Elizabeth Lowrey
08-15-2007, 12:23 PM
I've been following the development of the RED camera with great interest since the RED forum at DVXUser.com (where I've been a member since 2004). My respect for Jim Jannard's approach to development and customer involvement in that process was always high and only grows higher with my daily visits to this forum. Still, I never thought I would be able to afford, or rationalize being able to afford, the camera, even at the incredible value ratio it represents. Now I'm not so sure.
Some personal background. I live in a small town in northwest Florida (Pensacola is about 25 miles away). Having already abandoned 2 "careers" (degree in music from Berklee College, degree in law from Florida State University), I found a niche about 6 years ago in video production, a niche that allows me to work largely from my home as much or as little as I like, doing work that I enjoy. I have been very fortunate to inherit both a home and a certain amount of money from parents and another deceased relative so that I don't have to earn much money from my vocation in order to live in reasonable comfort. That means that I run my "business" more for pleasure than for profit, which is a good thing because it is extremely unprofitable. Though I get the odd project that might fuel sporadic whirlwinds of work, I essentially work only a few months out of the year shooting and editing dance performances and designing rather elaborate title sequences and DVD menus (in another product called RED -- Boris RED) for area dance companies.
I have done some greenscreen work for these projects and right now am doing some multi linear color-keying of select, high-contrast stage footage to allow isolation of dancers in a composited title sequence. The results of both types of keying, though very impressive to lay viewers, have been below what I would like, largely because of the limitations of DV color sampling and compression.
All of the "paying" work I've done thus far has been, and will likely be for the immediate future, delivered at SD resolution. And almost all my shooting is done on a tripod or other support with ample setup time. I currently own a DVX (still a great little camera), which I use as a static 3rd camera for wide stage shots, and want very much to move future multi-cam dance recital acquisition to uniform progressive capture, replacing my Sony DSR 300 interlaced cam in the process.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have always maintained a mild, leisurely ambition to write, produce, direct, and score my own feature(s) (for distribution via DVD, obsucre television networks (Sundance, IFC, etc.), small film festivals, and/or Internet download) and have long planned that my next camera would have to excel as a dramatic narrative tool as well as be capable of handling the almost ENG-style shooting that I do as a shooter of dance performances (where movement is constant and I have little to no foreknowledge of its direction and where lighting is dynamic both in time and stage location).
To accommodate both interests, my sights have naturally been set on the Panasonic HVX200 and, more recently, a used SPX800 or new HPX500. But after a chance to play with the HVX, I ruled it out because its low light performance is so relatively poor (especially considering the amount of noise it generates at 0db). It could not gracefully handle the low-key lighting that prevails in a small percentage of the dances I shoot.
I came very close to obtaining a demo model SPX800 (with VF, plate, P2 drive but without lens) yesterday at around 9.5K but was outbid at the last minute. The HPX500 has certainly come in at a very tempting price point given comparisons to other high end cams from Sony and Panasonic. And I could probably pair the 500 with a used SD lens and VF for around 16.5K all in and get good looking progressive SD footage with room to grow to HD in time.
But the more I think about it, the more nonsensical it seems to me to spend close to or over half the cost of a RED system on a conventional ENG/EFP camera that still uses 3 CCDs and that will require a huge investment in a broadcast B4 HD lens when I decide I'm ready to move up to HD. For less than half the cost of even the most modest HD B4 lens, I could apparently obtain the Birger mount with a very nice pair of Nikon zooms and still have fine, responsive manual control of iris and focus on a 4K imaging system with vastly superior dynamic range and DOF options (with motorized zoom on a pan-handle mountable rocker switch hopefully to follow soon from Birger or some other manufacturer). The leveraging of the economics of scale from still camera lenses alone seems to make RED such an intelligent investment. (And I have a Nikkon Digital SLR which I wouldn't mind being able to pop a really high quality lens on, too!) For that matter, the RED cine zooms look to be entirely bargain compared to the vast majority of B4 HD lenses out there.
On the other hand, I've never shot a dance behind anything other than a DSR 300 with its Canon ENG/EFP lens and am unsure how differences vis-a-vis the RED cam and adjunct still lens system would impact my ability to rapidly adjust focus and iris and smoothly zoom as needed.
Would I be able to use the left hand to simultaneously control knobs/rings for BOTH iris and focus (with, say, the Birger mount) as I do now?
