digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

RED ONE 4K video camera unboxed (finally)

gizmodo.com — The Red One Camera, which we saw in person back in April at NAB, just got unboxed. Yes, it's the same camera that Peter Jackson used to shoot the Crossing the Line short film proof-of-concept, but he seemed to like it enough that maybe, just maybe, he's buying a crapload to shoot the Halo movie with.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • camkerr, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7I heard you really gotta know what you're doing with that camera to make it shoot well.
    • anti_hax0r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+57It's called being a Professional.
    • koonchu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Yeah, cuz bolexes were point and click, right?
    • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Gimme an uber expensive professional quality camera and I'll give you a blank stare.
    • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4As is true with an professional camera. More so in the digital realm where you expose for highlights and light to bring shadows within range of the CCD(s).
    • sst4ab, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's nothing you can't 'shop.
  • llsethj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+62if you have 20K to burn on a camera you probably know what you are doing or can afford to have someone teach you
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13You don't burn $20K on a camera to learn on.
      • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You do when you can spend that much on just a lens for a real Hollywood film camera. It really isn't expensive for a good camera. An average news shooter would have a camera at least 2x that price.
    • super_spyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13They actually come out closer to $45k each once you get all the accessories. My uncle just bought 2 of them (#15, and #16) for his rental house, and whats funny is at this point the camera still isn't done. There is no viewfinder available for it you you must use a monitor to use it, it ONLY shoots at 24fps, it does not record sound yet (why would you record sound on the camera?). The official Oakley lenses aren't done yet so you must use other brand lenses, or the nikon or canon adapters... oh ya and it will only shoot at 2k for now. They say there will be firmware updates in the coming months to fix all the camera's issues and all of the accessories will be shipping out soon too. Even with all these issues he is going to let me shoot my cinematography final on it this weekend W00t!!

      http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4657 - 1.8k music video shot on red here
      http://shootwithred.com/
      • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"why would you record sound on the camera?"

        Depends on the size of your crew.
      • NextGenXbox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are very lucky to have an uncle in that biz. I'd be borrowing ***** all the time!
      • MozzieTS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I hate you and I hope you drop #15 and it breaks into a thousand pieces.
  • Spinney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6there was so many boxes of stuff it was like they were running a evacuation center


    made me feel like a kid on christmas morning
  • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7"Watch the clip to see what you can expect when you grab a Red One for yourself."

    That sounds pretty NSFW to me...
  • so1omon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+60Why is this under "Apple"?
    • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13It's actually the "RED DELICIOUS" camera
    • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20[sarcasm] Because you can only edit video on a Mac. [/sarcasm]
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1I don't know why people think Final Cut Pro is the industry standard. Sure lots of people use it, but if you want to get employed in Hollywood, Adobe Premiere and others is the way to go, and those are available and run just as fast on Windows machines as well.
        • muchocheeto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Is that another sarcastic comment? Premiere in Hollywood?? Wedding editors in Hollywood? I had to personally setup so many FCP edit rooms in the LA area... most of them getting rid of Avid rooms.
        • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Actually I prefer Vegas. Seems to always be a step ahead of Premiere and easier to use than Final Cut. Native HD. Great DVD Authoring capability.
        • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Its hard enough to find people in Film school using Premiere, let alone Hollywood.

          /been editing since I was 12, used Avid, FCP, and Premiere in professional settings
        • ncaauwe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually you can only edit RED footage in FCP, so yeah... Premiere has been crippled with every release since they went to "Pro" that it's laughable and nigh impossible to do anything remotely complex in it (believe me, I'm forced to use it every Goddamned day). Adobe is forcing everyone to go out to After Effects to make anything fancy, where Apple is doing the opposite. They keep bringing more and more Motion and Shake features INTO Final Cut Pro, allowing you to do everything from the timeline.
        • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Actually you can only edit RED footage in FCP, so yeah..."

