...isn't a 65mm-format camera. That's what I think when I think "Epic".
Like 3D, the 65mm format seems to be gaining some ground again, with directors like Christopher Nolan shooting features like The Dark Knight (only certain sequences, I know, but still) on the close-enough-to-refer-to-it-interchangeably IMAX format.
There's so much confusion as to what makes Epic worth so much more than RED ONE, being that so many of the specs are similar, and may become even moreso with the Mysterium X sensor upgrade for R1.
Having a digital 65mm camera with the same quality and workflow as the R1, with the option of high frame rates, would create a truly separate market tier for people who would want to purchase them, and give people who already have a solid RED workflow good cause to upgrade or rent them. As it is, 5K for the sake of 5K doesn't make too much sense to me personally, when 4K is the current top-off point for all but the most expensive 35mm work.
But 5K with the look of 65mm is obviously different, and worth that extra resolution and, IMO, extra cost. Suddenly you're getting the same savings in film stock that everyone likes to tout about digital in the first place, but with 65mm, which as I understand it is substantially more expensive and therefore substantially better savings.
I'm well aware of Jim's latest "mind your business" post, and I don't presume to tell RED their business, or that they "should" do this. It's just what struck me when I first found out about the Epic on Monday morning.