?

If I somehow do have to buy a different camera, I will still be buying at the very least the pocket Red for my own personal use doing documentaries, but I will never have the option to go with Red for work again. (as I will be stuck with whatever I buy for many years to come). This is quite a frustrating decision for me...

Thanks so much,

Tim

[TimothyD]

One other question,

Are there any manual mechanisms for zoom control that would be workable for me? Could a follow focus be used for zoom instead assuming that the gears are the same?

And one other thought Gibby in regard to the size and weight of S16 zooms. What do you think of the idea of a shorter zoom for general use, and a long prime for candid shots of students on campus? I think I could get away with 10x or less on the zoom, and then would want the longest prime I could afford to go with it. Though I'd really like to shoot the candid shots in 4k, and maybe the 300mm Red prime would be the ticket for those shots?

Thanks,

Tim

[Steve Gibby]

Timothy,

Here's my thoughts on what you asked:

I have no guess on the price of the RED Motor or SuperGrip. Based on the very reasonable price of the rest of the RED products, I would assume that the price of the RM and SG will also be priced very reasonably.

There are various zoom controllers on the market. They are designed to interface with the standard gears of lenses.

Though there will not be a record button on a SG, there will be a record button on the camera. Getting used to that should be easy.

If you have to go to a straight ENG camera instead of RED One, there is a wide selection of cameras to fit those needs. You mentioned a few of them - F330 and HPX500. Each has their pluses and minuses. If you have to go that way, research them closely and make sure you'll be happy with your choice.

If RED One doesn't fit your fiscal acquisition schedule, you may be able to buy one personally at a later date, or, as you mentioned, buy a RED PPC if it's features would service your needs.

I think you should consider zooming less with RED One, if you are able to get one, or zooming less when you shoot with any EFP/ENG camera. Cine-style shooting usually involves less zooming and less use of zooms for the most part. I think too many EFP/ENG shooters rely on zooming just because they have a zoom. When I use a zoom, I always zoom with it sparingly and mostly use it as a variable prime. I usually only zoom during a shot/take when I feel it is the best choice and it won't distract viewers from the continuity of the shot and story.

A two lens approach, with maybe a RED 18-50 zoom and a RED 300mm prime is workable. Remember, when using the 300mm prime you'll need to walk forward and backward to get the framings you're looking for. If that is workable, you have time to change between lenses, and your movement won't distract the students you are shooting, it is a viable solution.

Hope this helps...

[chuck colburn]

Gibby,

If you weren't shooting with #8, which number was it? lol

[Steve Gibby]

Gibby,

If you weren't shooting with #8, which number was it? lol

I wish it was a RED camera, but unfortunately my toolkit was a 1080p camera and a DSLR! The subject matter was unreal though - crystal clear skies, max-flow waterfalls, and breathtaking rock faces. Shots everywhere. Thought I'd get the Yosemite stock footage and pics in before the Memorial Day rush. The whole time there, surrounded by unbelievable photo opportunities, I found myself visualizing myself using RED One for the same shots in 4k REDCODE RAW - which is exactly what I'll do later this year. I kinda felt like I was hunting rhino with a .22 - or in Rogue River terms, fishing for steelhead with 2 lb test line!

[TimothyD]

I have no guess on the price of the RED Motor or SuperGrip. Based on the very reasonable price of the rest of the RED products, I would assume that the price of the RM and SG will also be priced very reasonably.

Yeah, I assume they will be a definite bargain, I just have to have a price in order to be able to get buy them:(


If you have to go to a straight ENG camera instead of RED One, there is a wide selection of cameras to fit those needs. You mentioned a few of them - F330 and HPX500. Each has their pluses and minuses. If you have to go that way, research them closely and make sure you'll be happy with your choice.

Yeah, I have been doing research on other cameras all along, but most of them seemed weak in terms of the (often interframe) codecs they use, 4:2:0 color in some cases, the fact that they are not full raster 1080 and that at 1080@60 fps they are all interlaced (everything I can find in this price range at least). I have renewed my search for alternate cameras that meet these criteria, but I can't find anything that doesn't have at least some major compromise in one or more of the areas.


If RED One doesn't fit your fiscal acquisition schedule, you may be able to buy one personally at a later date, or, as you mentioned, buy a RED PPC if it's features would service your needs.

I certainly will be buying a PPC at some point at the very least, and maybe a Red One. Who knows when, but when I buy a decent personal camera I will very likely get a Red...