          Wrong - at the moment, FCP is the only editing system that has announced _native_ support. That means that you can export a proxy or an intermediate of your raw footage to use in any other editor, or you can bring your raw footage straight in to FCP. But I would be very surprised if other NLEs didn't support it in the very near future as well
    • lebruf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4My guess is that it's under Apple because RED was started by Jim Jennard, the founder of Oakley, who also happens to be the largest single shareholder of Apple stock, so that might be the connection? I had no idea the company was that big though. Yeah, this sounds like Chunk from the Goonies with the name dropping, but I know this because my roommate's brother is married to Jim's daughter.
    • netviper8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's under Apple because Apple is a synonym of "unboxing pictures".
    • kylehance, on 02/08/2008, -0/+0Maybe because Apple has officially supported the RED ONE's REDCODE codec natively in Final Cut Studio 2. It seems like maybe Apple has really liked what RED's been doing since the start.
  • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -26/+1Digg is becoming another gadget blog?
    • Skod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Digg was originally tech news, remember?
      • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1WAS!
        • xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4go back to your 1990's emails if all you want is top tens, chain-letters, and funny images.
  • jaysedai, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9To see some of the amazing footage from this camera go to: http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21 We have Red #63 available for Rent at Rivetal.com
    • jbouchard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1hey what is the name of the song in this video ???

      thanks

      Jbbouchard@gmail.com
  • acarr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15This camera will further revolutionize the film making industry. Independent film makers rejoice.
  • Commodus, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4Isn't this old? I've seen posts on the Red forums of users who've had theirs for weeks.
    • jaysedai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Correct. The first 50 were delivered to customers weeks ago. The next 50 are due to ship on Oct 15th.
  • maladroit2284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Saw one of these over the summer when they did a camera demo for the company I worked for. Sweet set up at a price you can't beat, not shocked to see they got it taken care of at all.
  • alanwatt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2good luck getting one of these ***** before 2009
    ill be salivating for the delivery of my SI-2k within the next few weeks
    www.siliconimaging.com
    • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4A good friend of mine is actually getting his RED in November. The Si-2k looks cool, but it's the same price as the RED and I think that the RED will prove to be the more versatile camera.
    • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1devindotcom's right - the SI-2K is in a different league to the RED. And if you ordered now, you can get a RED in 2008 (around June, I think). But most people would want to rent anyway...
    • kylehance, on 02/08/2008, -0/+0Well, considering that the RED is 4k it's probably going to kick your SI-2k's butt... And it's not gonna take until 2009, but it will probably be mid 2008. It's gaining some pretty high demand, which is sweet!
  • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2So, the camera "just got unboxed", huh? Does that mean it has been released? Is that like when they say that a CD is about to "drop"? What, drop off the charts? ;-)
    I must be old, these new catchy hip phrases just sound stupid to me.
  • codyman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I saw a demo of this as well here at my film school. The thing is kick ass and its cheap (yes its $17k BUT thats cheap compared to say a 35mm which will set you back a lot more...)
    • cbreaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Keep in mind that the base $17,000 doesn't include much. No storage, no extras, no nothing. I'd be surprised if it included a battery.

      You'll have to add on at least $10,000 for a practical rig, from looking at the prices.

      I think HDV is good enough for "indie" film makers at this point, and you can have a fully functional Canon camera for much less then $10,000. I get tired of hearing how all these products are for "Indie". This ***** is still too expensive. Some people need to realize that Peter Jackson shooting a short film isn't an "Indie Film." He has millions to throw behind any project he does.
  • NextGenXbox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7This thing is a BEAUTY. Providing 35mm quality without the price of shooting 35mm. If only I were rich... :(
    • arniegrape, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Nope, still not 35mm quality. Looks like a very nice camera, though.
      • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, RED's easily the quality of some stocks, but a lot more flexible...

