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]

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 (http://www.kinetta.com/home.php). 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Steve Gibby]

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.

For straight ENG (electronic news gathering) applications, and closely related genres, I'd tend to agree with you that XDCAM and similar camcorders will continue to be the mainstay. But EFP (electronic field production) encompasses a broad spectrum of production genres, many of which IMO RED One will do quite well in, depending on the lenses used and setups.

For my take on that, visit my EFP & ENG Definitions & Explanations sticky in the RED User EFP/ENG and RED forum.
Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1105

[Finner]

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


Boat Anchor's

[JohnF]

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.

Important points, but from a perspective of someone in the UK who has watched the terrible compression artifacts on both digital SD and HD TV.
I will be turning off television once they become standard. Current analogue SD gives a far better picture quality than "to-air" digital SD or HD TV, why? Because analogue TV (PAL) was designed to be a "transparent" transmission system that maximised(reduced quality losses) the quality of picture that the home audience would be watching. Digital standards (SD in the early 1990's) were set with strong pressure to reduce bandwidth and to hell with quality to free up frequencies for governments to sell off to the highest bidder (and not for TV purposes either). In the UK the government refers to this as "the digital dividend", they hope to make billions.

I suspect that DVD's (both SD and HD) will end up being the cleanest form of images available to the general public rather than broadcast transmission.

But back to camera's:

I was interested in the HD XDCAM until I saw the data rate it recorded HD at. As with many formats coming out over the past 10 years it's a nice front end camera with a lousy recording medium. (I don't trust the supposed rugged reliability of blue ray either. One scratch and it's dead caddy or not)

This (growing) fetish mood of ethestics of equipment seems to run parallel with the lowering regard for actual (post codec) picture quality.

I don't care what the camera looks like! What counts, other than pic quality, is ergonomics. Is the camera easy to hold and well balanced? Do you have the buttons for what you need? Are the menu's stupidly designed and cumbersome meaning that you have to spend valuable minutes running through set-up menus whilst the shot happens in front of you?

And for what it's worth some 35mm cameras are as ugly as pig-shit yet their picture quality and reliabilty is unquestioned...

With the attitude of "it looks cool=puchase" all camera manufactors have to do is get a design/style team to work on the camera exterior and to hell with pic quality and they'll sell thousands of units.
Let's face it all they had to do with z1's was to slap HD on the bloody thing and tens of thousands of unsuspecting people ran out and bought it, only to find that they couldn't use the HDV material for broadcast (or even for reliable HD shooting come to that - codec reliability depended on subject matter).

Sorry, rant over - I've lost my point!!!

JohnF

[Jiri Bakala]

Let's face it all they had to do with z1's was to slap HD on the bloody thing and tens of thousands of unsuspecting people ran out and bought it, only to find that they couldn't use the HDV material for broadcast (or even for reliable HD shooting come to that - codec reliability depended on subject matter).

John, with all respect but this is a total nonsense. The Z1U cameras are used every day in the broadcast world and they are a workhorse. We have used them on a Discovery-Times series, they shoot news, even a few portions of the amazing BBC series Planet Earth DVD were shot with it. I am not saying entire shows or series are produced using this camera but certainly segments or specific shots are and they look great.

Nobody is comparing the image quality of Red to any of the other formats. All that I am saying is that these other production systems are being used very successfully every day by many professionals and they are here to stay. Red will have its market and other systems will be used utilizing their strengths.

This uncritical Red worship is, flankly, getting stale and annoying. Please, note that I myself am a reservation holder...so it's not a criticism of the camera, rather a comment on the extremely biased and one-sided statments by some contributors.

Getting back to the theme of this thread; I think that the sales of the higher end products by Sony, Panasonic and others will suffer when Red comes out and when/if it ends up being what the specs suggest. The middle ground and full production systems will remain in use for years.

One last note; many might still take an F900 or VariCam to shoot a documentary in far away and inhospitable places just because it is easier to carry a couple of boxes of tapes rather than dealing with file transfers and storage. Hence the old; "the right tool for the job".

[JohnF]

I've shot with them too plenty of broadcast stuff as well.

But they mostly get used in miniDV or DVCAM mode. HDV is only accepted in the broadcast market within certain limits.
As for the z1's on BBC Planet Earth - The phrase I heard from the shows tech people after field testing was "dissapointing". They mostly got relegated to video diary stuff.
A guy I knew bought one within a month of release and happily didn't question the codec as "It's was HD(big pixel number)", he travelled thousands of miles to shoot a weather event but ended up with a load of rectangles 'cos the bandwidth and the codec just couldn't take what was happening in frame. Lightning from a big storm simply provides to much change in frame for the long G.O.P to cope with.
Over the past 12months I've used 5 different z1 bodies all of which had different firmware bugs / operational glitches. For an SD cam they're not bad in terms of pic but operational ergonomics are poor. I know lot's of people use 'em but that does not make 'em good cameras.

I do hope you are not suggesting I am uncritical RED worshipper as whilst fully supportive of RED team and their goals(which are quite exciting and so far look very close to what I need as an ideal camera for my work) I am waiting for a more detailed final spec before putting a reservation/order in (though I am tempted)... I am in the mean time still looking at a DVCProHD as an alternative to RED for the very reasons you mentioned:
"...to shoot a documentary in far away and inhospitable places..."

And by the way I am hyper-critical of all my equipment because I like to know my equipment. ie What are their faults? What are their good points? Thus how will these effect this job/shoot I'm on...?

I am already looking at RED with these questions in mind.

The big one that sticks out is archiving(both short and long term). And it's worthwhile to note that this is what will hold up the transition from tape based formats. When this is cracked then you'll see the big change hit. As currently from both a producers viewpoint tape is reliable and for the broadcaster/reseller tape is medium/long-term but film is real long-term.(hence why they can re-release original 60's Star-Treks in HD as they were shot on 35mm)

JohnF

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Boat Anchor's

LOL, best comment of the day right there. That rocked.