I think you should consider zooming less with RED One, if you are able to get one, or zooming less when you shoot with any EFP/ENG camera.

I try to just use zooming to follow action, but admittedly, it is very easy to over use a zoom. I tend to have to use it while running and gunning to frame shots on the fly in a manner that still allows me to use the shot in the edit. I tend to have pity on the editor since the editor is me:) And since I always am a one man band I have to make sure as much footage as possible is usable, because I have no second camera to go to in the edit.


A two lens approach, with maybe a RED 18-50 zoom and a RED 300mm prime is workable. Remember, when using the 300mm prime you'll need to walk forward and backward to get the framings you're looking for. If that is workable, you have time to change between lenses, and your movement won't distract the students you are shooting, it is a viable solution.

Working with the 300mm would be smooth I think because I could be far enough away to get candid shots without them noticing. As for the 18-50, the short DOF scares me in terms of run and gun, but I do have to imagine that Graeme's magic focus assist will help a lot. I'm just a little apprehensive since I've never worked with 35mm DOF before.

Thanks so much for all the insights Gibby, outstanding advice as usual.

I'll let you know what I end up deciding be it Red or something else. But so far the magic "meets most of my requirements" camera hasn't reared its head...

Let me ask you this one additional question, do you think that the Red with the cheap Canon HD 2/3" lens I pointed out at the beginning of this thread would be preferable to the HPX500 (with the best lens they sell it with) for run and gun? (The reason I am leaning toward the HPX500 over XDCAM as an alternate to Red is because I don't want interframe compression)

Thanks,

Tim

[Leo Ticheli]

This is a very long thread here and in at least one other forum. At the risk of plowing the same field over and over, I'll make my observations.

Tim, I fully understand that you want the most capable camera you can possibly obtain, one that will serve your needs for as long as possible. We all want that, but we are best served choosing the right tool for the job.

Unfortunately, from your description of your tasks, the Red is not the appropriate choice. You're doing ENG with a crew of one. That's the bottom line.

Some of the lenses you are discussing are very limiting, you don't have the range of coverage you'll need, whereas a 2/3" camera can have a lens that covers every angle from very wide to sufficient telephoto to capture most jobs, and one additional zoom can handle most of the very long needs.

A mixed bag of glass won't match, so you'll be doing a great deal of color grading to try to fix it and that may not be enough. There are quite likely to be profound differences in contrast and sharpness in addition to color.

You could go with something like a 20 - 100 or 18 -100 Cooke, and a 25 - 250, but those lenses are big, heavy beasts; might be a challenge for a crew of one.

I strongly feel that running around screwing in ND filters every time you encounter a different lighting level is going to be a major pain. Filter a bit dusty? Stop and clean it; put the camera down somewhere and use both hands to work on the filter. Drop one of those babies and you'll really suffer. They are expensive and you'll be carrying three of them and a polarizer plus your cleaning kit.

By the time you're ready to shoot, a 2/3" ENG style camera will have moved on to the next shot. Are you prepared to bring home fewer shots per day?

If you just use the iris to adjust the levels, you're throwing away one of the most important creative tools, selective depth of field. For most shots, f11 looks terrible.

You seem to be hung up on some image quality issues with the current crop of 2/3" cameras from some technical spec standpoint. The only specification that should concern you is the image quality you see on the display. If 2/3" is good enough to produce motion pictures, it should be good enough for your final product.

I am an ardent Red supporter and am exciting about receiving ours because it works perfectly for most of my jobs. For the others, I'll be sending out a different camera.

I'll look in from time to time to see how your decision making it coming along and will be very interested to see how the Red performs for you in the field should you decide it's the way to go.

These are my opinions based on what we think Red will be when it ships; I'd love to be wrong so I could use the Red camera for every job and ditch my VariCams, but I would bet I'm right.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

[TimothyD]

Hi Leo,

Good talking to you again:)

I absolutely hear you... Early on in my investigation of which camera to get I decided that I would just get a PDW-F330. But the more I read about long gop the more it scared me off. (and I can't say I've been at all impressed with the color of HDV, so I doubt I'd like XDCAM HD any better).

I also am very much hoping for a non-proprietary IT centric format for the actual recording device. When I look at P2 it bugs me because they could have just used CF and made everyone's lives easier, and more importantly the media will only grow in size and drop in price. That's also a problem with the professional disc or SxS cards that XDCAM HD uses.

