Okay, I know nothing about camera engineering, just owned and shot with various cameras over the years....so this could be complete nonsense, but I'll take my shot at what RED might unveil.

I've been mulling this over and have an idea how RED could deliver on $10k body (and a decent lens kit for $20) that fullfills on the promise (or fantasy) of 35mm film quality on a video budget. The idea would to be take the body concept much more literally than camcorders traditionally do.

Camera's like the HVX, Z1 consist of highly customized bodies crammed full of proprietary electronics, custom glass and stylized bodies. My guess is takes considerable R&D, engineering time and manufacturing savvy to get all that stuff to work. Contrast that with a basic 35mm or 16mm motion film camera which is relatively much simpler (as well larger & heavier). The focus is generally on a well designed gate, steady motor and nice viewfinder. You add glass of choice (from cheap to stratospheric), add film - which is "unprocessed" and off you go. Typically, glass and film-stock is the bulk of the camera expense, not the body.

If RED uses a simple (not sexy) modular body that accepts some standard electronics (eSATA or Fibrechannel boards or whatever data jacks will exist, existing sensor/CCD/CMOS)mounts (think desktop chassis vs. laptop chassis), their design and manufacturing costs would be much less.

Then if the take the radical step (a little similar to the SI image camera) and leave most of the image processing to happen off-camera, on the desktop where CPU power abounds, they can rely on a much simpler electronic design in camera. This is what Reel-Stream does as well bypassing the DVX DSP electronics.

The body just has a bay for a storage device of your choice (flash cassette, mini 2.5" RAID sandwich etc.).

Thus the budget for the body is mostly in the sensor. Admittedly, they have to come up with something brilliant to get 4K here at low cost, but given what's been happening thus far in the sensor world, not impossible.

So here's my guess at RED:

(1) A squarish, modular, functional body without vast investment in uber sexiness. A big RED button is the only real design feature.

(2) A 4K sensor mounted in modular fashion to relatively standard IT-electronic parts for raw data capture and standard devices for streaming output (eSATA or Fibrechannel). A standard DSP provides menu, white balance and other functions but without tons of processing features.

(3) Bay for storage, again using a standard interface.

My price guess:

(1) Body $10-$15k

(2) PL mount but with a couple of "RED lenses" prices at around $5K each

(3) 2-3 storage bay options with various time depending on rez. Priced from $3k to $10k (for the 4k cartridge that gives you a few minute (hopefully 10) of 2k or 4K.

(4) RED codec processor app. A program that capture and processes the data spitting out a file usable on your HD capable NLE (free).

Okay, any other takers?

how RED could deliver on all their promises for $10k bodySorry Stephen, but they've never made *any* promises for a $10K body.

I would also like to point out jims word on another forum:

"The design of the camera body took a great turn today."

Looking at Jims past designs I'm not putting any money on a squarish box.

Sorry Stephen, but they've never made *any* promises for a $10K body.

Oops - I'm very, very aware of that. This was just typing that went awry and the result still strangely made sense - I've fixed it.

I would also like to point out jims word on another forum:

"The design of the camera body took a great turn today."

Looking at Jims past designs I'm not putting any money on a squarish box.

I saw that post but that does not mean it looks - it could mean weight, function, price, manufacturing.

And I'm not saying ugly, I'm just saying that the body won't be designed to add extra cost to make it look better. I'm sure RED wants it to look cool, but hopefully, they are much more focused on the quality of the images that come out of it. A body design that allows for using more standard parts and flexible design has a much better shot at lower cost. If you are really great you can do that and still make it look nice.

DP's rarely go on about how sexy a 35mm motion picture cam body looks. Sexy design is for much more for consumers and less for professionals.

Sexy design is for much more for consumers and less for professionals.While it's true that form should follow function, you've also got to consider the source on this one. Jannard's entire career has been based on innovative design. I'll have more to say on this very topic here shortly.

While it's true that form should follow function, you've also got to consider the source on this one. Jannard's entire career has been based on innovative design. I'll have more to say on this very topic here shortly.

