Comments on: Rian vs Red

By: Prune

Prune — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:48:24 +0000

This is an answer to Modifoo’s comment :
Of course, the camera price and overal budget DOES matter. But that’s not the question here. If some camera, compared to RED, are 10 times more expensive, while they are not 10 times “better”, have something different.
OK, Genesis and F23 are way too expensive. That’s why you rent it. Do you really need to buy the camera ?
Camera like the RED will also help to have the price drop on other cameras.

But when you’re shooting, just think of image quality and ease of use on the set. Try to do the best you can with the budget. But don’t think of budget first. This will lead you to poor quality footages.
Let’s say RED is much cheaper than Genesis, but image quality is less attractive. Then use the RED. But compared to the Sony EX1/EX3, the RED is far more expensive. Why don’t go with the EX1 ?
Then, you don’t have a huge difference between the EX1 and any HDV ?
OK, let’s shoot HDV !

Then everything is crap. This is kind of things we can see actualy (in France, but same everywhere) when watching TV : at some point, TDT (TNT) and internet broadcasts are worst than what was image quality when analogic (almost)…

Are we still going forward ?

By: Kendal Miller

Kendal Miller — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:56:53 +0000

Okay a few things I really agree with alot of this. His bottom line is as follows:
__________________________________________________________________________
We agree that it’s very impressive that something so inexpensive is even being compared to higher end cameras. Our article doesn’t say Red is bad — it only says that some people are mis-representing technical data to try to show (incorrectly) that there is technical evidence that Red is better. If you say, “Red is great — very good for the price — amazingly close to high-end cameras for something so cheap,” then we agree with you. If you say, “hey, I personally think Red LOOKS better to my taste than Genesis even though some its specs are lower than Genesis,” then we can’t disagree that you think so. The only thing we’re refuting is the phenomenon where people try to quote specs to show that Red is a technically better CINEMA camera. F23 and Genesis see and record MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE IMAGE THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THEATRICAL CINEMA.
__________________________________________________________________________
Essentially he agrees with you, what he takes issues with is the crowd that says 4K resolution intrinsically equals a better camera, spec to spec. His argument that you must take a system in its entirety not based on simply one spec is very valid. IMHO a very good read and well researched article. Now what is interesting is that Peter Jackson has not actually lensed any new projects on Red, he has used it for elements but remains in the film arena for his latest “Lovely Bones” project. Once again I think its simply a matter of matching the best camera to the project, non are perfect, even Red.

By: modifoo

modifoo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:24:35 +0000

I listened to some of the discussion, but really find it quite superfluous. For me the bottom line is: I can either buy a RED or some HD camera. The Genesis is way out of league, financially (and you cannot buy it, anyway.)

So, before even entering the discussion on which camera is better or not, the reality is that no camera comes even close in terms of bang for the buck.

Additionally I also wonder, why do people like Peter Jackson, who really do not have to worry about a camera budget, chose to use the RED if it was really as bad as a few people claim.

Makes me wonder what their real agenda is…