I am still doing intense research, and am actually really hoping I can find something that doesn't compromise in too many of the areas I am concerned with. My next step is going to be to go and get hands on with some cameras once I narrow down the field.

At this point my primary criteria are: I want to avoid interframe compression, and I want to have 4:2:2 color. Non-proprietary media is also a key concern for me, but not the deal breaker. If there is a deal breaker, it is color. So that makes me think that the XDCAM line has been eliminated from the running, as much as I might enjoy the form factor of the new EX camera. That leaves the Infinity and either the HPX500 or HPX2000 as the main contenders. I am a little doubtful that the HPX2000 will be in my price range once I add the viewfinder and AVC-I card (AVC-I is very appealing to me though). I haven't been able to find a price on the Infinity yet, so I don't know if it is a true contender or not. If the HPX500 included AVC-I it would be a no-brainer to choose it. I still don't really like the idea of pixel shifting, but like you said, it is about how it looks on a TV, not how it looks on paper.

The one final problem, and something that will impact my daily workflow is that everything I shoot needs to look good when output as 1080i for broadcast, but I don't want to have to deal with interlacing, so I was really hoping for a 1080p60 capable camera. That would give me the utmost flexibility because the same stuff I do for broadcast can be output for the web without time consuming de-interlacing... Ultimately, I often end up using any footage that I shoot many times, so the time I spend shooting is a kind of insignificant in the scope of everything, the workflow is the most important thing, and is why I'm so hung up on the technical aspects of my camera choice. When it comes down to it the codec is probably the most important part of my camera choice.

These are the primary reasons Red has been constantly cropping up as the one camera that has no compromises for me, that is, until I took a good hard look at the issues with choosing a lens...

I still have to wonder though if a cheap 2/3" lens on the Red would not look better than footage from the best (still cheap) lens that comes with the HPX500?

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, and good shooting to you as well.

Tim

[Damien Molineaux]

<cut>

The one final problem, and something that will impact my daily workflow is that everything I shoot needs to look good when output as 1080i for broadcast, but I don't want to have to deal with interlacing, so I was really hoping for a 1080p60 capable camera. That would give me the utmost flexibility because the same stuff I do for broadcast can be output for the web without time consuming de-interlacing... Ultimately, I often end up using any footage that I shoot many times, so the time I spend shooting is a kind of insignificant in the scope of everything, the workflow is the most important thing, and is why I'm so hung up on the technical aspects of my camera choice. When it comes down to it the codec is probably the most important part of my camera choice.

<cut>

Interesting thread.

Hi Tim,

about your, and others', concern about progressive, I don't understand why you would want 60p. If I'm not mistaken there are no 1080p camera that record 1080p on tape, or whatever media. If you shoot 30p, it is always recorded in a 1080i stream, which will play back fine and look great when broadcast. Okay, if you need to shoot stuff with a lot of motion, it may appear a little stuttery, so find a camera where you can simulate a slow shutter, then you'll have a little motion blur. Am I off track, does motion really need to be shot at 60 frames per second ?

With 60p, you're doubling your file size, halving the amount of footage you can record on any media, seems silly to me, more so a waste.

just my 2 cents,
Damien

[David Mullen ASC]

There are some HD cameras that shoot 60P/1080, it's just that they switch to 4:2:2 when being recorded to HDCAM-SR. For example, the Sony HDC-1500 can capture at 60P/1080.

The thing is that if you are shooting for HDTV broadcast in a 60Hz country, it's either 60P/720 or 60i/1080, so I'm not sure there is a real need to shoot everything at 60P/1080 when it would just have to be converted to one of those two broadcast formats. And 60P/720 converts very well to 60i/1080, so if you want to shoot progressive-scan for HD broadcast and don't need the "film look" of lower frame rates like 24, 25, 30, then shoot 60P/720.

Most people are only interested in 60P/1080 for creating slow-motion effects in a 24P/1080 project.

[TimothyD]

Hi folks,

I was thinking in terms of the fact that I benefit from avoiding interlacing, but have very smooth motion. I guess the more I look at it, the more it seems I will want to shoot 720p60 as David suggests. I just want to treat interlacing as a delivery medium option only...