Well, I know nothing about manufacturing - perhaps designing and manufacturer a weird shaped body is just as cheap as "squarish" one. But my point here is not on looks (and people seem to focus way too much on how a camera looks or for that matter anything at the expense of how it functions).

I'm really talking about modular vs. proprietary design and off-camera processing vs. on-camera processing.

The other day I read about the SI camera and my immediate thought was... 10-15k for the Red body now seems not so unrealistic, exactly what you are talking about. That would be truly exciting. Before my thinking like many others was 30-50k for the body due to the size of the imager but who knows now! I'm still going to expect 25-30k at least until next week, just so I'm not dissapointed :)

Also I believe the SI workflow reveals that even 4K aquisition can become available on an indy budget as long as a good codec solution is utilized. Obviously this has all been discussed before but with SI revealing details of their products it just becomes more realistic.

Stephen,

Altough my native language is not English I'm sure "The design of the camera body" means just the design of the camera BODY and not price or manufacturing.

All cameras need a lot of camera body design, for ergonomics and for simple things as button placement. If a camera lacks the right buttons at the right place the camera will feel awkward to work with. I'm quite sure Jim thought of this...

I dont care if it looks like a toaster with a lens attached - if the image is great I'll be interested.

The thing about cameras is that they aren't initially designed to be sexy for the sake of being sexy. What makes them sexy is what they are capable of. Usually their design follows, as said before, ergonomics and function.

Also it's my understanding these guys want to try and keep the processing on the camera itself to free up the operator. I agree with that.

Good news here! Great industrial design and high performance are NOT mutually exclusive. If we can't do both... I won't do the project.

Well, I see it on Monday... even though I'll have to fight through the crowds... my only complaint if you want to call it that... if the prices are what everyone are hoping for... I just wish it was here sooner... like you could buy it in June...

Great industrial design and high performance are NOT mutually exclusive.

No doubt! How many high performance product manufacturers, no matter what the industry, create products with groundbreaking components inside, and then wrap it in boring cosmetics? Form usually follows function in truly progressive products. The RED camera will undoubtedly be used for many different types of high-profile projects. If a DP is enthused about the technical, optical, and utilitarian performance of his/her exciting new camera system, why wouldn't they be even more stoked if it looked unbelievably cool? As a DP, it feels good when you're on the job with your new camera system, and clients, producers, and others keep eyeballing how cool the camera is. Why do camera systems have to be racy on the inside - and boring on the outside? Answer: They simply don't have to be that way. Closer to home, does Apple put all their R & D money into the inner electronics of their products, and just slap them into boring looking shells? Does Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Porsche put all their R & D, and development funds into the drive train? No - they house their cutting-edge drive trains in equally well-engineered aesthetic packages. With their Oakley pedigree, I would expect RED to house their progressive technology in something REAL stunning. I'll believe Ferrari will produce a '58 Nash Rambler body to house their new V16 drive train - before I'll believe that RED will produce a toaster with a lens on the front!

Steven, I don't think you're crazy at all to think what you just said.

I'd be really interested to see if Red can come in at a...and here's that horrible word...."prosumer" version in any way. While US$15K might not sound like much to most people here, unless you're a working video/film guy it's just not a go for most people - the low budget indy guys will struggle to get one to own. Now, this is fine of course, I don't expect Red to be given away, that's just stupid and I wish Jim all the best in making more money, it's truly exciting, but I am interested to see if its core components are cheap enough, and it's modularity good enough that low end offerings are possible. By low end I'm talking XL1H, JVC, HVX i.e. sub 10k cost.

I mean something like what Steven described but imagine offering a "no budget version" that only came with a nikkon or canon SLR mount like the 35mm adapters do. The internals only did 4:2:2 (maybe even 4:2:0) at 1080p, or even just 1080i with 720p. It also came WITHOUT harddrive but we could just slot one in ourselves. Maybe it had no selectable framerates like the HVX. Maybe came without viewfinder, so we needed to supply our own monitoring system.

Then of course you could offer better options. PL Mount, 4:4:4, 2k, 4k, snazzy B&W viewfinder, Raided drives, extra software features in the system. Red lenses. A model that comes with a free pair of Red branded Oakley sunglasses even!

