RED V-Raptor Versus V-Raptor XL

[Phil Holland]

I'd like to start the conversation here as many seemed to miss this portion of the live stream/announcement. Also today with the Production Black V-Raptor page being up has teased the upcoming XL.

Created a "rough" size comparison here:

So here's what we know as of September 8th, 2021.

RED V-Raptor weighs 4.03lbs naked.

RED V-Raptor is 6x4.25x4.25" (imperial).

XL is clearly a larger camera. Though doesn't seem as large as the DSMC2 Ranger body.

Also what we get here is a hint on how V-Raptor and V-Raptor XL differentiate.

XL seems to have:

- Bolt Driven Smart Interchangeable Mount
- 3X SDI
- Dedicated Gig-E, CTRL, 2X AUX
- 3X front facing AUX - ideal for FIZ
- 1X forward facing EVF BNC, likely an additional SDI from the image
- Internal ND. Graphic shows ND/CLR configuration, we can assume there's a mechanical mechanism in there
- Internal ND Up and Down Controls
- 2X User Programmable Side Buttons
- What looks to be a more robust Dual Antennae configuration
- Front Facing Tally Light
- 2X Rosettes
- Significantly larger Fan intakes, heat sync, and likely different cooling (similar it seems to how Ranger vs DSMC2 is for example)
- Smart Side facing Record Button (V-Raptor is front facing)
- Snazzy Integrated Focus Hook, love that. Though looks removeable too.


Both have stereo +48V Phantom Power in via a single cable and Headphone Jack. Both have DC-IN. Both share the same CFx Card Door. Both also feature an integrated V-Mount battery plate. Though I think based on this comparison it's clearly capable of supporting full size bricks where V-Raptor requires Micro V or G or a V or G full size adapter. Not a bad thing as there's more power distro on those adapters IMO.

We have no idea what's going on up top. But the size difference in notable. XL is clearly more of a Ranger or even dare I say DXL like production camera where as V-Raptor is a more portable system.

Unsure if XL can support an RF-Mount given the Internal ND, I suspect this will be closer to DMSC2 lens mount compatibility given that.

Jarred showed on the V-Raptor announcement that there is an RF>PL ND Mount Adapter. That likely is the same tech minus the mechanical switch you have in the XL, meaning you'll have to swap out to Clear.

Whatever the side plate thing is near the media bay is pretty cool and obviously something that begs to be customized. Useful for rental houses and weirdos like me who enjoy a bit of personalization.

Also of interest, no more RED Medallion, but now the sensor type is written right on the front of the camera.


These are teaser CAD drawings it seems, but that does seem about right to me.

No word on pricing just yet, but essentially has all the built in I/O you would likely get via accessories/modules/attachments plus a few additional features.

 

[Phil Holland]

I guess to add one additional thought here as this went from zero to sixty, wait.... Zero to one twenty pretty fast.

Current RED DSMC3 Line-Up is:
- SML - Komodo
- MED - V-Raptor
- LRG - V-Raptor XL

By my standards all of these cameras are small and pretty portable. Komodo and V-Raptor are clearly hyper focused on being as compact as possible. It does look like the interchangeable mounting system features a new shape and electronic layout. Registration and electronics are upside-down from where they are on DSMC2 gen.

Raptor series is essentially up to about 3X the data rates of DSMC2 and Komodo. Currently three strengths of REDCODE RAW HQ, MQ, and LQ.

 

[Alexander Black]

Fingers crossed for HFR global shutter in the XL...

 

[Mark Andersen]

Fingers crossed for HFR global shutter in the XL...

The truth is when the read and rewrite speeds get really fast (as it is with Raptor) it gets harder and harder to see the difference between scanning and global. I suspect there are some downsides to global as well, otherwise everyone would use it.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Thank you for finding this, Phil!

What do you think sensor height looks like? 20mm was a bit sad so it has to be 24-25mm minimum, to compete with Alexa LF / Venice / Kinefinity LF?

Also of interest, no more RED Medallion, but now the sensor type is written right on the front of the camera.

Huh... RED Medallion is the OG symbol and kinda ugly but still would have been better than the stupid aggro skull with like K / R letter claw mark nonsense... ah well!

RED are stubborn beasts, I bet they are keeping that aggro skull as default mainly for aggro dude posturing "we won't back down" reasons now

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Phil Holland]

skull

Won't respond to the skull thing really at this point, you are moderately the singular one whaling on that drum and you've made your point. It's their logo. You're projecting that it's an aggro skull as that is how you are interpreting it. We get it. You don't like it. But seriously the tantrum is old. You've brought it up in most of your recent posts. The concept behind that symbiology means different things to different people.

