Wil RED CAM threat new S16 cams?

[KANAGI]

ARRI and AATON have released their new s16 cam arri 416 and aaton xtera....and RED will come out.

Will S16cam take their own position in the market and survive?
I think they has their own film look and aesthetics but market is getting more risky for S16 cams to go on.

Wil RED CAM threat new S16 cams?



:) sorry to write poor english.

[Sanjin Jukic]

No doubts,

the RED ONE™ will compete with all 16 Format Film Cameras, 35 Format Film Cameras and 35 Format Digital Cameras.

[Ace]

Pardon my Brashioshesness... But to shoot s16 in a production environment when you have a red available would be utterly utterly stupid. Unless its for effects purposes (which you can do with red in post anyway).

*Most* people who shoot 16 do so because it is befitting of their production budget. If they had the choice to shoot better they would. RED is that choice.

I understand the conundrum of deciding between s35mm film and red, they are competitive in that regard. But s16?...

[Brook Willard]

The RED ONE is a "threat" to all high-end cameras on the market. It's a threat to film, it's a threat to HD and it's a threat to current digital cinema cameras.

That said, the market will never disappear. The 416 is replacing the SR3 with a price around $90,000. There are 35mm cameras for less. There are 35mm cameras for more. People will still shoot with the 416. When RED drops, it too will fall into a market where there are more expensive and less expensive [think Arri S...] cameras to "compete" with.

In the end there will never be one camera for the industry. There will be 16mm and 35mm cameras far into the future - there will always be a "new model." Will film camera popularity drop? Of course. They'll just take a different place in the market.

[Ace]

Will film camera popularity drop? Of course. They'll just take a different place in the market.

Kodak :)

[Barend Onneweer]

Pardon my Brashioshesness... But to shoot s16 in a production environment when you have a red available would be utterly utterly stupid.

Sheesh... what's with all the drama.

Until we know how RED ONE will work in very hot or humid parts of the world (let's say you're shooting a documentary in the Sahara desert), a little more subtlety would be in order. There are a lot of people shooting film, for many different reasons. It's all about options.

[Justin]

I personally dont think that its going to totally ZAP all film users right out of the gate (no pun intended), however, digital cinema in general is gaining a lot of momentum and i'm sure that it has a lot of people on their toes (Film dependent brands). Im sure that as time rolls on you will start to see more and more of those brands embrace the new technology as they already have, and at the same time still progress film as well because it will always be an amazing medium to work with (in my opinion)...

Thanks to Red though us film-shooters can actually make the switch without having to justify a million things before dropping in. This is a no-brainer...

[GlennChan]

People still might like the aesthetic and known workflow of film.

1a- Aesthetics: As far as 35mm goes, you can do things like like the subject with a Kinoflo as the key, with *NO* fill (no reflector or anything like that). It gives a nice high-contrast look that you see in some music videos. Such a look won't work with most digital cameras on the market (I don't know how Red will fare).

Film also has its own aesthetic that Red doesn't match, out of the box.

1b- There are many talented DOPs who know how to shoot film well, whereas they probably will have little/no experience with Red. So it will take some time to figure out how to use Red, good workflows, and how to play to its strengths. You'll have people figuring out issues like monitoring, dailies, backup, workflow, etc. etc. There's going to be a learning curve that people are going to have to work through.

Some may also have some degree of film snobbery. Cinematographers shoot on film, videographers shoot on video. Historically, shooting on film implies more talent+experience to get to where they are. Projects shot on video tend not to look as good, and have lower pay.

1c- For political/personal reasons, people might prefer film as their tool of choice. For high-end commercials, clients want the best quality and people tend to equate price with quality. There's also a risk factor they eliminate by sticking with something that's tried and true.

They also may not gain that much by choosing to shoot on Red. Visual quality might be the slightly better or worse (i.e. if people are inexperienced with the workflow). They could encounter a workflow quagmire, which may cost them just as much as shooting on film.


Just playing the other side of the argument here. If Red is to quickly dominate the market:
A- Marketing / perception of the camera will make a difference. It hurts Red if people see it as "too good to be true". And 4k for $17.5k should seem too good to be true.
B- Help people (DOPs, post, camera, etc.) get around the learning curve of Red.
C- Solid workflow. If Red were to make a VTR, this would really make the workflow *solid*. Whether they can push the data workflow remains to be seen. Implemented right (that's the big if here), a data workflow does have some big advantages over traditional tape-oriented workflows.

Just my opinion. :D

[Ace]

Sheesh... what's with all the drama.

Until we know how RED ONE will work in very hot or humid parts of the world (let's say you're shooting a documentary in the Sahara desert), a little more subtlety would be in order. There are a lot of people shooting film, for many different reasons. It's all about options.

I never disputed otherwise. No drama. My pretext was if red was available. Meaning if available for shooting in the desired location (sahara). If red is available (suitable) for shooting, then I stand by my words, it would be foolish to shoot 16 instead, apart from the exceptions I made in the previous post (ideographic effects/non suitable environment). Please also note that I put asterisk's next to the word Most because I know there are situations where shooting film is more appropriate than digital. Quantitatively speaking...

[Stephen Williams]

I never disputed otherwise. No drama. My pretext was if red was available. Meaning if available for shooting in the desired location (sahara). If red is available (suitable) for shooting, then I stand by my words, it would be foolish to shoot 16 instead, apart from the exceptions I made in the previous post (ideographic effects/non suitable environment). Please also note that I put asterisk's next to the word Most because I know there are situations where shooting film is more appropriate than digital. Quantitatively speaking...

Hi,

Film will probably have a larger dynamic range, could be of interest to people who don't like clipped highlighs. Power consumption could also be an issue, where power is not available to recharge batteries.

Stephen