EPIC-X at IBC...

[Rick Presas]

neither of those setups (the JVC or the Arri) look like theyre even going to approach Scarlet. Let alone Epic.

[Emiliano Ranzani]

Arri to unveil new digital camera system cost between €50k and €130k ...2k resolution. They are expected to compete with the Sony F900 and Panasonic Varicam 3700.
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/techno...005484.article

Is that just a personal impression or the big names of the camera industry are ignoring what Red is doing? 130k for 2k only? Are they nuts?

[Imran Farouk]

apparently RED is still a "scam" haha

EDIT:

God that thing looks ugly...couldn't they at least made it look good for 130k?

[Emiliano Ranzani]

apparently RED is still a "scam" haha

EDIT:

God that thing looks ugly...couldn't they at least made it look good for 130k?

The way I see it, they seem like snobby brats - I'd like to know what they will do when the DSMC system will hit the streets..."Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?".

Imho, the Arri camera ain't bad looking. It looks like one of their film cameras without the film mags. It's the JVC one that is quiet ugly - even though the Kinetta camera wins the prize for worst design.

[Emiliano Ranzani]

quote: Kinetta camera wins the prize for worst design.

well are we talking about styling or ergonomic design? because the kinetta had excellent ergonomics. if it's styling you're talking about - i'm not a fan of the 80's toaster design of the red one..but that's just me

Yeah, I am talking about design - I've only seen the Kinetta in pictures on the web. I am sure they were after ergonomic, but the Kinetta looks like one of those 8-16mm cameras that used to be made in the 30s (and I consider those far from eye-appealing).
When I saw the first pictures of the RED, two years ago, depicting mostly the camera body, I thought it was horrible. But most of the camera-setups I've seen so far look cool.

[M Most]

Yeah, I am talking about design - I've only seen the Kinetta in pictures on the web. I am sure they were after ergonomic, but the Kinetta looks like one of those 8-16mm cameras that used to be made in the 30s (and I consider those far from eye-appealing).
When I saw the first pictures of the RED, two years ago, depicting mostly the camera body, I thought it was horrible. But most of the camera-setups I've seen so far look cool.

So, for you, it's more important to "look cool" than to be easy to handle, properly balanced, have all the controls in the right place, and produce great images?

Who cares what the camera looks like? It's a tool. Do you really care what a hammer looks like? Or a wrench? What's important is that they fit in your hand, allow you proper leverage, and do the job they're designed to do. Same with a camera. The Kinetta design - regardless of the aesthetics - was probably the best balanced, most comfortable (at least for hand held work, which is exactly what it was designed for) camera (all right, prototype, but still...) I've ever picked up. And almost everyone else who put it on their shoulder would tell you the same thing. Nobody thought it was aesthetically pleasing. And nobody cared.

[Vince Doran]

Who cares what the camera looks like? It's a tool.

Totally agree, it would seem that some prefer to look cool rather than concentrating on getting maximum performance from the cam, probably into fashion as well...."that shirt doesn't go with those pants"... who gives a shit?

[Steve Sherrick]

Is that just a personal impression or the big names of the camera industry are ignoring what Red is doing? 130k for 2k only? Are they nuts?

Remember, there is always more to a camera than specs on a piece of paper. I know some people who happen to prefer the Arri D20/21 cameras over the RED. It has nothing to do with 2K vs 4K. There are a variety of factors that go into assessing whether a camera is right for a job or the look a DP is going after. Everything from compression algorithms to ergonomics to workflow.

These new cameras may be just what certain shooters are looking for based on their set of requirements.

RED is a great camera that stands on its own merits. 4K is only one thing that makes it a great choice. Pricing is another area that makes it attractive. Ultimately, the choice is a culmination of things and hopefully is decided based on what works best to achieve the goals at hand.

[Imran Farouk]

I wouldnt say looks is a factor, obviously your performance is a major factor, I'd rather have something that worked and looked crap rather then something that looked amazing and didn't do what its price was made for...

But looking at it, REDs definetly got funciton down and they hit design...its not THAT difficult is it just to make your 130k product actually look like its a 130k to the street wise gentleman/lady? Just a thought...

Specs and all these features are nice but I also want to be able to go 'damn thats just WAY too good' when I look at the camera and what its doing, which I seem to have been doing on pretty much the last few RED shoots I've done...

No one is contesting the need for features,specs and performance but when you think about it, would you take a ferrari that looked like crap for its price? Ok not the same thing but putting it in perspective, I bought my FX-1 a while back based on its weight and its performance etc. the looks was a bonus which was pretty good for its price...

Looks is always a nice bonus... :)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Is that just a personal impression or the big names of the camera industry are ignoring what Red is doing? 130k for 2k only? Are they nuts?

It aint the number of pixels that counts it's how you use them. And it's actually a 3.5k sensor.