Anyways....

The sensor height is an interesting topic, but still at the moment RED 8K VV sensors are the largest image circle for widescreen filmmaking short of going to the A65:
http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?makeA=RED&modelA=Monstro+8K+VV&formatA=8K+FF&makeB=ARRI&modelB=Alexa+Mini+LF&formatB=4.5K+Open+Gate&focalLengths=

You can make the argument for 16:9 extraction potentially being a small difference of .5mm:
http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?makeA=RED&modelA=Monstro+8K+VV&formatA=8K+FF&makeB=ARRI&modelB=Alexa+Mini+LF&formatB=4.5K+Open+Gate&focalLengths=

The only thing that extra height is giving is support for "full frame" anamorphics, which is a valid thing. As well as potentially using it for vertical reframing. There's some advantage potentially for 1.43:1 IMAX as well if you're making films for one of those 300 screens, which is what I do often, but I would use this over some of those other options in this case. Sort of the reason I use Monstro now. 3:2 is nice, but it's more of a still format IMO. Some even want 1:1 sensors, but that's proven not to be a popular concept either.

At the moment the vast majority of content shot in the world is spherical. And this is coming from a lover of anamorphic.

This format is already taller than S35 4-perf's image circle for full height 2X anamorphic, which is honestly what most people want. Though it's nice to see support for 1.33, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, and 2X in these cameras now.

Nothing has been said about a taller in height sensor, just states VV, which at the moment is the 46.31mm image circle.

Would I like a taller sensor? Sure, why not. But most of the time I'd want a wider sensor for 2.39:1, 16:9, and 17:9 as well as off the beaten path ratios like 2.2:1. The good news is this DNA difference/approach among manufacturers seems to be a reason to use one system or another I guess if you really need that 3mm taller sensor.

 

[Bruce Allen]

The only thing that extra height is giving is support for "full frame" anamorphics, which is a valid thing.

Not just "full frame" but also a lot of "s35" anamorphics support that extra image area once you get tele enough.

Also, when you shoot spherical you can do a much better 1:1 extract as well from the taller sensor. The wide sensor sucks for that.

With Alexa LF / Venice / Kinefinity Edge you can go and shoot your full frame anamorphic feature... but also go and shoot that super crisp spherical promo and get a 1x1 version for Instagram without horrible crop compromises.

Did this for Bridgerton (my friend and I directed the promos), Respect (my design and VFX supervison) etc... Panavision Sphero, Masterbuilt, etc.
All the other commercials have been anamorphic - Alexa mini, Kinefinity Mavo LF etc.

So with the taller sensor, you have this awesome combo of: anamorphic full frame goodness AND spherical multi-format reframing goodness for promos.

Now it's all relative... if RED's prices were lower for the sensor height it'd be good. But for the type of work I do... nope. They charge a lot for a sensor that's not particularly large in the right way for pretty much everything I do. It just sounds impressive because it's Vistavision 8k. Good marketing!

Nothing has been said about a taller in height sensor, just states VV, which at the moment is the 46.31mm image circle.

Would I like a taller sensor? Sure, why not. But most of the time I'd want a wider sensor for 2.39:1, 16:9, and 17:9 as well as off the beaten path ratios like 2.2:1.

I guess super duper high res wider-than-FF spherical seems like more of a niche to me than the use cases I outlined above but to each their own!

Yes, it is just a couple mm... but also the old Alexa mini is 18mm high. To me 21mm feels weirdly in between an Alexa mini and an Alexa LF.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sorry one more...

3:2 is nice, but it's more of a still format IMO. Some even want 1:1 sensors, but that's proven not to be a popular concept either.

So wait... by writing "that's proven to not to be a popular concept either" you imply that taller aspect ratio sensors than 16x9 aren't popular?

I think Alexa mini (4:3 or 3:2 mode if you count open gate), Sony Venice (3:2), Panasonic S1H (3:2), Alexa LF (3:2) are all pretty popular.

Look at the price of Alexa 4:3 vs Alexa 16x9 on the used market too...

Anyway I think I made my point that in high end land, RED is actually the odd one out. Them and Canon - ah remember the massive success of the C700 FF

Look forward to seeing how high this one's sensor is - and if price is competitive with other cameras with similar height sensors.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Nick Vera]

I really wish we can get a price window of what the XL is going to cost. Debating on the V-Raptor and XL. Also would M-mount glass work on the XL? I have a good deal of M mount glass.