        And then there's the price...
      • FatBird19, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not 35mm quality. Better.
  • phuchead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14correct me if i am wrong.... ***** i guess i AM making a statement on digg, so i will be corrected it i am wrong. BUT, the closest comparable camera is in the ball park of about $250k right? and that is like a Sony or something, but Sony has there own way of quickly dumping off the data but it is like an additional like $250k-$500k, something that red does not have.... at least not yet. I am trying to remember this all from last year, and it is not working great. because i know that 4k of image requires a LOT of bandwidth to even save to a hard drive array with out loss.
    -phuc
    • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6In fact, they developed their own very, very efficient codec called redcode, which you can read about on their site I imagine. It's made the workflow much easier than anticipated and while doing HD stuff is by no means easy, it should be possible on consumer-level hardware with pro software (say a Mac Pro quad core with final cut pro 6, run you about 10 grand probably) - and if you're a serious filmmaker you probably already have this or access to it anyway.
      I'm not trying to be sassy - just saying there is indeed an answer to your perfectly valid question. :)
    • ChayD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yep, most 4Ks would be something like that (looking at the prices for CineAltas). I guess Jim Jannard was aiming Red One at the prosumer market. It wins all round as you don't pay for stock, processing, scanning etc, you just get it raw off the camera, sweet! Heck, I'd buy one :)
      • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'd say he was aiming at the like indie pro filmmaker level - but I hear there's like a "pocket RED" in the works.
      • ChayD, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Edit to my previous post: Having seen a CineAlta in the flesh (at Videoforum show) and not only discovering that they're $100K upwards, they're also only 1080p! WTF?!?

        PocketRED sounds nice. I want one.
    • ravan46, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Uncompressed 4k 10bit at 24fps is 1.2GB/sec. Yes, thats 1200 megabytes a second.
      • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Isn't it more like 300 MB/s? I thought it was around 900 MB/s for 60 frames per second - although that might be RAW (ie. one channel) data.

        REDCODE on the other hand is 25 - 27 MB/s at 24fps - which gives you about 4 minutes on a CF card or two hours on the RED-DRIVE
  • jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It may be awesome, but the music is not!
  • davmattucci, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Am I stupid for not knowing anything about this camera and/or conversation, but still being a mac-phile?
    • whymanwhy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6No, your just stupid for being a mac-phile
    • tmyprod, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1yes
    • ChayD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4In summary, it's a near 35mm film resolution (4000 lines) digital cine camera that (it appears) the prosumer/professional market have been gagging for. Most equivalent cameras are nowhere near as affordable as Red One. it goes for the price of a low end 35mm cine camera (like an Arri) but without the headache of having to buy film stock, get it developed, scanned (or telecined) and, apparently it has an awesome sensor (called Mysterium?) that has roughly the same exposure latitude and response of film, making your footage more natural and film-like. I don't know how accurate my explanation is as I lost interest in cinematography ages ago when I realized how ridiculously expensive it was to even get started :)
      • davmattucci, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. That actually makes it pretty interesting after knowing all of that.
      • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not 4000 lines - it's more like 2540 lines (max). In digital cinema resolutions, the horizontal resolution stays the same (4096 pixels) and the vertical resolution (ie. the amount of 'lines') changes to match the aspect ratio. For example, 4K in 16:9 is 4096x2304
  • Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Gizmodo & Weblogs Inc. Need some god damn photographers. How can you image such a beautiful camera with ***** cameras?
    • redfanboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Gizmodo didn't make the video. In fact, they stole it from Cam-A-Lot, the rental house that actually purchased the Red camera in the video (and made the video, and hosted the video, and is now getting not even a measly link credit for sharing the footage). Screw Gizmodo. The original link is here, and much better quality: http://download.camalot.org/RED.mov
      • Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well they suck ass at taking pictures of all their products. They should find a real photographer and not just give the cameras they get for free to the bloggers who can't take images. Especially the Autoblog Rolls Royce one...the pictures disappointed me, and I bet Rolls Royce.
  • amadeusdemarzi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Oh dear christ I want one of those. Such a beatiful piece of equiptment, not to mention technically amazing!