Thanks so much,

Tim

[JW Lee]

This has been a great thread so far. I can definitely relate to the types of issues being brought up here. I'm thinking the Red 18-50 would be useful in a number of situations including interviews, wide shots and general use. As mentioned, when you need a longer lens, it could be a problem. My thinking is that the Red 300 might be a bit too much on the other end of the spectrum. I'm wondering what another choice might be to have in the kit that could be useful for longer shots. My point of reference would be something like what a 18x7.6 would produce. Not really familiar (yet) with shooting on cine lenses.

i suppose the B4 solution is possible, but I really like the DOF you can get with a cine style lens.

Hope my question makes sense.

[TimothyD]

I guess what this is coming down to for me is:

Would it be worth dealing with the loss of light from the B4 adapter, and swapping filters to have the image I would get out of an admittedly cheap HD 2/3" lens (all I can afford if I go with Red).

Or, do I go with one of the few cameras I see as fitting most of my other needs beyond resolution, still with a relatively cheap lens, maybe even cheaper? (Except in the case of the AG-HPX500, for which I could afford a considerably nicer lens, but I don't know that it is worth it?)

The contenders at this point are:

1. Grass Valley Infinity

2. Panasonic AG-HPX2000

3. Maybe the AG-HPX500 and a AG-HVX200 as a B-roll cam.

I have narrowed this list down based on the fact that I want to go with a decent intraframe codec, preferably wavelet if possible. I also want 4:2:2 minimum, and I want at least a 2/3" sensor. I also would like the ability to shoot 60p in at least 1080 or 2k for a nice smooth looking downrez. (Obviously only Red could do this, and as we talked about above it is not a deal breaker, just appealing)

Any thoughts from anyone on whether you think it would be worth dealing with screw on filters and the lost stop and a half of light with the B4 adapter? Here are the things that come to mind as issues with each choice:

1. Resolution (pixel shifting on the Pansonics)

2. Color

3. Non-proprietary media options

4. Codec and associated workflow (Unknown if there will be FCP support for JPEG2000?)

5. Latitude (After the lost stop of light)

6. Any problems (aside from lost light) from using a single sensor Red with an adapted 2/3" lens

It seems to me that the quickest way for Red to facilitate this camera being used as an ENG/EFP camera (with 2/3" DOF) would be to work together with Canon, Fujinon, etc. to provide 2/3" (or S16) ENG lenses meant to work with a single sensor camera and ideally with some switchable ND filter setup like a traditional ENG camera would have built into the barrel of the lens or into a B4 adapter. Maybe some of the i Technology could be included if Red worked with Cooke on an adapted S16 lens? In that scenario, the Red motor and supergrip could be a good way to have a powered zoom, as could a Red produced simple handgrip with a motor, zoom rocker and record button like on an ENG lens.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think that if Red offered an S16 or 2/3" ENG solution or better yet an entire ENG ready to shoot kit it would take off like crazy.

I suppose it may turn out that the PPC is just that, but if so I hope it is more akin to an ENG camera and less akin to a high-res handycam.

Cheers,

Tim

[tj williams]

Timothy. I own an older Canon B4 lens shooting on HDcam and the lens which came with the early HDcam cameras the 18X Canon is quite nice and available widely for cheaper, if you finally feel you must buy and convert a B4 lens. Since I already own this lens I probably will go that way for my uses.

I have one thought about the need for a wide variety of focal lengths. If you choose a 10X or 15X range S16 lens you save the $3500 for the B4 adapter. You still have that much money to buy a rather nice S16 lens. There should also be more than enough left to buy the control handle and control motors from RED.

When you need more telephoto just switch the RED Camera to the 35mm sensor mode and continue shooting with the S16 lens which will thereby be turned into quite a long tele lens. This will be because you are only recording the inner windowed area of the larger sensor. This will not be dissimiliar to switching the B4 lens to doubler, but there will be no optical quality loss as there is with most doubler lenses in tele. Of course you will be recording quite a bit of image beyond the area of the S16 lens, which you will just crop off in post. Now you have a nice light weight lens, and the focal range needed for the EFP type stuff you have been doing.

I fully intend to use this same technique with the B4 Canon I own. by putting the lens in doubler and the sensor on 35mm I should be able to see into the next county....This is gonna be a very cool feature of RED Camera and of RED cine where you can cut out a window for export to the same format you got from the windowed sensor.

[TimothyD]

Yeah, that sounds like a very good idea TJ. People had mentioned that earlier somewhere and I definitely like the idea.

The thing is, the camera is being purchased very soon, and if I don't have a price for the supergrip and redmotor then I can't buy them...