 

[Ryan Chernin]

would M-mount glass work on the XL? I have a good deal of M mount glass.

Leica M is adaptable to RF mount, and DSMC2 already supports M, so I'd imagine both the Raptor and Raptor XL will support M glass with no issues.

 

[Nick Vera]

Leica M is adaptable to RF mount, and DSMC2 already supports M, so I'd imagine both the Raptor and Raptor XL will support M glass with no issues.

Yeah I know the regular RED V-Raptor will work with M Mount. Just was not sure on the XL because of the internal ND !!!!

 

[Phil Holland]

Sorry one more...

I'm referring to mastering/finishing projects in 3:2 Bruce.....

 

[Bruce Allen]

I'm referring to mastering/finishing projects in 3:2 Bruce.....

Oh gotcha! In the very next sentence you referred to 1:1 sensors which made me think you were talking about sensor formats not finishing formats.

Yes, for me the advantages of 3:2 are for anamorphic scope finish for features and spherical multi-format finish for promos and commercials.

RE: pure 3:2 format for display, yes, nobody does that. Except for, well, as you mentioned, IMAX is close...

BTW dude I just read your post again - do you seriously choose a wide aspect ratio RED over an 3:2 Alexa LF or Venice, even if finishing stuff for 1.43:1 IMAX?

Don't get me wrong, I am sure you get very fine images because you know what you are doing... but, like, why?

It's such a big crop, you're only using a little chunk of the sensor - vs with Alexa LF you get to use so much more (and it's such an amazing sensor too).

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Phil Holland]

Oh gotcha! Yes, nobody does that. Except for, well, as you mentioned, IMAX...

BTW dude I just read your post again - do you seriously choose a wide aspect ratio RED over an 3:2 Alexa LF or Venice, even if finishing stuff for 1.43:1 IMAX?

Don't get me wrong, I am sure you get very fine images because you know what you are doing... but, like, why?

It's such a big crop, you're only using a little chunk of the sensor - vs with Alexa LF you get to use so much more (and it's such an amazing sensor too).

The only cameras I have filmed for for IMAX are RED Dragon 8K VV, RED Monstro 8K VV, and Arri Alexa 65. Think some Dragon 6K S35 stuff ended up there that pre-dates any of this too. Outside of that actual film 70mm film.

Until we have a proper 15-perf 70mm digital solution that has been the direction we've used 2016 onward. If you're curious two of the major companies who film for IMAX are Monstro and Helium driven no less. Helium is still the highest resolution sensor on the market that is realistically usable on a production.

I have a great, great deal of thoughts surrounding what cameras get used where, why, and win awards as if that has anything to do with the metric as to why people choose to use specific tools for whatever shoot they are doing. It's good that the Venice is growing in popularity in my mind because more cameras equals more options. To blunt and rather crass, I'm just well past the myopic scope of this crap as it pertains to work getting done or made. I honestly don't care what other cameras people use. As long as they are using what they want to or feel is appropriate for whatever they are doing.

Don't want to derail the conversation here too much. But this industry pans out in a variety of directions. Rental houses, rental services, owner/ops, production companies, studios, smaller production companies, hobbyists, filmmakers, etc. Likely forgetting a few in there too. If people haven't caught on, rental houses rely on higher ticket price items to make a decent ROI still, which is very valid, I'm much the same when I rent gear to my shoots or have to rent gear for my shoots or when a studio handles my desires through rental. The rental market has gone through a lot of movement in the last several years with some tide pulling of fear of owner/ops undercutting rental houses and often the coin being flipped occasionally. Meanwhile the amount of people has grown who own cameras. Most rental houses today popped into existence within the last 10 years. A lot of them in the last 5 or 6. The commercial market has exploded with the vast majority of shoots going non-union. The whole game at least state side has been changing rapidly. Meanwhile everybody needs to make money, turn a profit, and have a income allowing them to survive and ideally thrive. You'll always noticed increased popularity towards a product's EOL or near it's replacement or upgrade it seems. It's happened several times already and it's often an attempt to make the last dollars of profit out of it before it's getting pushed into the 2nd hand market. Critical to rental entities really. This will become highly relevant after the next couple (triple) of camera announcements as well. The only valid truth if in a path of equipment ownership is you must derive a plan that makes sense in the face of a rapidly changing market. In my mind that is often getting in early to start making money early. You get the highest potential rental price for a camera, rather than what you can get say 3 years in, and ideally you have the camera (and honestly anything that can be cinema equipment) pay itself off so you can start cycling that investment into true profit. These days I'd say realistically 1-3 years is the goal for equipment payoff for "most" ideally. For some entities you can have things payed off in a few months if you are busy enough.