We all know that the big camera manufacturers have their profits to watch and can't eat other areas of their sales and need to juggle this that and the other. That's why we don't get too many revolutionary products coming along. And if something comes along that seems revolutionary (ooo, we're getting hidef) we get HDV instead, until Panasonic come along with DVCProHD in the HVX and even that camera, while interesting has a lot of compromises.

Any major step forward tends to come from the little guys who risk it all and either crash and burn or become even greater.

Good luck Jim - oh, and tell your R&D guys that they need to make sunglasses for guys like me with wide noses. Sunnies just never fit right on me! :)

I second that Aaron. That would be cool to have a stripped down RED in the prosumer market. Something we can built onto.

Back in '97 when I graduated from high school I couldn't afford a computer. They were selling for about $2000. So instead I learned what I could about what parts went into them and built a system myself by purchasing only a few pieces at a time. Even in the end I save about $1000. Be great if RED worked the same way.

Modularity is not cheap, it requires MOUNTAINS of R&D. Also remember that certain things are patented and require a license. I read recently that the XLH does not carry the audio over SDI as the license would have cost almost $2k per camera or something silly.

Jim is not known as a barebones get it to the market cheapest guy. He has built his company on quality product and premium branding. I really wish people would stop comparing this price-wise to an XLH. You should be comparing it to the top end Viper, Genesis, etc. cameras. By eliminating a tape transport you are already chopping off $15K+, that is how the SI camera can come in so cheap. Also note it is a 2/3" sensor, not a 35mm sized sensor...

As far as $10k? Maybe they could have a barebones camera for $10k, big whoopee. You cant do anything with it for $10K. If, by the time you added a decent walk-around lens and a recording option it is $25K, then is it REALLY a $10K camera? I mean, you just bought the car with no engine or gas tank...

What you are saying is nothing really new, many have thought the camera would come in at $25K or so with glass and recording output. I personally think a decent rig that will shoot 4K over dual fiber and a decent zoom lens will come in at $50K which I think will be awesome and make it very affordable to renters.



ash =o)

Ash, you may be right because all the top of the line, cinema level gear does cost money - and I expect Red to be expensive (Relative to what I'm suggesting) for a top of the line version. But, depending on the technology it uses it might be possible. I'm no engineer so this is all steam out my butt of course, but if off the shelf "PC" components could be used that could help. Once the sensor has given it's data to a "PC" I don't know why we can't we just record to normal SATA or IDE drives that we plug in? Of course the bandwidth aint there for 4k 4:4:4, which is why I suggested a lower quality version that works at 4:2:2. At 150Mbits we'd be about 20Mbytes per second which almost any drive can sustain. We'd have better than DVCProHD quality probably (codec dependant of course). Also, there is NO REASON I can see why you couldn't order it with a nikkon SLR mount unless Red just didn't want to offer that. You'd have worse quality than a cine lens for sure, but we're not stupid, we'd know this and accept it.

I mean something like what Steven described but imagine offering a "no budget version" that only came with a nikkon or canon SLR mount like the 35mm adapters do. The internals only did 4:2:2 (maybe even 4:2:0) at 1080p, or even just 1080i with 720p. It also came WITHOUT harddrive but we could just slot one in ourselves. Maybe it had no selectable framerates like the HVX. Maybe came without viewfinder, so we needed to supply our own monitoring system.
While I'm all for it being as inexpensive as possible, what you're asking for already exists. It's an HVX200 with an M2 lens adapter. 4:2:2, shallow depth of field using SLR lens mount. Add a Firestore or a couple of 4GB P2 cards and you're set to go.

The current HVX200 / XL-H1 / HD100 cameras ARE the revolution for the ultra-no-budget filmmaker. The RED will be the revolution for everyone else. They're not going after the super-cheap crowd... They're after everything between an XL-H1 and a Dalsa... which is a substantial market. If this thing works as promised, it could change the film industry overnight.

Jaime, I think you nailed it...


ash =o)

While I'm all for it being as inexpensive as possible, what you're asking for already exists. It's an HVX200 with an M2 lens adapter. 4:2:2, shallow depth of field using SLR lens mount. Add a Firestore or a couple of 4GB P2 cards and you're set to go.

