Difference between original and "new" version

[Mark Allen]

This is a question for those who have used both the original 1-100 cameras and the newer 101+ or the replacement "X" cameras.

How would you describe the quality difference? Drastic? Minor but any extra quality means a lot? 3% better? And what exactly is better?

Thanks.

[Roberto B]

you can have the most stylish hair cut and avatar over here.. coming from the cinematography.com forum where this project was attacked till the bones.. or till there was no more bones to attack.. but you're asking some really useful.. and proper.

[Gordon Prince]

:) :)

[Simon Smith]

Did you have your 89 or you've putted it on hold until done?

[Mark Allen]

filmmaker's gang - www.debracutz.com (http://debracutz.com/) Tell her Mark Allen sent you. :)

Mr. Orange - Yes, I've shot several commercials and music videos with my RED. I love it. I'm working with footage from it right now. My question is really because people are asking to rent my camera and now that there is a "new version," I want to be able to tell them honestly what the difference is and price the rental accordingly.

My gut so far is that if they are renting Ultraprimes - they're trying for supremacy and should rent only the latest version. If they are using super or standard speeds - they just want a great image and the original version will suffice. Having not worked with the new camera yet, I'm just guessing.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Well if they are going for supremacy they should rent a 435...or even a 765 ;-)

[Roberto B]

filmmaker's gang - www.debracutz.com (http://debracutz.com/) Tell her Mark Allen sent you. :)ehehehehe..

[Alexander Nikishin]

Well if they are going for supremacy they should rent a 435...or even a 765 ;-)

Apples & oranges.......

RED - 435

[David Didato]

My gut so far is that if they are renting Ultraprimes - they're trying for supremacy and should rent only the latest version. If they are using super or standard speeds - they just want a great image and the original version will suffice. Having not worked with the new camera yet, I'm just guessing.

Is the quality of the image that much different or better with the ultras, or is it just a much faster set of lenses? Or maybe you're saying its just that they want the latest greatest thing regardless of whether it produces better quality?

I'm getting a set of Zeiss' next week.

[chuck colburn]

Apples & oranges.......

RED - 435

Your right the 435 is a 35mm camera and the 765 uses 65mm film. lol

[Alexander Nikishin]

Your right the 435 is a 35mm camera and the 765 uses 65mm film. lol

Apples, oranges and grapes in that case. :blink:

[chuck colburn]

Apples, oranges and grapes in that case. :blink:

Ahahah.

Sweet grapes peeled and handfed to you by Kelly! lol

[Alexander Nikishin]

lol, ah Kelly, ah Taylor, ah the RED girls. :devil:

Man, we're really off topic.

[Mark Allen]

Is the quality of the image that much different or better with the ultras, or is it just a much faster set of lenses? Or maybe you're saying its just that they want the latest greatest thing regardless of whether it produces better quality?

Lets say a set of ultra's costs 660 / day to rent and a set of supers costs 220 / day. I think the ultra's have a quality advantage - but... it's an advantage which has a price limit - so many use supers instead. I'm just trying to make this type of assessment.

The catch is that we always want things to look even .003% better - we're thrilled and we love that RED wants that too. In the meantime though, when someone asks me "How much of a problem is it that your camera is not upgraded" I'd like to have a simple to understand objective-if-possible way of expressing it.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Mark, if you haven't had your camera sent in for the upgrades already, get to it!

After the upgrades have been finished, this question should be an obsolete one.

[Evin Grant]

I have shot both now and the differences are dependent on your project, if your mount is properly collimated and you're not shooting directly into a very bright specular source in sub zero temps you won't notice a difference. The first is obviously that you can't collimate the older body as quickly or easily with the "X" bodies. Second the new OLPF placement seems to have reduced the "Poka-Dot" flare problem considerably but it is possible to induce it in very extreme conditions. Dust should be no problem on the X cameras but it wasn't much of one for me on the 1st gen either. Lastly is cold weather performance, I haven't tried #199 in the snow yet but my expectation is it'll do fine.

For the most part though, imaging is identical.

[I Bloom]

No question, you need it.

IBloom

[Jannard]

Biggest image quality difference we become apparent with Build 14.

Jim

[Rick Darge]

I can't wait for Build 14...

[Warren Kommers]

oh the suspense....

[Greg M]

Lets just skip build 13 and go straight to 14

[Poi Boy]

Lets just skip build 13 and go straight to 14

isn't 13 bad luck anyway ? 14 baby !
Aloha
-A

[Stuart English]

isn't 13 bad luck anyway ? 14 baby !
Aloha
-A

Build 13 has it own set of "extras" :ninja:

[Mark Thorpe]

Biggest image quality difference we become apparent with Build 14.

JimRight, and when is that planned for release? Before #954 rolls off the line??

On builds though they are seeming to come out thick and fast now. When will things settle down? When will people eventually decide "OK this is a good place to be" so far as the image and features are working. I know we are striving for excellence here but even that is somewhat unattainable!!

Cheers,
Mark.

[Stephen Williams]

For the most part though, imaging is identical.

Hi Evin,

So the dynamic range is unchanged then?

Stephen

[Greg M]

On builds though they are seeming to come out thick and fast now. .

They are not coming too fast for me...keep em coming.