I just got off a zoom call and we joked that 3 or 4 years ago a camera like V-Raptor would likely be $160,000 or so. It's actually wild where it's priced for what it can do. And XL will satiate the people who need more of a production build mindset, rental houses, commercial shooters, etc. Heck shoot I'm doing early next year, XL is more ideal that V-Raptor honestly. But most of my work I like a small camera I can travel easily with, ideally with two bodies. I mostly roll single camera sans array shoots.

I'm also very biased in my opinion based on what I do professionally and who I do it for. I'm a very "RAW" workflow related professional. I've done exactly 1 non-raw shoot on Alexa this past decade. I understand there's different workflows and such, but my world is generally higher end imaging. In this realm we don't care about what wins cameras were used at Sundance or whatever. Much more focused on the tools right for job to create high quality and compelling imagery. Often we are focused on getting a more filmlike image or clean image as well.

I'll end on a last note. I own cameras from Sony, Canon, and have a good relationship with Arri to this day. Used to do work with them even in the 2000s. I'm excited for all of what's around the bend. I'm mostly a highly visible RED filmmaker because I enjoy giving back to this community and understand digital cinema cameras rather.... erm... intimately. Like Neo/Matrix intimately mixed with a dirty deep baseline and mood lighting. A great example is when the Arri LF came to market because Arri finally stepped into the 4K/4K+ playing field. Something they know a great deal about through years of film scanning and recording, yet their brand loyalists argued fervently against, meanwhile Arri knowing damn well that needed to happen even when the Alexa was actually released. I just truly didn't enjoy people pissing along the way saying 4K would never become a standard or anything like that. It was mostly just opinions from people who weren't exactly leading minds in the world of contemporary or growing trends in our industry or even considering why a specific filmmaker would care about such things. I've maintained my mindset of enjoying the latest technology and exploring it's potential while often being berated for things like "nobody needs 4K" or "nobody needs 8K". If somebody is saying that to me at this point the only thing that's clear is we're not doing the same thing professionally or they haven't moved into the realm where that's part of their reality. ENG is a good example as they haven't even stepped up to HD in some circumstances. At this point however, everybody pretty much "gets it" and in many ways I'm relieved. However now it's why don't we have a 4:3 this or a 3:2 that or whatever on the flipside it's the opposite arguments in the same direction. All an absolutely utter waste of time. The good news is if there is a 3:2 or whatever thing out there you have a solution and if you want a company to make something like that, ask them nicely and given them a good reason. I know RED listens as we see a lot of that has occurred literally on the forum. It's actually harder to get specifically two other companies to budge due to their product roadmaps, but it's no matter. They will make tools that people will want to use and they will be used because of innovations found within.

We're here now in an era of alarmingly capable cameras. Seemingly lightyears away from the mid-2000s through mid-2010s. The cream has risen to the crop in terms of who is making tools professionals want to use and where as well as revealing why. Happy about most of that I guess because it's predictable at this point. I'm fine with whatever you think regarding whatever format. If you said "hey Phil, need to shoot something for 2.39:1, deliver in 4K, would like to explore large format", well I have suggestions and thoughts, but more over I would need to know more about it than merely the aspect ratio to understand what we can do to make that production spin.

And if you're curious, some exhibition display talk. Out of the 1800-ish IMAX theaters out there, 1500 are DCI 1.9:1 (now being referred to as 17:9) and about 300 are 1.43:1. Yes the crop is there, but it's actually more about the image quality, captured detail, and often resolution you can achieve in some of these avenues. Somewhat similar to all the A65 shoots that went down in 5K over the S35 Alexa. It's not that even as there are many thousands of theaters that are DCI based in 2K or 4K. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of 4K TVs, have no clue on HD now, and 8K televisions are now sub-$5000. I shouldn't discount laptops, computers, tablets, and about a billion phones that also are screens that people watch things on.

I'll also back the play that there is nothing like experiencing your work in proper IMAX. It's still an incredible cinema experience and one of the few that can really put you there.

The critical reason why DCI makes the most sense is most screens on Earth that anybody is creating for, I'm talking millions and the perhaps billions, are 16:9 and people are making content that fits within that wide screen container. We almost got a bunch of 16:9 digital cinema cameras for a hot minute there and we'd be going the other way around in the cropping logic btw, but this is how it panned out for digital cinema to escape some of the early day stinging needles of digital.

Anyways...... DM me for more rants if I have the time. Now I'm mad I derailed this thread.