The current HVX200 / XL-H1 / HD100 cameras ARE the revolution for the ultra-no-budget filmmaker. The RED will be the revolution for everyone else. They're not going after the super-cheap crowd... They're after everything between an XL-H1 and a Dalsa... which is a substantial market. If this thing works as promised, it could change the film industry overnight.


I respectfully disagree...most people shoot around 250ISO or 500ISO for interiors, and the hvx with an adapter is around 100ISO at best. For large spaces, you need insane amounts of light. Furthermore, you get a controlled flare effect, you have issues with aperture settings that can be used, and you lose some resolution with ANY adapter. The hvx's already "barely 720p 4:2:2" becomes sharp SD, at best. With a true 35m sized sensor, an unflipped image, the ability to have total flexibility with lenses used, and high ISO low grain, you can do sooooooo much more. Plus, the possibility of 10 bit color is HUGE, as is the added dynamic range promised by the larger photosites.

For me, using a 35mm adapter (and I've used plenty and some of the best: the mini35 and the G35 beta among others) is a workaround until a real solution shows up. If you can't afford to rent for $1,000 a weekend, $3,000 a week you're not that serious about your project.

I'll eat my words if Red costs more than $3,000 a week to rent three years from now, though. (I imagine it will be expensive immediately after it comes out....)

Read this from think secret:

Sources note that Apple's Final Cut Extreme announcement will coincide with Red's upcoming 4K digital cinema camera, a revolutionary piece of equipment that is said will be priced upwards of $200,000. Pricing for Final Cut Extreme is said to be similarly up-market, approaching $10,000 a seat, and will require the latest hardware from Apple.

so what is the price?

a revolutionary piece of equipment that is said will be priced upwards of $200,000

I'm not sure anyone knows where this figure came from.

Jim himself said that price was bogus. Disregard it.

so what is the price?

Think Secret certainly didn't get that pricing info from RED, and their guess is terribly inaccurate. In about 48 hours, at 9:00am Pacific Standard Time on Monday, all the information on RED will be released, including the proposed pricing. You'll be able to find all that info on the RED web site, and in my exclusive interview with Jim Jannard, which is noted elsewhere on this forum. On Monday there will also be a flood of great info right here on this RED forum!

Thanks for checking in from Sweden!

In the meantime, some thoughts about "sexy" camera bodies...

What has often been lacking in the digital world (compared to film) is a truly functional and modular approach to camera body design. The irony is that film cameras have specific mechanical requirements; the mirror, movement, motor, film path etc. can only be moved around so much, whereas once you get past the sensor on a video camera, the rest is entirely flexible. The past 8 years or so have seen the introduction of some great film camera bodies that are modular and also have great industrial design. Arri in particular have moved past the debacle of the hulking 535 and after joining forces with Moviecam, have scored with the Arricam LT and ST, the recently unveiled 416, and take a look at the lines on the 235 (http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/62847/235.htm).

Putting the 1/3" cameras under that scrutiny, the sweeps and swoops don't add up the right way. As much as I admire the image of the XLH1, I can't fathom the logic of a camera of that size that doesn't perch over the shoulder, nor the layout of controls and outputs. The Panasonics and Sonys have better layout but stubbornly cling to the hold-out-in-front-of-you design, leaving the objective of properly weighted shoulder mounting to third parties. Only the JVC feels comfortable to me in that class, spanning the shoulder and almost achieving proper balance with a brick battery on back.

Meanwhile, in the 2/3, the Sony and Panasonics still take the news-camera form factor as gospel. There are no built-in ways to mount accessories to these cameras; the handles are not easily removeable and have contoured shapes that make it impossible to tack on plates or bracketry. The full-size sensor cameras are coming around at last (the Dalsa is still an unwieldy object), with the Genesis and D20 at least offering direct compatibility with film-style accessories, although the form factors are still somewhat retro in scope.