I am still very much deliberating this whole thing. I just wish it were easier to make my decision. Ultimately it is a decision I'll have to live with a long time, so I've really been trying to do all the necessary research to make sure I feel confident it is the right choice. It seemed like a no-brainer until I took the lens issues into account.

Thanks for the feedback,

Tim

[JD Holloway]

When you need more telephoto just switch the RED Camera to the 35mm sensor mode and continue shooting with the S16 lens which will thereby be turned into quite a long tele lens. This will be because you are only recording the inner windowed area of the larger sensor. This will not be dissimiliar to switching the B4 lens to doubler, but there will be no optical quality loss as there is with most doubler lenses in tele. Of course you will be recording quite a bit of image beyond the area of the S16 lens, which you will just crop off in post. Now you have a nice light weight lens, and the focal range needed for the EFP type stuff you have been doing.

um...TJ, this technique will leave you with nothing but vignetting around a s16 mm sized image. You can use 35 mm lens and shoot s16 cropped to achieve this effect...or just do it in post. Its like a Digital Zoom on a stills camera.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong....I wouldn't be too surprised.

[TimothyD]

I think you are right JD. I was half asleep when I read TJ's post, and wasn't thinking it through properly.

The only way you could do that is with a larger lens that is normally shooting 4k.

With an S16 shooting 2k you could theoretically scale down to 720 to achieve more "zoom" in post. That might be a workable solution.

Tim

[JD Holloway]

Absolutely,

The zoom factor or crop factor/field of view can also be used for re framing. This might be interesting for people who shoot with tilt/shift lenses or fish eyes and are trying to generate some interesting lens effects by centering off the sweet spot.

[Steve Gibby]

Tobeorx – Reply Part 1:

I’ve been on the road heavily doing production for about 10 days, thus my delayed response to your post. I have time today to post my input, so here it is:


This is a very long thread here and in at least one other forum. At the risk of plowing the same field over and over, I'll make my observations.

Tim, I fully understand that you want the most capable camera you can possibly obtain, one that will serve your needs for as long as possible. We all want that, but we are best served choosing the right tool for the job.

Unfortunately, from your description of your tasks, the Red is not the appropriate choice. You're doing ENG with a crew of one. That's the bottom line.

Yes, this has been “plowed” between us before. For those reading this thread that would like to view your statements about the limited use of RED One, and my exchange with you on that thread correcting your misconceptions of the design intention and uses of RED One, here is a link to that thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2194&page=2

Tim’s description of his work at the university, over multiple threads on RED User, fits a definition of Non-hardlined EFP, with scattered elements of ENG-style – not ENG because he doesn’t work for a news station and doesn’t have the turnaround requirements of such. If you like to review the definitions I’ve made on my EFP/ENG for RED FAQ at the top of this forum you’ll find that my analysis of Tim’s work is accurate, when applied to that FAQ.


Some of the lenses you are discussing are very limiting, you don't have the range of coverage you'll need, whereas a 2/3" camera can have a lens that covers every angle from very wide to sufficient telephoto to capture most jobs, and one additional zoom can handle most of the very long needs.

A mixed bag of glass won't match, so you'll be doing a great deal of color grading to try to fix it and that may not be enough. There are quite likely to be profound differences in contrast and sharpness in addition to color.

You could go with something like a 20 - 100 or 18 -100 Cooke, and a 25 - 250, but those lenses are big, heavy beasts; might be a challenge for a crew of one.

If you analyze Tim’s posts over multiple threads on RED User, he has asked exploratory questions about the use of the following lens types with RED One: B4 2/3” HD ENG, B4 2/3” HD cine (zoom & prime), 35mm still, S35mm cine (zoom & prime), and S16mm cine (zoom & prime). Those are the kinds of questions all RED One adopters need to ask themselves as they define how RED One could/should fit into their own workflow and genres of production they do. As Tim asked the questions many of us have stepped up to offer advice on the pluses and minuses of him using those lens types for what he wants to do. The fact remains, as myself and many others have advised Tim, that leaving his budget restrictions aside, for the type of work he describes he wants to do with RED One, a B4 adapter/B4 2/3” HD ENG zoom is the best lens selection. He has budget/time restrictions so he has continued to explore the other possible lens options with RED One – something everyone should be doing.