Would I be better off for this kind of shooting either sticking with an ENG cam or getting an ENG lens and the B4 mount for the RED?
Would a NON HD B4 lens be adequate for acquisition with RED if the final product was going to be SD or would I be looking at tons of chromatic aberration and/or other anomalies?
Would a RED cine lens afford me good tactile response and simultaneous control of aperture and focus and, if so, will I still have anything approaching the kind of zoom ratio (18:1) that I'm used to with an ENG lens? (I know cine lenses are intended to be focus-adjusted with a follow focus unit, placing the the focus control on a plane perpendicular and somewhat removed from the iris ring . . . which doesn't seem ideal for simulataneous control. I'm just wondering about the ergonomics and practicality of turning the focus and iris rings directly with a single hand.)
And I'm a little tentative regarding other differences that I learned of in passing. For instance, I was surprised to hear that RED doesn't have a filter wheel and that (apparently?) white balance is set in the first step of post via REDCINE. Now I've never yet needed to use anything other than a single filter setting for a dance performance (the lighting is dynamic but not night and day dynamic:-)). So it shouldn't be a big deal to slap whatever ND filter may be called for (given the RED's sensitivity) in a mattebox and shoot the whole event without ever needing to touch it again. But that along with the substantial lens operation differences makes me wonder what other latent differences might exist with the RED that would make it inappropriate (or much less appropriate) than an ENG cam for the kind of shooting I'm talking about.
I've derived great value from some of Gibby's posts in the ENG/EFP forum and am hoping that someone with that kind of wide-ranging experience can enlighten me on the pitfalls I might be missing. Is this a dumb camera choice for me, not based on financial criteria (which only I can decide) but on practical criteria? As I've inched closer and closer to plunking down @ $15-17K for a new camera, my gut has gotten louder and louder in telling me that it's much smarter and a much better investment in the future to put an extra $10-12K with it and move to a whole other stratosphere of image acquisition.
Besides which, something fundamentally within me much prefers to throw my money and support towards a company that is establishing a revolutionary (within this industry, at least) business model and approach to both respecting and rewarding the customer. If I knew that I could rent the camera out for most of the first year, have it treated the way I would treat it if it were a friend loaning it to me, and recoup the majority of my investment, it would be a no-brainer. I'd almost want to buy it on principal.:-)
Any and all opinions welcome.
Some personal background. I live in a small town in northwest Florida (Pensacola is about 25 miles away). Having already abandoned 2 "careers" (degree in music from Berklee College, degree in law from Florida State University), I found a niche about 6 years ago in video production, a niche that allows me to work largely from my home as much or as little as I like, doing work that I enjoy. I have been very fortunate to inherit both a home and a certain amount of money from parents and another deceased relative so that I don't have to earn much money from my vocation in order to live in reasonable comfort. That means that I run my "business" more for pleasure than for profit, which is a good thing because it is extremely unprofitable. Though I get the odd project that might fuel sporadic whirlwinds of work, I essentially work only a few months out of the year shooting and editing dance performances and designing rather elaborate title sequences and DVD menus (in another product called RED -- Boris RED) for area dance companies.
I have done some greenscreen work for these projects and right now am doing some multi linear color-keying of select, high-contrast stage footage to allow isolation of dancers in a composited title sequence. The results of both types of keying, though very impressive to lay viewers, have been below what I would like, largely because of the limitations of DV color sampling and compression.
All of the "paying" work I've done thus far has been, and will likely be for the immediate future, delivered at SD resolution. And almost all my shooting is done on a tripod or other support with ample setup time. I currently own a DVX (still a great little camera), which I use as a static 3rd camera for wide stage shots, and want very much to move future multi-cam dance recital acquisition to uniform progressive capture, replacing my Sony DSR 300 interlaced cam in the process.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have always maintained a mild, leisurely ambition to write, produce, direct, and score my own feature(s) (for distribution via DVD, obsucre television networks (Sundance, IFC, etc.), small film festivals, and/or Internet download) and have long planned that my next camera would have to excel as a dramatic narrative tool as well as be capable of handling the almost ENG-style shooting that I do as a shooter of dance performances (where movement is constant and I have little to no foreknowledge of its direction and where lighting is dynamic both in time and stage location).