What is truly needed in this arena is an utterly modular camera that starts with a simple imaging module and can be built outwards from there--minimal but properly balanced (that means within a nominal range of lens weight, can sit on the shoulder with minimal support from the operator) for handheld, and the ability to be quickly swapped into studio mode with all of the required accessories accomodated in terms of mounting and connectivity. If that basic module is built with too many curvy lines and sexy flaring, it will be that much harder to built outwards.

Jim, looking forward to seeing what you and your team have developed.

What is truly needed in this arena is an utterly modular camera that starts with a simple imaging module and can be built outwards from there--minimal but properly balanced (that means within a nominal range of lens weight, can sit on the shoulder with minimal support from the operator) for handheld, and the ability to be quickly swapped into studio mode with all of the required accessories accomodated in terms of mounting and connectivity. If that basic module is built with too many curvy lines and sexy flaring, it will be that much harder to built outwards.


Well put Charles - this is the direction I was trying to go in but you have stated it much clearer. I think this type of body would be more economical & hackable than something like a H1 or HVX as well. I didn't mean to say "ugly" by "squarish" I was talking about the lack of swoops, curves with no apparent functional purpose and body not crammed pack full of electronics (especially processors that could reside on the capture NLE side).

I still like the idea of camera that captures RAW and generates a HD preview-only (i.e. preview would be akin to a h.264 1080p signal even if you are capturing 4k) in an electronic viewfinder but that actually full processing of the signal would be off-camera to avoid having to cram a bunch of CPU's on a camera and make the camera more future proof.

Arri in particular have moved past the debacle of the hulking 535 and after joining forces with Moviecam, have scored with the Arricam LT and ST, the recently unveiled 416.

The 416 looks just as uncomfortable as the SR to me. I've been using an HD100 for the past month or so and it's a relatively comfortable camera, but even it doesn't sit on my shoulder perfectly. It's really nice to sling low by the handle or use on a tripod, though. And I imagine it would make a nice rig on a Steadicam, but the most modular part of the camera should be the part that touches the operator, IMO. I'd love to be able to remove the shoulder pad on my HD100 and install something that actually fits my shoulder. Same thing with the handgrip on the lens. They seldom seem to really fit my right hand. If a company could really nail down those points of contact with the operator and allow them to be "soft" in relation to the operator's body so a nice fit could be achieved it would be a huge breakthrough, IMO.

Of course, Oakley doesn't make a single pair of sunglasses that will fit on my giant head, so I have to wonder how much they really care about operator comfort. ;-)

I paid $300 for a pair of Oakley X Metal XX Sunglasses because they're the biggest frames Oakley makes according to their customer service number and when I got them it was like ramming my noggin into a vice with a pair of odd protrusions that are apparently designed to halt all bloodflow at the temples. They mock me from the drawer of my nightstand. ;-)

These are good points, Robert. I haven't seen the 416 first-hand, missed the rollout a few days ago here in LA but a friend of mine reported on the system--what I think is very smart is that you can have it rigged with the full-on baseplate and standard rods, then break off the baseplate in the middle and go right into handheld mode. That's slick.

For 16mm, the Aaton has long been the ergonomic camera of choice. The flate base of the SR was never a treat, but there is always a solution of one kind or another, either the Arri handheld rig or a handmade deal (I have used a foam pad with lightweight straps that keep it in place on my shoulder). What's more critical to me than a molded shoulder pad is proper distribution of weight, because that can't be fixed with a bit of foam.

It's extremely difficult to make a one-size-fits-all solution for shoulder padding--what may be perfect for someone is too sloppy/floaty for someone else, or not enough for the next person.

It's extremely difficult to make a one-size-fits-all solution for shoulder padding--what may be perfect for someone is too sloppy/floaty for someone else, or not enough for the next person.

I bought a shoulder mount from Cinerenta that they were retiring a while back. It's very adjustable. You can adjust the height up and down and the plate slides back and forth so you can get the viewfinder where you need it. You can even dutch the angle from side to side, though I've never used that adjustment. The pad rides on a piece of steel that's countoured to slip over your shoulder. What's cool about that is that it didn't take a lot of effort to reshape the steel piece so it fit my shoulder better. The pad that came with it is fine for me, but if it wasn't it's a pretty basic shape to have someone make in a material or level of padding that's better for you. I've been thinking of having one made out of that kind of suede like the straps on Portabrace bags are made of. The leather it came with makes my shoulder sweat sometimes.

