6 ms·

Red is great, but it is still a crazy expensive high-end range of cameras. The real game-changer, I'm hoping, will be Blackmagic. Their new mini 4.6 Ursa came

by l33tbro 11y ago

Red is great, but it is still a crazy expensive high-end range of cameras. The real game-changer, I'm hoping, will be Blackmagic. Their new mini 4.6 Ursa camera could really change things for the low-to-medium budget. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1137310-REG/blackmagic_design_cinecamursam46k_ef_ursa_mini_4_6k_digital.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1137310-REG/blackmagic...

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
People only think they're expensive because they have no concept of how much the cameras cost that they replaced. $14,500 is pocket change, studios had been buying things for $250,000-300,000 and renting them out to productions for over twenty-thirty years, which while a great investment, is still a drop in the ocean relative to $14.5K/each. Blackmagic has some great deals, and for documentary filmmakers or amateurs they're much more affordable than Red cameras. I don't know if they're "game changing" as since the digital revolution cameras which have been good enough have been readily available. Sure, it won't look like AAA blockbuster, but for competitions and the indie market it is fine. I actually feel like drones are bigger game changers. They legitimate turn $20,000 heli-shots into $500 drone ones. That and CGI/effects continue to get cheaper and more accessible, you often see indie flicks which have scenes with better CGI than you would ever see in the 1990s, or tons of green screen that you wouldn't know was...
superuser2 11y ago
RED is neither crazy, expensive, nor high-end. It's a piece of professional equipment, and pretty competitively priced as such, though on the low end of quality and capability. Most big-name movies of the last few years that were shot digitally were shot on Arri Alexa. It's a different world out there. Doing film production well is an unbelievably expensive game, and the camera rental is not even that significant.
- Keyframe 11y ago
  While true that Alexa gained traction, don't forget the nature of this business. Every time a new shiny toy comes out, suddenly the older one "is crap". Alexa has a nice tonal range, especially the skin. However, Red cameras are very very much in use, both in Hollywood and outside (in fact I have delivered one from post-production just yesterday for a Monday premiere on a festival). Sony's F-65 seems to be the only one that didn't get much traction so far. What people outside don't understand is that camera is only a part of an equation. That's why you see lots of amateurs buying their own Scarlet, Epic, whatevers and thinking that's what they need to shoot a film. I'd rather have a slightly worse camera and good lens than vice versa. Then there's grip, light, people that know how to use all of that and have experience... Regarding cameras, there's still a lot of space to improve on and if one could either source good CMOS sensors or make their own - this could easily be a space for a startup to thrive at. edit: What ARRI did right, apart from tonal range (which isn't an issue with Red and a good colorist) is that they have tons of experience how to do the hardware right that plays well with grip.
  - dharma1 11y ago
    making your own CMOS sensors - sounds like a pretty money intensive plan for a startup! Who would your market be? Sony owns the market for mobile/dSLR sensors, RED make their own with TowerJazz (and their R&D cost must have been monumental, hence the high prices) and blackmagic uses CMOSIS sensors, which I'm sure is half the reason they can price the cameras the way they do edit: sensor in the BM Ursa Mini is based on this, not CMOSIS anymore - http://fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-arrays/scmos/ltn4625a http://fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-arrays/scmos...
    - Keyframe 11y ago