    A lot of people are quoting 17k for the camera. Remember you will need 32mm lenses, a good lense set will cost you over 20k, not to mention you will need a lot of storage for the HD footage :) This thing, while cheap compared to film, is definitely not cheap :)
    • redfanboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+035mm lenses. A good set CAN cost over 200K, but a lot cheaper options abound. RED has their own line of lenses even, including some really reasonably priced zooms that can take the place of an expensive primes set. No, it's not 17K, but you can build an amazing RED camera rig with glass for close to 30K. Which is a steal.
  • namelyk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh yeah, I can't wait to see these in person. I have a friend who has reserves on 2 of the first 1000 preorders. It is going to be beyond awesome.
  • jbouchard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2anyone know the name of this song in the video ?
    thanks

    Jbbouchard@gmail.com
    • Protonomoto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The song is called "Chelsea Rogers" from Prince's Planet Earth album.
  • crash128, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1For people who can afford an expensive vidcam, they sure shoot crappy video. Let's see, we're going to tape the opening of a box - great idea!

    (supposed to be a nice vidcam though from reviews I've read). (on the other hand, never buy the first release of anything).
    • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This isn't a video camera - it's a Digital Cinema camera. And yes, it is a very nice camera - even when you compare it to 35mm film
      • crash128, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Ok, couple of questions...
        1. You've seen this quality with your own eyes?
        2. From what I understand, 35mm rez is about 4k x 4k - what's the rez on this guy?
        3. A couple of years ago I looked at hdv - couldn't get over the movement artifacts when doing a simple pan. And this red thing also has a really low bitrate. Artifacts?
        4. I assumed they shot the box opening vid with an sd cam (I could be wrong).
        5. Sorry for being a little harsh. But c'mon, when you hit the front page of digg, and you're going to be doing moving picture production, I'd think you'd want a really really good video (even if it is opening a box).
        6. You use the term Digital Cinema like it's an actual real word - this is just me, but I don't think this happens until theatres / homes / drive-ins (kidding) have a digital projector. I don't know for sure, but I just don't think there are many theatres that have these things.
        7. What is the dynamic range?
        • FatBird19, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11. Check out Reduser.net for yourself.
          2. 4k x 2.5k(16x9 chip). 35mm film is naturally softer or blurry, it can't really perform at a sharp 4k. More like 2K or 3.
          3. Minimal artifacts. Every frame looks like a DSLR photo. It uses wavelet compression(like jpeg2000) which is far more effective than jpeg or mpeg2 compression.
          4.idunno....
          5. yes...
          6. i dunno...
          7. 9 stops, but it's 12bit data with virtually no noise so you can underexpose safely and get another ~2.5 stops latitude out of it.
          • crash128, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0First, thanks for actually replying. 4 x 2.5k, 9 stops. Ok, if true, that would be like spectacular. That's like film, that's like a couple of orders of magnitude better than even the panasonic 100mbs hd. Holy crap.

            Did a flying saucer crash near red hq recently? Ok, you win.
  • gengisPhat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I am pumped. The company I work for has a reservation in the 200s so we will be getting ours late this month/early next month. It is going to be way different with this camera than with other ENG type cameras though. No auto focus (time to start learning how to really pull focus), no in camera Neutral Density Filters and no more shooting a scene a couple of times (shooting at 4K on a CF card gives you about 4 minutes of run time).

    I can't freaking wait.
  • SqyD, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1How boring.. I was hoping for a "Does it Blend" Video ;-)
  • miker71, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I still prefer Sound Devices audio kit though :-)
  • mattbatt77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Recently tested RED #21 and 22, great great camera. Basically, the RED is like an erector set toy: you build the camera the way you want. Its modular, you can put the external HD's on the back, or top, or go flash memory, have the viewfinder on the side or wireless, add an LCD + swivel and put it anywhere, build it really small with just a lens and the brain unit or use multiple grips for hand-held shots and add a long lens for more weight (which is good for tri-pod shots), ect.