The only problem with that rig is that it can't handle a lot of weight without the adjustments loosening up. It's fine for 16mm cameras, but I tried to use it with my Kinor 35H and it just wasn't happening. Of course, the Kinor is a boat anchor when it's loaded and rigged.

I kind of think that a company could sell several different variations on something like that rig that could work with a wider variety of cameras, but it would be even more hip if a camera company made accessories like that available for their own gear with nice locking mounts instead of a standard tripod screw mount. That way you could shoot something with the shoulder pod, unclamp the mount and lock the camera down on a tripod or whatever and go back to shoulder mount without any real rigging time.

This has now become a lengthy digression into the ergonomics of a camera that I haven't even seen yet. ;-)

This has now become a lengthy digression into the ergonomics of a camera that I haven't even seen yet. ;-)

Well, that's what message boards are all about...!!

Well, that's what message boards are all about...!!

Exactly...a forum where the convergent production community can compare notes and ideas! Before there was an Internet, there was limited opportunity to exchange views with a broad cross-section of front line workers. Everyone may not always agree with each other, but the ongoing opportunity to communicate with each other is the new lifeblood of our industry. Having suffered through many pre-Internet years in this industry, to now have the option to instantaneously get feedback from my peers and associates is an awesome thing!

Oakley sunglasses are designed to look cool as much as block sunlight, and they do both very well. I wouldn't expect the RED camera's fashion/function ratio to be any different.

Oakley sunglasses are designed to look cool as much as block sunlight, and they do both very well. I wouldn't expect the RED camera's fashion/function ratio to be any different.

But my Oakleys look cool, block sunlight and won't fit on my head. How well does that bode for me as a camera operator? ;-)

But my Oakleys look cool, block sunlight and won't fit on my head. How well does that bode for me as a camera operator? ;-)

You must have a strange head, Robert :-)

You must have a strange head, Robert :-)

"Would ya look at the size of that kid's head! It's the size of a planetoid. It has it's own weather system! Looks like an orange on a toothpick! I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at parts! Aye, now that was offsides, now wasn't it? He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow."

"Would ya look at the size of that kid's head! It's the size of a planetoid. It has it's own weather system! Looks like an orange on a toothpick! I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at parts! Aye, now that was offsides, now wasn't it? He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow."
So you had a great elementary school experience? ;)

OK Steven, you were a little short in your estimate, but look what we get. For another 7.5k you get a full system. Not too bad. No cut down version missing bits, you get the full RED. You also get an LCD as standard which I wasn't thinking would come with it. And they're doing a lens for $4500...sounds pretty damned cheap to me.

For another 7.5k you get a full system. Not too bad. No cut down version missing bits, you get the full RED. You also get an LCD as standard which I wasn't thinking would come with it. And they're doing a lens for $4500...sounds pretty damned cheap to me.

Well, I don't know about that. There's no recording system for the base $17.5K price. There are flash memory and hard drive recording options but no details or pricing has been released for those components. And the 300mm lens is not exactly a general purpose lens - though you could rent/buy an older PL mount lens. I'd imagine that once it's kitted out sufficiently, it'll be about $50K which is pretty significant as that's less than the MSRP of a Varicam body. We'll see what happens in the coming year.

OK Steven, you were a little short in your estimate, but look what we get. For another 7.5k you get a full system. Not too bad. No cut down version missing bits, you get the full RED. You also get an LCD as standard which I wasn't thinking would come with it. And they're doing a lens for $4500...sounds pretty damned cheap to me.

Actually, I think my guess was as good as anyones and certainly way better than Think Secrets's $200,000 dollar prediction :)

Too bad Jim was not running a "guess the price & camera description contest" for a free camera (or at least a free reservation).

I did not factor in the fancy LCD into my thinking plus, like the "Price is Right", I didn't want to overestimate the price.

But based on my $10-$15k body guesstimate (add LCD to it at around $1000 to $2000) and my guess was almost spot on.