[Steve Gibby]

Tobeorx - Part 2:


I strongly feel that running around screwing in ND filters every time you encounter a different lighting level is going to be a major pain. Filter a bit dusty? Stop and clean it; put the camera down somewhere and use both hands to work on the filter. Drop one of those babies and you'll really suffer. They are expensive and you'll be carrying three of them and a polarizer plus your cleaning kit.

By the time you're ready to shoot, a 2/3" ENG style camera will have moved on to the next shot. Are you prepared to bring home fewer shots per day?

If you just use the iris to adjust the levels, you're throwing away one of the most important creative tools, selective depth of field. For most shots, f11 looks terrible.

On the long “White Balance” thread on RED User, after I gave Tim extensive advice on the mobile use of filters, and analyzed what he was used to with his current DXC-637, he expressed satisfaction that his workflow was sufficiently slow to allow him the time to screw ND filters on and off if needed. I also explained the alternative of using a lightweight clip-on matte box and drop in filters for a faster workflow.

If you haven’t read that thread, here’s a link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2196&page=9

As for DOF, in mobile Non-hardlined EFP and ENG work, shallow DOF is rarely used, and then for selective creative B-roll shots for in-bumps, outbumps, mood montages, some interviews, etc. Tim described his work as almost always in natural light. Outdoors in natural light, and for the non-hardlined EFP work Tim does, apertures between f8 and f11 are usual, plus as noted above he is not generally looking for shallow DOF. If he needs shallow DOF, he simply needs to know the methods of achieving that: open up the aperture through use of ND, get farther from the subject and push with his zoom to a longer focal length, etc. There’s no rocket science involved there and he’s been doing that with his DXC-637 and 2/3” SD ENG zoom for some time now.

It has been confirmed that when using a B4 adapter on RED One, a 2/3” HD lens will cover 2k. What hasn’t been tested is the quality of the image in that setup. If that setup proves to have good image quality, and Tim was to be using that setup, and keeping in mind he mostly does Non-hardlined EFP production (not ENG), he would then have the option to shoot 2k REDCODE RAW with that B4 adapter/2/3” HD lens setup – something that would open a lot of creative options for him. Because of the flexibility of processing options with REDCINE, and his usual lack of need for shallow DOF, the critical nature of using multiple ND’s (screw in or drop in) would be relieved. Also, zebra has been confirmed on RED One, so that gives him another quick exposure setting option in his non-hardlined EFP work.


You seem to be hung up on some image quality issues with the current crop of 2/3" cameras from some technical spec standpoint. The only specification that should concern you is the image quality you see on the display. If 2/3" is good enough to produce motion pictures, it should be good enough for your final product.

IMO the issues of whether a format is intraframe or interframe have direct effect on the post workflow, motion characteristics of footage, etc. I think a position that all 2/3” formats, regardless of their compression scheme, are essentially equal, and that the results should be similar, is not the position Tim should take. IMO he’s right to be asking the questions he is asking about formats and compression schemes. It can be argued for HDTV projects that they all end up being compressed to MPEG2 for satellite delivery, and low bit rates to boot, but I’d counter that with a position that those facts make even more valid the idea that the original dub master the networks use should be as high quality as possible, and that will help the compressed network files to look better. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Steve Gibby]

Tobeorx - Reply Part 3:


I am an ardent Red supporter and am exciting about receiving ours because it works perfectly for most of my jobs. For the others, I'll be sending out a different camera.

I think it’s great that you are now an ardent RED supporter. I think it’s important to give this forum some more info on that. Let’s rewind 14 months to April 2006. My groundbreaking interview with Jim Jannard about RED and RED One had just been published in Studio Daily (4/06), and as a member of Creative Cow, I made a post on the Creative Cow High End HD forum about RED, RED One and a reference to the published interview. You were then, and are now a moderator for that forum. The forums response? A cascade of negative “RED is vaporware” posts. When I felt some of the posts on that thread were violating the forum rules there, I appealed to you as a moderator. Though you were professional in your response, you backed the other forum members there, not me. Creative Cow is an excellent tech board, but their policy toward RED through all these months since RED was announced has been to discourage discussion of RED until RED One ships, and indeed to today’s date (5/3/07) there still isn’t a RED Forum on Creative Cow.

In checking the existing and former online RED forums, and their databases on membership, I come with the following reference you (correct me if any of these are wrong):

DVX USER: no membership or participation
DV Info: no membership or participation
RED User: Join date = 4/19/07

I think it is great when anyone supports RED and someone’s start date of support for RED one has no bearing on their status here on RED User, but so readers of this EFP/ENG for RED forum don’t mistakenly assume that you are a longtime supporter of RED, I have posted the info above. Welcome to the RED family of supporters – the more the merrier. Those of us who have supported RED from the very beginning welcome the increase of support for RED with open arms.