To accommodate both interests, my sights have naturally been set on the Panasonic HVX200 and, more recently, a used SPX800 or new HPX500. But after a chance to play with the HVX, I ruled it out because its low light performance is so relatively poor (especially considering the amount of noise it generates at 0db). It could not gracefully handle the low-key lighting that prevails in a small percentage of the dances I shoot.
I came very close to obtaining a demo model SPX800 (with VF, plate, P2 drive but without lens) yesterday at around 9.5K but was outbid at the last minute. The HPX500 has certainly come in at a very tempting price point given comparisons to other high end cams from Sony and Panasonic. And I could probably pair the 500 with a used SD lens and VF for around 16.5K all in and get good looking progressive SD footage with room to grow to HD in time.
But the more I think about it, the more nonsensical it seems to me to spend close to or over half the cost of a RED system on a conventional ENG/EFP camera that still uses 3 CCDs and that will require a huge investment in a broadcast B4 HD lens when I decide I'm ready to move up to HD. For less than half the cost of even the most modest HD B4 lens, I could apparently obtain the Birger mount with a very nice pair of Nikon zooms and still have fine, responsive manual control of iris and focus on a 4K imaging system with vastly superior dynamic range and DOF options (with motorized zoom on a pan-handle mountable rocker switch hopefully to follow soon from Birger or some other manufacturer). The leveraging of the economics of scale from still camera lenses alone seems to make RED such an intelligent investment. (And I have a Nikkon Digital SLR which I wouldn't mind being able to pop a really high quality lens on, too!) For that matter, the RED cine zooms look to be entirely bargain compared to the vast majority of B4 HD lenses out there.
On the other hand, I've never shot a dance behind anything other than a DSR 300 with its Canon ENG/EFP lens and am unsure how differences vis-a-vis the RED cam and adjunct still lens system would impact my ability to rapidly adjust focus and iris and smoothly zoom as needed.
Would I be able to use the left hand to simultaneously control knobs/rings for BOTH iris and focus (with, say, the Birger mount) as I do now?
Would I be better off for this kind of shooting either sticking with an ENG cam or getting an ENG lens and the B4 mount for the RED?
Would a NON HD B4 lens be adequate for acquisition with RED if the final product was going to be SD or would I be looking at tons of chromatic aberration and/or other anomalies?
Would a RED cine lens afford me good tactile response and simultaneous control of aperture and focus and, if so, will I still have anything approaching the kind of zoom ratio (18:1) that I'm used to with an ENG lens? (I know cine lenses are intended to be focus-adjusted with a follow focus unit, placing the the focus control on a plane perpendicular and somewhat removed from the iris ring . . . which doesn't seem ideal for simulataneous control. I'm just wondering about the ergonomics and practicality of turning the focus and iris rings directly with a single hand.)
And I'm a little tentative regarding other differences that I learned of in passing. For instance, I was surprised to hear that RED doesn't have a filter wheel and that (apparently?) white balance is set in the first step of post via REDCINE. Now I've never yet needed to use anything other than a single filter setting for a dance performance (the lighting is dynamic but not night and day dynamic:-)). So it shouldn't be a big deal to slap whatever ND filter may be called for (given the RED's sensitivity) in a mattebox and shoot the whole event without ever needing to touch it again. But that along with the substantial lens operation differences makes me wonder what other latent differences might exist with the RED that would make it inappropriate (or much less appropriate) than an ENG cam for the kind of shooting I'm talking about.
I've derived great value from some of Gibby's posts in the ENG/EFP forum and am hoping that someone with that kind of wide-ranging experience can enlighten me on the pitfalls I might be missing. Is this a dumb camera choice for me, not based on financial criteria (which only I can decide) but on practical criteria? As I've inched closer and closer to plunking down @ $15-17K for a new camera, my gut has gotten louder and louder in telling me that it's much smarter and a much better investment in the future to put an extra $10-12K with it and move to a whole other stratosphere of image acquisition.
Besides which, something fundamentally within me much prefers to throw my money and support towards a company that is establishing a revolutionary (within this industry, at least) business model and approach to both respecting and rewarding the customer. If I knew that I could rent the camera out for most of the first year, have it treated the way I would treat it if it were a friend loaning it to me, and recoup the majority of my investment, it would be a no-brainer. I'd almost want to buy it on principal.:-)
Any and all opinions welcome.