    What this also means is that for 17k you get just the 'brain,' a prime RED lens is 6.5k, (cheap compared to canon or other glass out there), and then add about 8-10k for the little add ons (stuff from connectors, wires, LCD's to lens adapters).

    Finally, using REDcode RAW is only about 27 mb/s at 24fps, 4k res. A lot of people can't get over how this can occur, but its true and it isn't using conventional compression like we'd think with DV or something. MacPro's were doing real time playback with color grading added to 4k files,
    • mianos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This is one of the main reason the whole thing has a real lack of credibility. Sure it looks like a great camera platform/system but it's 100% not the genuine full resolution stated. You don't get something from nothing with compression, anyone who says otherwise also lacks the same credibility. Just do the simple maths.
      • srg13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How is it not full resolution then? Are you talking about resolution lost from de-bayering or are you just spreading FUD?
        • mianos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Aside from the existing firmware only supports 2K when you compress video you lose resolution (which is not the same as the pixel size).
      • FatBird19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do some research. Wavelet compression. (jpeg2000)

        I have seen plenty of footage for myself. It holds up perfectly and each frame surpasses digital SLR photo quality.
  • neurosport, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1and what was i looking at just now ?

    maybe i should put an old shoe into a box and then shoot a video of "unboxing" it ?
  • alwilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg down because of the annoying music on the video. Why oh why didn't they just let us hear what they were saying about the camera instead of forcing that poor choice of music on our ears?
  • tibbon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1These really aren't that expensive- that's what one of the major things about these is! They aren't made for 'home users', but why does every product have to be targeted to consumers? Even after you buys lenses and accessories, its' still dirt cheap compared to good 35mm cameras, film, HD transfers, etc... AND the workflow is 100x better. No waiting weeks for film to come back and get it transfered to digital. And of course the quality is amazing (about that of 35mm film)
  • anchorsaway, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I am by no means someone who knows a lot about camera's but when I was at NAB I just didn't understand it. They had a stupid booth with fan boys all around it. Then the apple launch of FC tied into the red camera. And even when that came up, the apple fan boys, which yes I am one though I am a girl, balked at it. I personally think this camera is all hype and everyone is falling for it.
  • redfanboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FreshDV.com has a big wad of early RED unboxing, footage, and test links here: http://www.freshdv.com/2007/09/on-set-photos-from- ...
  • foxhoundadmin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2i'm sick and tired of these stupid web 2.0 pages! where's the pics!? why do they link to THE CURRENT PAGE?!? i see that i'm supposed to click on the link in the brackets, but after filtering out half a dozen OTHER links i just don't feel like clicking on it anymore.

    why not
    a) have the pics on the page
    or
    b) have the link i'm SUPPOSED TO CLICK (to see the pics) in BIG BLUE LETTERS (like traditional links)???

    edit: and ***** digg and its stupid double spacing glitch!
  • TheKappa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1God DAMMIT I want one of these...
    I've never LOOKED at another man before, but seriously, who do I have to blow to get one?
  • DroidBlender, on 09/18/2008, -1/+1I've read through some blog posts, and people keep on mentioning the number of camera they have. Is the cameras production being limited? I'm really interested in this camera. I've been tracking its development for a while, but I'm broke... just wondering if anyone would know.
    • redfanboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The camera's production is not limited though there is a waiting list at this time. If you ordered today, you would probably get delivery in late Spring 2008. There are few thousand people ahead of you right now, hence the wait.
  • bobnease, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I want one!
  • jasonh1234, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll wait til 2010 when this thing cost $2999.89 at Bestbuy
  • northernmunky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can tell its not an Apple product by how many boxes it comes in!
  • DPuniversity101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I worked with this camera and it has some huge problems. Locking up, not powering on. Later when we looked at the footage we did capture it had a bunch of lousy artifacts, and the contrast range blows. I don't think this will replace anything a pro uses, at least not for a long time. They have to get the thing to stay on.
  • grovberg, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Why is this filed under Apple?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.