You know, a lot of people will be perfectly happy with a 5d2. The fact that none of my work is going to Cinema release, that it's largely going to be on the web or in powerpoints makes the Red massive overkill.
There are two aspects to it though... the malleability of the files... I'm talking substantial dynamic range and the lack of moiré that has plagued my 5d2 footage... that, for me, warranted the expenditure. I would be hard pressed to advise anyone else to go out and spend 30-50k on a system when they're brand new to motion work, and I wouldn't suggest it to you unless you're were absolutely sure of the potential.
CB
I agree with CB and can put this into simple terms, investment equals return.
Obviously a camera by itself doesn't make you money, or get you booked, unless your a rental house.
The bottom line is will the RED work for my clients? I think so, it has seemed to and I'll know more in the coming months.
A lot of this depends on what you do. 4k seems like overkill for the web, but I think the consensus is that web play is dramatically changing from video download to streaming and streaming will have an impact on everything we watch from advertising to entertainment.
All of us could write a book on where we think advertising and media is going, but that really isn't in my power to decide for a client where or how they should advertise. My only thought is to be ready for whatever comes.
I personally think the RED offers me more control over the look and quality of our content and though the still frames are not medium format digital equivalent, they do offer the ability to be used across different mediums and I think more useful than the dslr files.
5d2 still files and still files from motion imageRight now the only thing anyone talks about is cost. That is where the video capable dslrs have an advantage, not just because the cameras and lenses are cheaper, but because they're small and you can run a lot of them at once with less intrusive camera hardware, less crew.
I was told yesterday that Hollywood plans are to move into more digital capture from dslrs to the RED and the only reason is costs. Some people are aghast at that thought, some revel in it. It just depends on which side of the fence you sit. I personally think the cost of the camera will have little to do with the quality or look of the content, because it's always come down to the creativity of the story, the quality of the talent and budget. Just like in still photography post production can dramatically change the look of any file, but just like in still photography the more robust file you start with the more you can do with it.
Just like in still photography, I don't believe it's a one camera world. There are things you can do with a dslr that you just can't do quickly with the RED, but consequently for certain productions the RED does things a dslr or any video camera doesn't.
After testing a lot of lenses, right now we've decided to make the RED as lightweight and moveable a camera as possible. Instead of a huge Oconnor head we went with the largest Bogen and a carbon fiber tripod, Zeiss ZF nikon mount lenses and the ways to get the battery off the camera.
We want to build the fastest system we can, because for the next few years, speed of production will be a large component to any project.
IMO
BC