      Same market as Red/ARRI at first. But I haven't thought about it since I think it's a rather daunting task (CMOS). Each has weaknesses. For example, Red's build quality isn't all that great and their lack of awareness for what cameramen need on set is lacking. ARRI has a price issue, as well as resolution and raw left to be desired. Especially their AMIRA camera, which could be a first target for a startup - a good documentary camera. Blackmagic is usually all talk - their software is abysmal and hardware has a cheap taste to it. Sony lives in their own world (their professional market division is a bit out of touch with reality). In my opinion, there's a great space to be filled (at first, but there are others) in documentary and/or ENG camera space. Making a good ENG camera paired with a lightweight version of codex at a reasonable price would be a killer combo. Two main (of many) issues are CMOS design and production and either custom lens manufacturing or sourcing those. I am not even sure where one would begin to implement their own CMOS. Everything silicon production seems like alien, otherworldly, tech to me once you start thinking of production. Design is on another area51 level as well.
      - l33tbro 11y ago
        How is BM abysmal? I understand that they are confidence men with release dates and what not, but Resolve is the cornerstone of any pro colorist suite in 2015.
        Keyframe 11y ago
- l33tbro 11y ago
  I feel you may not have given much charity to my initial statement, but that's the internet so whatever. It's economies of scale when it comes to cameras. RED family is most certainly on the higher end of cameras when it comes to all brackets of film production. Maybe Alexa is weapon of choice for most DPs, but some prefer the more buttery and filmic motion you get with an Epic Dragon (not me, I prefer the neutrality of the Alexa). I'm betting my lunch that Ursa Mini (with a brand new, BM, custom built sensor) will do what the 5D did in 2008 for the indies. Test an Ursa original (old, factory 4k sensor) against a Dragon with the same glass and it's difficult for most to call out which is which. Given this will be a bigger and better sensor ... well south under 5k ... with all the fixed noise patterns rectified, I think it really could allow indies to flex.
- stephen_g 11y ago
  Perhaps quality is subjective, but saying RED cameras are low end of quality is complete BS. It is a popular misconception though - a lot of people didn't get the workflow early on, and unfortunately the reputation stuck. People were used to cameras that destructively burnt in gamma curves, altered brightness, etc. and the raw RED footage that required a little massaging to bring out the image which confused people. The advantage is that it gives you massively more flexibility for altering the look in post. These days, great colour grading software like Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve and others is far more accessible and everybody wants raw now, so its not really much of a problem. Arri make some great cameras too. Really, both have come so far that either can generally achieve most or all of what a talented DOP is going for.
- blhack 11y ago
  >on the low end of quality and capability Uhh? It shoots in 5k. >Most big-name movies of the last few years that were shot digitally were shot on Arri Alexa. Movies like The Hobbit? http://www.slrlounge.com/arri-vs-red-dominated-2014-academy-awards/ http://www.slrlounge.com/arri-vs-red-dominated-2014-academy-... (I'm assuming you know more about this than I do, just curious how this fits in with what I'm reading online)
modfodder 11y ago
There have been several game changers in the last decade, the RED camera being one. It's price was low enough and quality high enough that they have become somewhat ubiquitous, creating relatively low rental prices and creating a whole new generation of cinematographers that were able to skip the typical slow apprenticeship track (for better or worse). An equally large game changer was the rise of the DSLR, opening the bottom of the market to a look previously unreachable for the price. I love Blackmagic (have the pocket camera myself), but the difference in quality and cost between current DSLRs, the various REDs and the Ursa 4.6 is not great enough to categorize as a game changer. I'll probably pick up the new Ursa myself, but at this point the visual quality of the picture is the least of a filmmakers worry (check out Upstream Colour which was shot on a $1k GH2). Shooting on a cheap DSLR and spending more money on art direction will have a greater impact on the quality of a film than picking up the best camera and lenses.
baddox 11y ago
Low budget productions can still reasonably rent a RED.
