The Red One is some piece of gear. The rental house I use in Dallas has three and I went on a shoot with one last month. Better take the ground school first. Huge learning curve for all the settings. The video crew covered only about a fourth of the shooting script. Lot's of accessories too.

It's expensive, but check this out from their website that I found there yesterday....

http://www.red.com/nab/scarlet

This could be a very interesting piece of gear.

re - I shoot stills for destinations -- I might add to my $$ if I could simultaneously offer footage...
How to describe RED stills in terms of my Canon 40D 10mp RAWs?

------

first of all, are you seriously going to consider using or getting one for what you're talking about? i doubt it unless you earn six figures+ from your operation and you can justify even considering such a gadget.

and large images are already published from frame grabs from far less expensive HD cams in photo journalism as it gets more into online video.
granted they are for newsprint but it's being done, so you might start researching in that direction.

quote:

Originally posted by Gordon Moat:
[qb] If you think still camera lens prices are a bit high, check out lens prices (good lenses) for 2/3 chip cameras, or C-mount. [/qb]

Cooke primes are the best, I think the basic ones run around $20 grand EACH, a zoom is like $60 grand...

Yeah, I just got some brochures from some friends who were at NAB making connections for something else I am working on. The Cooke package set for the Red camera is $100k. At least Band Pro will supposedly have a set for rental.

Considering what some motion guys are getting paid on commercial projects, and the cost of their better gear, it does seem at times that stills photographers are really missing the ball. To even consider getting high end video and not doing high paying work seems to place one's time at a low value, or not value what they do highly enough. Nothing wrong with doing video stock, but I fail to see a good argument to use high end gear, especially when a good mid range set-up closer to $10k or under will do very well.

I went on a bike ride with a friend who is in the movie/television industry, works as a shooter and director; I asked him about the "Red" and he said there are clients who request it until they learn it is not as fast and easy to use as the current stable of cameras (think reality TV, HGTV, VH1, MTV, Discover channel shows, etc).

"It is more like a movie camera" is what he said. So with that said I question whether it will really affect the photographic industry, though, it may be some indication of things to come.

its a nice NICE camera system for its intended market but it still doesn't bridge that well into our Photography world.

I have used the RED 5 times now on some video projects and a good friend of mine owns about 20 REDs, most of which are paired up as 3D video systems.

DJ's site: http://www.liquidpictures.net

As mentioned before its VERY pricey compared to still cameras but when you compare it to a Sony HD900 or Panasonic Varicam at $125K then you see the $$$$ difference..

the REDs size is small in Video Cam terms but still weighs like a chunk of led.. i'm still amazed at how "chunky" it is everytime i pick it up.

the times are a changing... the DSLR killed the 35mm film camera..
the RED is gonna kill the rest of the 35mm motion picture world..

cw

THE SITE
THE WORKBOOK
THE SPACE