???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay A. Kelley

I really don't think so. The reason is that I have seen many items that come in at a lower price point, BUT they are poorly done by a 2nd rate company. So nothing happens.

RED's prices are cool, but what closes the deal is the product and the company behind it.

Perhaps it would be better if I/we said there was no one aspect that makes this camera revolutionary, rather their successful use of all the elements we've brought up combined.

---

Thats just it. We aren't talking about something coming in at a lower price point, poorly done by a 2nd rate company. We are talking about an equivalent product that competes directly at 10% of the cost.

I suppose you could argue it the other way around, that it is a much better product than has previously been offered at a given price, but that is fundamentally the same argument.

M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay A. Kelley

<i>Remember, every photo of RED you have seen up now has had an ARRI mattebox on it...</i>

---

In that case... here's a couple pix with a Chrosziel Mattebox on a RED

http://www.greenteainteractive.com/RED/RED-840-01.jpg

http://www.greenteainteractive.com/RED/RED-840-02.jpg

http://www.greenteainteractive.com/RED/RED-840-03.jpg

Nice pics, Grafx! Just curious, what lens is that on the bottom two photos? It looks like a still photo lens. How is it mounted onto the RED? How does it perform? Also, what rod system are you using? 15mm?

Thanks in advance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaime Vallés

<i>...what lens is that on the bottom two photos? It looks like a still photo lens. How is it mounted onto the RED? How does it perform? Also, what rod system are you using? 15mm?</i>

---

It's a ZEISS 35mm Distagon T1.2 Super Speed Prime Lens (PL Mount). The rods are the standard RED 19mm rods. The pix shows a 19mm to 15mm rod adapter--the mattebox is attached to this adapter.

Looks like a Zeiss Super Speed... mounted backwards! :wink:

Hey Jim, any chance of a render from the opposite side of the mattebox [say, 180˚ from where this one was taken]? I'm working up a little list of what I'd recommend for changes, but I can't discern as much of the design as I wish I could.

3,000 of something is not much when your talking about driving down the cost of manufacturing lots of small intricate parts. If RED had sold 50,000 cameras then maybe, but so far it has sold less than 3,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brook Willard

Looks like a Zeiss Super Speed... mounted backwards! :wink:

---

Oh it looks like it's mounted right. I'm more concerned that the follow focus is attached to the Iris gear on the 300. :tongue:

Dear Jim,

I have a suggestion. Build a proto-type. Send it out on a real feature, then a commercial, then a music video. Get it to 3 different 600 ACs. See what they think. Make changes accordingly. Nothing makes you think of things to make better, faster, smarter than getting yelled at, wanting to know what the fuck's taking so long :)
Seriously, talk to any good AC and they have gripes about every piece of gear there is. "yeah it's a good follow focus, but the stupid ......." Even eypiece leveling rods get cursed at if they don't have the right after market holes tapped. I know more than one AC with machine tools to fix the situation.

Hell, send my AC one he'll beat the hell out of it, fix it and send it back.

Cheers
Nick

Nick makes a good point. Top ACs would be excellent testers for just about anything that relates to camera operations. Sometime during the prototype stage of camera or accessory development just offer an "A" list AC his or her day rate and invite them over to HQ, have them sign an NDA, and let 'em at it.