kriro 11y ago
The price seems pretty enticing for me as someone who is thinking about venturing into amateur filmmaking. I need to work on technique, lighting and basics so I'll just stick to a cheapish HD camera with manual controls (I have the good old HF G25 on my mind) for now. Cost adds up quickly (light, sound, computer upgrade for editing). I guess I'll keep this one in mind as the potential next step up. 312.5 MB/s for the best format that's almost 19 GB/minute so a 256GB card will hold <14 minutes. Those cost about 600$ so if you really want to shoot at that storage cost is going to be nontrivial.
- bitL 11y ago
  312.5MB/s is only for ProRes 444, which is a lossy compression scheme and you don't want to use that before post production (from Apple: "The R, G, and B channels are lightly compressed, with an emphasis on being perceptually indistinguishable from the original material."). For RAW multiply requirements by ~4x.
  - ancientworldnow 11y ago
    ProRes 4444 is lossy, but it's still more than enough for most projects. Drive was shot in ProRes 4444 and I deliver network television shows shot in 422HQ or 4444 all the time. Raw is nice but definitely not strictly necessary.
    - bitL 11y ago
      Yes, though for someone as spoiled as me working on 5k/8k hyperlapses with D810/5Ds and getting absolutely gorgeous RAW footage where post-processing filters can do miracles, I vastly prefer shooting 4k RAW, which puts a lot of strain on technology, be it camera, storage and computer as well (nothing on the market is fast enough and no amount of storage is sufficient). The results when viewed on a UHD TV via 4:4:4 mode are phenomenal though. Of course, with 4:2:0 H.264/H.265 it doesn't make much difference and for scaling it down to FHD ProRes 4444 is sufficient anyway.
mikeytown2 11y ago
The Sony A7S is another one to checkout due to it's low light performance http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/10-incredible-low-light-videos-shot-on-the-sony-a7s/ http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/10-incredible-low-light-vide...
pen2l 11y ago
Thoughts on the new Sony A7r ii? I have been hearing it's a game-changer a lot, as well. Is the word 'game-changer' used too often or is the a7r ii something special? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_mark_ii_digital.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_m...
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  no it isn't any changer of anything. just a smaller full frame body in ecosystem that desperately lacks more good quality lenses (which are still big, so whole setup looks a bit ridiculous, and for prolonged movie recording isn't very pleasant).
Sanddancer 11y ago
The Red was revolutionary because it was crazy cheap compared to film /stock/, let alone what a good film camera would cost you. Ten years ago, if you wanted to do filming, going the budget route for stock would cost you $13000+ for a 90 min film shot at 35mm, or $5600 for a 90 min film shot on 16mm [1]. The Ursa definitely looks like it's going to push the bar a bit lower, but at the same time, some of the higher end DSLRs are doing raw 4k at about the same price point as the Blackmagic, so I'd argue that the Ursa's more evolutionary than revolutionary. [1] http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/ http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/
- bitL 11y ago
  Which DSLRs can do 4k 4:4:4 RAW in $5k price range?
  - anilgulecha 11y ago
    I think the parent meant something like the Canon 5Dm2/3 with magic lantern can provide RAW Full HD in a ~2-3000$ package, with a great range of glass and accessories. These provide footage pro-filmmakers did not have access a decade ago. The higher resolution thus evolutionary
    - bitL 11y ago
      There is a significant difference between recording RAW FHD and recording RAW DCI 4K/UHD - the latter requires over 1GB/s sustained recording device which is a major engineering challenge. Only nowadays with PCIe based SSDs we finally have technology for it (baring multiple RAID SSDs used in production cameras before PCIe SSDs). Technologically it is indeed revolutionary.
  - dharma1 11y ago
    This https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/gb/products/cinemacameras/techspecs/W-CIN-05 https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/gb/products/cinemacameras/t...