 

[Luka Sanader]

this looks like "Ranger 2" and in my opinion if Red would to make this XL real "XL" they would stuck a 65mm sensor in this box. Now that would be a XL and red would dominate the market. that would make a good line up:

Komodo S35
V Raptor Vista Vision
XL Raptor 65Digital

 

[peter richweisz]

+1. Was not medium format on Red's roadmap anyway? It's a bold move for sure, but that what this company known for.

 

[Mark K.]

XL looks GREAT. Ranger is impressive, but XL seems to have refined the approach even further.

- SDI and 3x AUX power up front? Terrific! That'll reduce those irritating long cable runs up along the side/top of the body
- The new control panel? Looks like a welcome relief for ACs! (compared to the old side panel)
- 5x AUX power outputs? Brilliant. No need for any external power-routing gack(!)
- Internal NDs? At long bloody last! (have they confirmed whether it'll be optical ND or eND?)
- Built-in scratch microphones? Love those
- A proper, no-nonsense, interchangeable mount system? Essential.

This basically addresses ALL of the ergonomic and operational features that I've been clamouring for, for years. So very exciting on that front.

A much faster boot time looks like it's the last operational feature Red need to nail down (do we know how long Raptor takes yet?).

The only physical feature I could really think of to add (and it's just a small luxury really) is a series of tally lights like Sony's FX6 employs. They've put these long, illuminated tally "strips" on the top edges of the camera body (on both sides and at the rear), which provides this lovely, and reassuring visual confirmation everytime you're recording - no matter what side of the camera you're operating from. It not a feature you'd think of, but once you've used it, it's a lovely thing that just constantly helps lower your stress levels on set. So it'd be a lovely additional feature to throw in there.

Size wise, it looks like the XL body will be pretty close to current Ranger 8" long, 6" tall, and 5" wide. So basically the same height and length, but an inch or so slimmer.

I think that's a nice size. It seems to be about as small as you can make any conventional production camera build (with all of the normal accessories you need to add). And with all of the I/O built-in to the XL body, there's no rigging gack to add that'll expand it out. You just slap on a battery, and rig your handle/baseplate/evf/wireless bits as you normally would. Should allow for some extremely clean camera builds.

Hopefully weight-wise they can keep it to 3kg or so. That would be lighter than the MILF (with the cage you're forced to use it with).

 

[Edward Saltau]

A frustrating set of cameras IMO.

I use big lenses (canon 50-1000) so I’d like a solid PL mount and ND filters. That’s all I really needed beyond DSMC2. It’s super frustrating to know that I’ll have to spend probably at least 10k+ extra for the XL just to get those two features and for the price I end up with a camera twice the size - which is a negative for me.

Clearly the Raptor with interchangeable mounts and built in NDs is the camera that should have been made.

 

[Phil Holland]

A frustrating set of cameras IMO.

I use big lenses (canon 50-1000) so I’d like a solid PL mount and ND filters. That’s all I really needed beyond DSMC2. It’s super frustrating to know that I’ll have to spend probably at least 10k+ extra for the XL just to get those two features and for the price I end up with a camera twice the size - which is a negative for me.

Clearly the Raptor with interchangeable mounts and built in NDs is the camera that should have been made.

Interesting take. Keep in mind you can get the small camera with the electronic ND in a PL mount that will rigidly mount beyond the RF Mount.

The XL, really hard to tell without dimensions, doesn't seem to be much larger, if it is at all, than a Mini.

 

[Mark K.]

A frustrating set of cameras IMO.

I use big lenses (canon 50-1000) so I’d like a solid PL mount and ND filters. That’s all I really needed beyond DSMC2. It’s super frustrating to know that I’ll have to spend probably at least 10k+ extra for the XL just to get those two features and for the price I end up with a camera twice the size - which is a negative for me.

Clearly the Raptor with interchangeable mounts and built in NDs is the camera that should have been made.

Here's the Raptor with the "Production Pack". The integrated top plate/battery plate/ext module all looks impressively seamless to me. So much so, that it's enough for me to now actually question whether I'd need the XL (versus the Production-Raptor). The Lens Mount is really the only significant niggle for me on the Production-Raptor, and an over-engineered adapter would probably lay most of those concerns to rest.

It's a TINY setup, that has pretty much all of the I/O I personally need covered.

If I were regularly shooting on a 50-1000mm though, yeah, I'm not sure even the most overengineered RF-PL adapter would allay my fears. Though if they can keep the XL's weight done to say 3kg, that's going to be hard to beat (small, light, and very powerful):