jacknusa
09-10-2007, 09:25 AM
NOTE... THIS POST WAS TOO LONG FOR THE FORUM, I'm SPLITTING IT IN 2 PARTS, THIS is PART 1
Just returned from IBC where I for the first time saw both the camera, and footage (beyond the clips circulating on the internet).
Mechanical/design
-----------------
My first thought when I saw the camera was: IT'S HUGE. I hadn't really thought about it, but somehow from seeing the product pictures on the internet, I had come away with the impression that the camera body was something that would fit in the palm of my hand. Wrong - it's more the size of something you cradle in your arms...
The Red staff in the booth was somewhat vague on the weight of the camera since it will vary so much depending on your specific configuration, but 25 pounds fully loaded was a number that was floating around the exhibition floor. And, fully decked out - with a production swing-away matte box, follow focus battery, HDD, viewfinder etc etc... It's the size of a 35mm package, actually if you were to put a Arri 235 Camera next to the Red, the 235 would look tiny, and the Red even a bit clunky.
About the design... It's pretty utilitarian. It seems very rugged as far as all the metal parts go, with one exception. The little "twist handle" screws mounting some of the extras, like top grip, handles etc. seemed a little under dimensioned. And, to make the handgrip stick in a fixed position I had to twist it pretty tight, to the point that it was kind'a hard to get it open again. Also, it seems that the threadings were made straight into the aluminum - I assume - parts. I'm not a metal shop guy, but I think that if you have those types of "high use" threadings in an aluminum piece, the grade A procedure would be to put a steel inset into the aluminum. And, on the show floor cameras that everyone was tinkering around with, there was at least one of those screws there there was metal shreadings coming off the screw/threading.
Also, the on/off button seemed a little flimsy compared to the Arri version which it seems to be modeled after - but if it works ok, it's not an issue.
Also, some people were expressing concerns about the ruggedness and durability of the HDMI connector which seems to be the main monitoring output (more on that later).
Other than that, it seems to be a well build camera ready to go into the field.
About the general design, I don't really have any comments other than I whish they would have put the menu screen and it's associated buttons on the side of the camera instead of on the back. A side mounted menu would both be more accessible (in my opinion) and would have allowed for a more compact configuration of the camera. As it stands, the HDD/Battery cradle must be mounted unnecessarily far back to allow for menu access, making the cameras footprint in a ready-to-shoot configuration larger than it really has to be.
Formats/Inputs/outputs
---------------
Regarding formats, I don't really have any comments since it's an evolving thing - but it seems to me that the windowed 2K option should probably be a top priority.
Regarding audio inputs... The spec of 4ch 24/48 audio is just what it should be (the 4 channels even a little bit more than that) but, what is the quality of the pre-amps and the A/D converters? Now, for the record, I'm not complaining - I was actually surprised that there was on-board audio at all, and even if the audio quality leaves a lot to be desired, just the fact that the production mixer can feed a temp mix into the camera at line level should cover 99 % of your dailies/offline editing audio needs - a fantastic time/cost -saver over a film workflow. But until someone has run full tests on the audio quality, it would probably be wise to prepare to record sound dual system.
As far as outputs go - I think the omission of a composite output is somewhat mission critical. Not because most people wouldn't prefer to monitor a nice HD image over HDMI, but because as of now, I know of no "field-grade-rugged" monitors with HDMI inputs... Might seem like a minor problem, but I think most people will want to add a HDMI -> Composite converter to their kit.
The screening
-------------
I saw the "Crossing the line" screening twice (Saturday and Sunday) and it looks fantastic - end of discussion.
Yes, there were some blown highlights here and there (shiny leather jackets in bright sun light, and the sun hitting the metal surfaces of the airplanes at an unfortunate angle here and there, but I doubt that any imaging device - film included - would have handled every single little shiny speck. Films grain structure might have masked the little imperfections better but...
Now - in addition to the Red screening, I did attend two other screenings - Dalsa, and Grass Valley/Viper. My main analysis after all three screeings is this: at some point the resolution and the latitude, and all other "technical" aspects becomes irrelevant. At some point it's all about lighting, choosing your angles, art direction, wardobe, make-up (not to mention story and acting - but let's keep to the image side of things). And, that point is probably closer to 2K than to 4K.
The Dalsa footage was clear, crisp, sharp, super high resolution, and seemed to handle lighting ratios just fine. But, the production values were (to put it mildly) very low (no offense to the filmmakers who apparently was working on a non existing budget - but still).
The Red footage, was probably very much equal to the Dalsa footage in terms of sharpness, resolution latitude etc etc. But it was infinetly better shot and the production values were off the chart for a short film. And, based on the footage presented (pricing aside) if someone walked in "blind" to both screenings I doubt that anyone would have walked away thinking Dalsa is the way to go for their next production. They would probably have thought the Dalsa footage was too sharp, too electronic, not cinematic enough, but really it's not the camera, it's the production.
But on the flip side of that - Grass valley showed the trailer for Zodiac and the Heiniken commercial where Brad Pitt goes out to the corner drugstore for beer. The Viper footage was noticeably lower in resolution/sharpness compared to Dalsa/Red (however, it was unclear what the post process had been, and what we were actually watching - it might have been an all 2K chain, or it could have been off tape...) but, the images on screen were the most exciting, beautiful, and cinematic of all three screenings. If I had to sit there and watch the same footage all day, I would have picked the Viper footage over both Dalsa and Red. But the point is, at some point, you can leave the image quality discussion behind you, because it's all about what's in front of and behind the camera, not what's in the camera.
And, Red has "crossed that line" ;-) I think and hope the Red Team will keep developing the camera, but I think any discussion about the Red cameras ability to create high enough quality images can be laid to rest - if the images will be beautiful or not will depend on other factors.