by l33tbro 11y ago

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago

People only think they're expensive because they have no concept of how much the cameras cost that they replaced. $14,500 is pocket change, studios had been buying things for $250,000-300,000 and renting them out to productions for over twenty-thirty years, which while a great investment, is still a drop in the ocean relative to $14.5K/each. Blackmagic has some great deals, and for documentary filmmakers or amateurs they're much more affordable than Red cameras. I don't know if they're "game changing" as since the digital revolution cameras which have been good enough have been readily available. Sure, it won't look like AAA blockbuster, but for competitions and the indie market it is fine. I actually feel like drones are bigger game changers. They legitimate turn $20,000 heli-shots into $500 drone ones. That and CGI/effects continue to get cheaper and more accessible, you often see indie flicks which have scenes with better CGI than you would ever see in the 1990s, or tons of green screen that you wouldn't know was...

superuser2 11y ago

RED is neither crazy, expensive, nor high-end. It's a piece of professional equipment, and pretty competitively priced as such, though on the low end of quality and capability. Most big-name movies of the last few years that were shot digitally were shot on Arri Alexa. It's a different world out there. Doing film production well is an unbelievably expensive game, and the camera rental is not even that significant.

Keyframe 11y ago
While true that Alexa gained traction, don't forget the nature of this business. Every time a new shiny toy comes out, suddenly the older one "is crap". Alexa has a nice tonal range, especially the skin. However, Red cameras are very very much in use, both in Hollywood and outside (in fact I have delivered one from post-production just yesterday for a Monday premiere on a festival). Sony's F-65 seems to be the only one that didn't get much traction so far. What people outside don't understand is that camera is only a part of an equation. That's why you see lots of amateurs buying their own Scarlet, Epic, whatevers and thinking that's what they need to shoot a film. I'd rather have a slightly worse camera and good lens than vice versa. Then there's grip, light, people that know how to use all of that and have experience... Regarding cameras, there's still a lot of space to improve on and if one could either source good CMOS sensors or make their own - this could easily be a space for a startup to thrive at. edit: What ARRI did right, apart from tonal range (which isn't an issue with Red and a good colorist) is that they have tons of experience how to do the hardware right that plays well with grip.
- dharma1 11y ago
  making your own CMOS sensors - sounds like a pretty money intensive plan for a startup! Who would your market be? Sony owns the market for mobile/dSLR sensors, RED make their own with TowerJazz (and their R&D cost must have been monumental, hence the high prices) and blackmagic uses CMOSIS sensors, which I'm sure is half the reason they can price the cameras the way they do edit: sensor in the BM Ursa Mini is based on this, not CMOSIS anymore - http://fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-arrays/scmos/ltn4625a http://fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-arrays/scmos...
  - Keyframe 11y ago
    Same market as Red/ARRI at first. But I haven't thought about it since I think it's a rather daunting task (CMOS). Each has weaknesses. For example, Red's build quality isn't all that great and their lack of awareness for what cameramen need on set is lacking. ARRI has a price issue, as well as resolution and raw left to be desired. Especially their AMIRA camera, which could be a first target for a startup - a good documentary camera. Blackmagic is usually all talk - their software is abysmal and hardware has a cheap taste to it. Sony lives in their own world (their professional market division is a bit out of touch with reality). In my opinion, there's a great space to be filled (at first, but there are others) in documentary and/or ENG camera space. Making a good ENG camera paired with a lightweight version of codex at a reasonable price would be a killer combo. Two main (of many) issues are CMOS design and production and either custom lens manufacturing or sourcing those. I am not even sure where one would begin to implement their own CMOS. Everything silicon production seems like alien, otherworldly, tech to me once you start thinking of production. Design is on another area51 level as well.
    - l33tbro 11y ago
      How is BM abysmal? I understand that they are confidence men with release dates and what not, but Resolve is the cornerstone of any pro colorist suite in 2015.
      - Keyframe 11y ago
l33tbro 11y ago
I feel you may not have given much charity to my initial statement, but that's the internet so whatever. It's economies of scale when it comes to cameras. RED family is most certainly on the higher end of cameras when it comes to all brackets of film production. Maybe Alexa is weapon of choice for most DPs, but some prefer the more buttery and filmic motion you get with an Epic Dragon (not me, I prefer the neutrality of the Alexa). I'm betting my lunch that Ursa Mini (with a brand new, BM, custom built sensor) will do what the 5D did in 2008 for the indies. Test an Ursa original (old, factory 4k sensor) against a Dragon with the same glass and it's difficult for most to call out which is which. Given this will be a bigger and better sensor ... well south under 5k ... with all the fixed noise patterns rectified, I think it really could allow indies to flex.
stephen_g 11y ago
Perhaps quality is subjective, but saying RED cameras are low end of quality is complete BS. It is a popular misconception though - a lot of people didn't get the workflow early on, and unfortunately the reputation stuck. People were used to cameras that destructively burnt in gamma curves, altered brightness, etc. and the raw RED footage that required a little massaging to bring out the image which confused people. The advantage is that it gives you massively more flexibility for altering the look in post. These days, great colour grading software like Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve and others is far more accessible and everybody wants raw now, so its not really much of a problem. Arri make some great cameras too. Really, both have come so far that either can generally achieve most or all of what a talented DOP is going for.
blhack 11y ago
>on the low end of quality and capability Uhh? It shoots in 5k. >Most big-name movies of the last few years that were shot digitally were shot on Arri Alexa. Movies like The Hobbit? http://www.slrlounge.com/arri-vs-red-dominated-2014-academy-awards/ http://www.slrlounge.com/arri-vs-red-dominated-2014-academy-... (I'm assuming you know more about this than I do, just curious how this fits in with what I'm reading online)

modfodder 11y ago

There have been several game changers in the last decade, the RED camera being one. It's price was low enough and quality high enough that they have become somewhat ubiquitous, creating relatively low rental prices and creating a whole new generation of cinematographers that were able to skip the typical slow apprenticeship track (for better or worse). An equally large game changer was the rise of the DSLR, opening the bottom of the market to a look previously unreachable for the price. I love Blackmagic (have the pocket camera myself), but the difference in quality and cost between current DSLRs, the various REDs and the Ursa 4.6 is not great enough to categorize as a game changer. I'll probably pick up the new Ursa myself, but at this point the visual quality of the picture is the least of a filmmakers worry (check out Upstream Colour which was shot on a $1k GH2). Shooting on a cheap DSLR and spending more money on art direction will have a greater impact on the quality of a film than picking up the best camera and lenses.