I'll look in from time to time to see how your decision making it coming along and will be very interested to see how the Red performs for you in the field should you decide it's the way to go.

Actually Tim was my “student” here before he became yours on Creative Cow. As linked above, and on multiple other threads here on RED User, I have given him a lot of my time and insight to help him out, and it was accurate insight offered simply to bring him up to speed on the diversity of possibilities with RED One. He has done the right thing in asking questions, and experienced veterans like you, me, and others have offered many opinions. If he does adopt RED One, it will indeed be interesting how it works out for him. Fortunately we won’t have to wait for Tim to get a camera in order to analyze RED One’s real world performance in cine-style and EFP style production. I have one of the first RED One cameras (#8), and it will be heavily tested in L.A. shortly after delivery by a highly-experienced team of professionals from the cine, EFP, DSLR, and post industries. Immediately after that I’ll be putting #8 into action on an assortment of cine and EFP projects. As usual, I’ll share my impressions here on RED User.


These are my opinions based on what we think Red will be when it ships; I'd love to be wrong so I could use the Red camera for every job and ditch my VariCams, but I would bet I'm right.

You’re a relatively new adopter of RED One, as I’ve outlined above, and if you own Varicams I would guess that you have a vested interest in maximizing your investment in them. Panasonic recently made a major price reduction in the Varicam (AJ-HDC27H). In checking the going price of used Varicams, it is apparent that they are commensurately dropping in sale price. As someone in your position, you can either hold onto the Varicams and continue to milk them for their utility life, or dump them before their used price drops any further. That’s a choice only you can make. BTW, I have a high opinion of the Varicam and it has been used extensively in some of my projects. With my adoption of RED One and with RED one’s lowest resolution format (720p) being the format the Varicam shoots, and RED One’s significantly lower price and upward mobility to 1080p, 2k, 4k, and 2540p, to me it was an easy choice to pass on the use of Varicams on my EFP style productions in lieu of RED One. I hold Panasonic in high regard. I was one of the very first pros to do a full magazine review of the HVX200 (4/06), and just last week I was invited by one of the major tech magazines to do the first full magazine review of the new Panasonic HPX500 – something I regrettably had to turn down because of my busy ongoing production schedule.

I think you need to look at the latest renders of RED One in an EFP configuration and add that to the lens options, format options, and accessories becoming available for RED One. RED One’s EFP versatility and usability are becoming more clear with each week.

You say you’d love to be wrong about RED One’s EFP/ENG style use. I’ll be one of the guys who will most likely prove you wrong on that, in view of my early camera number (#8), the L.A. testing mentioned above, and my intention to plug #8 into multiple high-profile EFP series and one-offs.

I also think it would be wise for Creative Cow to establish a RED forum as soon as possible. They have a lot of catching up to do concerning RED and RED One. As a moderator for the Creative Cow High End HD forum perhaps you could be a catalyst in helping establish a RED forum on Creative Cow. Food for thought…

[Steve Gibby]

TimothyD,

The work you have described that you do is obviously EFP with some elements of ENG-style – not ENG because you don’t do news and don’t have the quick turnaround requirements of newsgathering work. I’d suggest that you go back to my definitions page of EFP (non-hardlined) and ENG, review my recommendations there, clearly define your job mission requirements, and make a decision on whether RED One will satisfy them.

IMO you made a mistake by mentioning RED One on the Creative Cow High End HD forum. As I’ve illustrated above, though Creative Cow is a very good quality tech board for multiple forums, their refusal to have a RED forum until RED One ships has left the membership there very deficient in knowledge about the tech or uses of RED One, unless those members also joined one of the online RED forums (DVX RED User, DVi RED, or RED User) and stayed current on knowledge about RED One. I’ve been a member of Creative Cow for several years, but their lack of having a RED forum, and the policy of no discussion of RED One until the camera ships has left me no choice but to seek RED knowledge and discussion elsewhere. Perhaps when RED One ships, and if/when Creative Cow establishes a RED forum, it will be a good RED forum. But by that time, the members there, unless they’ve gotten their RED knowledge elsewhere, will be a full 20 months behind the rest of the online tech forums that have had operating RED forums.