Plus, I got the form mostly right (okay, it's more "cylinder than squarish) but basically right on the design approach. I even guessed the lens mount and number of lenses (though that info may have been out there before, I'm not sure.

It's pretty much exactly what I had guessed (and hoped for).

All I would want at this point is a Nikon F mount (or Canon would be okay), info on the codec and a couple of sample shots and I might be ready to put my kidney on eBay...

I also hope the 17 - 170mm lens is priced around $5k as well.

Well, I don't know about that. There's no recording system for the base $17.5K price. There are flash memory and hard drive recording options but no details or pricing has been released for those components. And the 300mm lens is not exactly a general purpose lens - though you could rent/buy an older PL mount lens. I'd imagine that once it's kitted out sufficiently, it'll be about $50K which is pretty significant as that's less than the MSRP of a Varicam body. We'll see what happens in the coming year.

If they offer the 17-170mm lens for $5k and the SATA drive (especially if they let you build your own drive, you may easily get into a functional RED for $25k.

And, if the do let you roll you own eSATA drive and put a Nikon F or other 35mm SLR mount, then a sub $20k RED that shoots is a real possibility. Jim sounds like he's open to make it "hackable", so hopefully the storage bay will have standard connecters that we can use.

If they offer the 17-170mm lens for $5k and the SATA drive (especially if they let you build your own drive, you may easily get into a functional RED for $25k.

And, if the do let you roll you own eSATA drive and put a Nikon F or other 35mm SLR mount, then a sub $20k RED that shoots is a real possibility. Jim sounds like he's open to make it "hackable", so hopefully the storage bay will have standard connecters that we can use.

Exactly, if it has an SATA port in a bay inside the camera... they could just sell hard drive carriers/sleds/modules that you'd install your own 2.5" SATA drive into for use with the camera... that might be a little too optimistic though :) Don't they have 200 GB 2.5" drives now? Shoot 2K all day long using the Redcode codec and a handful of drives.

Exactly, if it has an eSATA port in a bay inside the camera... they could just sell hard drive carriers/sleds/modules that you'd install your own 2.5" eSATA drive into for use with the camera... that might be a little too optimistic though :)

A 4K motion picture camera body for $17,500 was probably "a little optimistic" just 24 hours ago :)

A 4K motion picture camera body for $17,500 was probably "a little optimistic" just 24 hours ago :)

Good point. Also when you think about it it's probably not Jim's goal to soak his customers for overpriced hard drive storage.

Gents, at the risk of being pedantic, the lens you speak of appears to be a 17-100

Gents, at the risk of being pedantic, the lens you speak of appears to be a 17-100

Oops - my typo error. I'm so used to 10x zooms I made it one.

Tom's Hardware Guide has some numbers on current 2.5" Drives here...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/03/notebook_drives_at_up_to_160_gb_put_under_the_microscope/page18.html

The fastest SATA drive they benchmarked was a little over 38 MB/sec or around 300 Mb/sec. I don't know what the datarate for the codec their using is, anyone know or have a guestimate?

The issue with these faster drives would be heat, I would expect there would need to be cooling for them or at least passive cooling. If one were to "roll their own" there'd have to be a guideline for the types of drives that would work, speed, cache, etc... otherwise your calling Jim asking him why your dropping frames when it might be your fault for buying a hard drive that's not fast enough or defective.

The fastest SATA drive they benchmarked was a little over 38 MB/sec or around 300 Mb/sec. I don't know what the datarate for the codec their using is, anyone know or have a guestimate?

In Steve Gibby's interview http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/headlines/6388.html the highest datarate is 200 Mb/s that they are looking at. That's why I think there is hope for 7200 RPM 2.5 drive doing limited 4k depending on codec performance.

the highest datarate is 200 Mb/s that they are looking at

You are right. He mentions this in relation to the "REDDRIVE" which it seems will be a SATA 2.5" drive module. I hope like you one could just buy carriages. But you know what... as long as the SATA interface is on the camera I don't even think it would be that difficult to build one's own carrier just by copying RED's... hmmm. Or run a SATA cable to a drive duck-taped onto a cage!