Just returned from IBC where I for the first time saw both the camera, and footage (beyond the clips circulating on the internet).
Mechanical/design
-----------------
My first thought when I saw the camera was: IT'S HUGE. I hadn't really thought about it, but somehow from seeing the product pictures on the internet, I had come away with the impression that the camera body was something that would fit in the palm of my hand. Wrong - it's more the size of something you cradle in your arms...
The Red staff in the booth was somewhat vague on the weight of the camera since it will vary so much depending on your specific configuration, but 25 pounds fully loaded was a number that was floating around the exhibition floor. And, fully decked out - with a production swing-away matte box, follow focus battery, HDD, viewfinder etc etc... It's the size of a 35mm package, actually if you were to put a Arri 235 Camera next to the Red, the 235 would look tiny, and the Red even a bit clunky.
About the design... It's pretty utilitarian. It seems very rugged as far as all the metal parts go, with one exception. The little "twist handle" screws mounting some of the extras, like top grip, handles etc. seemed a little under dimensioned. And, to make the handgrip stick in a fixed position I had to twist it pretty tight, to the point that it was kind'a hard to get it open again. Also, it seems that the threadings were made straight into the aluminum - I assume - parts. I'm not a metal shop guy, but I think that if you have those types of "high use" threadings in an aluminum piece, the grade A procedure would be to put a steel inset into the aluminum. And, on the show floor cameras that everyone was tinkering around with, there was at least one of those screws there there was metal shreadings coming off the screw/threading.
Also, the on/off button seemed a little flimsy compared to the Arri version which it seems to be modeled after - but if it works ok, it's not an issue.
Also, some people were expressing concerns about the ruggedness and durability of the HDMI connector which seems to be the main monitoring output (more on that later).
Other than that, it seems to be a well build camera ready to go into the field.
About the general design, I don't really have any comments other than I whish they would have put the menu screen and it's associated buttons on the side of the camera instead of on the back. A side mounted menu would both be more accessible (in my opinion) and would have allowed for a more compact configuration of the camera. As it stands, the HDD/Battery cradle must be mounted unnecessarily far back to allow for menu access, making the cameras footprint in a ready-to-shoot configuration larger than it really has to be.
Formats/Inputs/outputs
---------------
Regarding formats, I don't really have any comments since it's an evolving thing - but it seems to me that the windowed 2K option should probably be a top priority.
Regarding audio inputs... The spec of 4ch 24/48 audio is just what it should be (the 4 channels even a little bit more than that) but, what is the quality of the pre-amps and the A/D converters? Now, for the record, I'm not complaining - I was actually surprised that there was on-board audio at all, and even if the audio quality leaves a lot to be desired, just the fact that the production mixer can feed a temp mix into the camera at line level should cover 99 % of your dailies/offline editing audio needs - a fantastic time/cost -saver over a film workflow. But until someone has run full tests on the audio quality, it would probably be wise to prepare to record sound dual system.
As far as outputs go - I think the omission of a composite output is somewhat mission critical. Not because most people wouldn't prefer to monitor a nice HD image over HDMI, but because as of now, I know of no "field-grade-rugged" monitors with HDMI inputs... Might seem like a minor problem, but I think most people will want to add a HDMI -> Composite converter to their kit.
The screening
-------------
I saw the "Crossing the line" screening twice (Saturday and Sunday) and it looks fantastic - end of discussion.
Yes, there were some blown highlights here and there (shiny leather jackets in bright sun light, and the sun hitting the metal surfaces of the airplanes at an unfortunate angle here and there, but I doubt that any imaging device - film included - would have handled every single little shiny speck. Films grain structure might have masked the little imperfections better but...
Now - in addition to the Red screening, I did attend two other screenings - Dalsa, and Grass Valley/Viper. My main analysis after all three screeings is this: at some point the resolution and the latitude, and all other "technical" aspects becomes irrelevant. At some point it's all about lighting, choosing your angles, art direction, wardobe, make-up (not to mention story and acting - but let's keep to the image side of things). And, that point is probably closer to 2K than to 4K.
The Dalsa footage was clear, crisp, sharp, super high resolution, and seemed to handle lighting ratios just fine. But, the production values were (to put it mildly) very low (no offense to the filmmakers who apparently was working on a non existing budget - but still).
The Red footage, was probably very much equal to the Dalsa footage in terms of sharpness, resolution latitude etc etc. But it was infinetly better shot and the production values were off the chart for a short film. And, based on the footage presented (pricing aside) if someone walked in "blind" to both screenings I doubt that anyone would have walked away thinking Dalsa is the way to go for their next production. They would probably have thought the Dalsa footage was too sharp, too electronic, not cinematic enough, but really it's not the camera, it's the production.
But on the flip side of that - Grass valley showed the trailer for Zodiac and the Heiniken commercial where Brad Pitt goes out to the corner drugstore for beer. The Viper footage was noticeably lower in resolution/sharpness compared to Dalsa/Red (however, it was unclear what the post process had been, and what we were actually watching - it might have been an all 2K chain, or it could have been off tape...) but, the images on screen were the most exciting, beautiful, and cinematic of all three screenings. If I had to sit there and watch the same footage all day, I would have picked the Viper footage over both Dalsa and Red. But the point is, at some point, you can leave the image quality discussion behind you, because it's all about what's in front of and behind the camera, not what's in the camera.
And, Red has "crossed that line" ;-) I think and hope the Red Team will keep developing the camera, but I think any discussion about the Red cameras ability to create high enough quality images can be laid to rest - if the images will be beautiful or not will depend on other factors.