Tobeoryx (Leo Ticheli) is a very knowledgeable professional DP and a capable moderator of the Creative Cow High End HD forum – but he is a recent adopter of RED One, and by his own words in the thread links above is just beginning to get up to speed on the capabilities and uses of RED One – something I took my time to help him with on the threads I linked above.

[TimothyD]

Sorry I didn't manage to reply to this sooner Gibby. I have been a bit busy lately.

The reason I posted on the Cow was because I just wanted to see what people thought of some of the other cameras I am looking at, and figured that reduser wasn't getting me much of any response on that front...

I didn't feel like Leo was unfair, he was just stating his opinion. There are definitely others there who are nothing but rude, dare I say, jackasses... Before posting there I had read a lot of stuff and knew there was a bias against Red that really basically amounts to prejudice based upon speculation. I did get a few responses of that type, but Leo was open-minded about it, as was Mads. Steve Wargo's posts, not to me, but in general, were just Red bashing and complaining that the camera would cost more than the body alone (I would think he would know that about cameras since he apparently owns some high-end cameras:)


At any rate, I still haven't written Red off, but I am definitely in major deliberation still. Everything I look at seems like it has many compromises built in, including the fact that I need an adapter to use a lens with a built in zoom rocker with the Red. That does seem like perhaps the smallest compromise, but now I have to weigh the benefits of being able to grow into the camera against the drawbacks of having to deal with swapping filters...

In terms of workflow Red wins hands down, same for the efficiency of the codec, the resolution, the modularity, you name it. The only place it doesn't shine in my opinion is the ENG/EFP support. I guess in my opinion there is just too much focus on trying to make this the best digital cinema camera out there, and take over in that realm, and too little focus on the fact that this is hands down the best VIDEO CAMERA ever made...

Anyway, I am doing what I can to line up cameras to get hands on with, but it is difficult because everything I'm interested in is either not out yet, or just barely shipping, Red of course in the prior category...

I can only cross my fingers that you get #8 and do some hands on work in my stead before I have to make a choice.

Thanks again for taking the time to try to help me out. And like I said before, there is definitely a Red camera in my future, but I don't know if I have the stomach to bet my job on it. (If it didn't work out I would be the laughing stock of the video specialists at the university, all of whom think it is a very bad idea to gamble on a camera/company this new.)

Tim

[WesG]

heh Tim,

Been reading this thread and following everyones thoughts closely.
I'm in a similar situation in terms of being a solo operator; the majority of the time with ENG/EFP needs.

As you have been exploring there's a range of cameras available with different advantages and disadvantages. I wouldn't get too hung up on shooting formats, specs and codecs - the range of cameras you're looking at can all produce beautiful images for your needs.

I think you should focus on your long term objectives and what you hope to achieve as a professional producer - whether that be your skill as a camera operator, editor, producer, director. Concentrate on developing your skills set and what tools will give you the ability to get to where you want to go.

If you really want to open up a world of possibilities I'd encourage you to persist with RED for your uses. I believe RED will be able to be configured to make one man ENG/EFP doable. It sounds like your shooting environment isn't always high pressure and a one-chance environment - in other words if you spend 2 minutes dropping in a ND filter you won't miss something you can't get later.

In the end if you can throw yourself into the deep end with a RED camera (sounds like the budget is there) then I reckon you should jump.
This is what I'm doing - so just my 2 cents worth - good luck

PS - Gibby - hurry up and get that no.8 would yu!!!!!!!

[TimothyD]

Hi Nalu,

The reason I worry so much about codecs is that editing is a bigger part of what I do than shooting is. I want to be sure I have the codec, specs, etc. that allow me to accomplish the most with the fewest compromises. That is one major reason I have been looking at Red. Based on everything I have learned so far, here and elsewhere, it seems that Red will provide me with the best image quality, the best workflow, and room to pan and scan, zoom, and stabilize my 2k footage to my hearts content.

I am still on the fence, and I have very little time left until I have to make my decision. I think I may just contact Red and see if I will be able to pay for the camera, but with the option of a refund if something comes up that makes me change my mind before it is delivered (months and months from now I assume.) That way I can have the best of both worlds. I will have my order in, but if Gibby and others report that it is not so good for run and gun then I can get my money back and buy the second choice setup. (at this point either a HDX-900 or a HPX-500 and an HVX-200 as backup. Maybe the Infinity though, who knows.)

Thanks for the feedback,

Tim