baddox 11y ago

Low budget productions can still reasonably rent a RED.

kriro 11y ago

The price seems pretty enticing for me as someone who is thinking about venturing into amateur filmmaking. I need to work on technique, lighting and basics so I'll just stick to a cheapish HD camera with manual controls (I have the good old HF G25 on my mind) for now. Cost adds up quickly (light, sound, computer upgrade for editing). I guess I'll keep this one in mind as the potential next step up. 312.5 MB/s for the best format that's almost 19 GB/minute so a 256GB card will hold <14 minutes. Those cost about 600$ so if you really want to shoot at that storage cost is going to be nontrivial.

bitL 11y ago
312.5MB/s is only for ProRes 444, which is a lossy compression scheme and you don't want to use that before post production (from Apple: "The R, G, and B channels are lightly compressed, with an emphasis on being perceptually indistinguishable from the original material."). For RAW multiply requirements by ~4x.
- ancientworldnow 11y ago
  ProRes 4444 is lossy, but it's still more than enough for most projects. Drive was shot in ProRes 4444 and I deliver network television shows shot in 422HQ or 4444 all the time. Raw is nice but definitely not strictly necessary.
  - bitL 11y ago
    Yes, though for someone as spoiled as me working on 5k/8k hyperlapses with D810/5Ds and getting absolutely gorgeous RAW footage where post-processing filters can do miracles, I vastly prefer shooting 4k RAW, which puts a lot of strain on technology, be it camera, storage and computer as well (nothing on the market is fast enough and no amount of storage is sufficient). The results when viewed on a UHD TV via 4:4:4 mode are phenomenal though. Of course, with 4:2:0 H.264/H.265 it doesn't make much difference and for scaling it down to FHD ProRes 4444 is sufficient anyway.

mikeytown2 11y ago

The Sony A7S is another one to checkout due to it's low light performance http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/10-incredible-low-light-videos-shot-on-the-sony-a7s/ http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/10-incredible-low-light-vide...

pen2l 11y ago

Thoughts on the new Sony A7r ii? I have been hearing it's a game-changer a lot, as well. Is the word 'game-changer' used too often or is the a7r ii something special? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_mark_ii_digital.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159878-REG/sony_a7r_m...

saiya-jin 11y ago
no it isn't any changer of anything. just a smaller full frame body in ecosystem that desperately lacks more good quality lenses (which are still big, so whole setup looks a bit ridiculous, and for prolonged movie recording isn't very pleasant).

Sanddancer 11y ago

The Red was revolutionary because it was crazy cheap compared to film /stock/, let alone what a good film camera would cost you. Ten years ago, if you wanted to do filming, going the budget route for stock would cost you $13000+ for a 90 min film shot at 35mm, or $5600 for a 90 min film shot on 16mm [1]. The Ursa definitely looks like it's going to push the bar a bit lower, but at the same time, some of the higher end DSLRs are doing raw 4k at about the same price point as the Blackmagic, so I'd argue that the Ursa's more evolutionary than revolutionary. [1] http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/ http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

bitL 11y ago
Which DSLRs can do 4k 4:4:4 RAW in $5k price range?
- anilgulecha 11y ago
  I think the parent meant something like the Canon 5Dm2/3 with magic lantern can provide RAW Full HD in a ~2-3000$ package, with a great range of glass and accessories. These provide footage pro-filmmakers did not have access a decade ago. The higher resolution thus evolutionary
  - bitL 11y ago
    There is a significant difference between recording RAW FHD and recording RAW DCI 4K/UHD - the latter requires over 1GB/s sustained recording device which is a major engineering challenge. Only nowadays with PCIe based SSDs we finally have technology for it (baring multiple RAID SSDs used in production cameras before PCIe SSDs). Technologically it is indeed revolutionary.
- dharma1 11y ago
  This https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/gb/products/cinemacameras/techspecs/W-CIN-05 https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/gb/products/cinemacameras/t...