New camera prospects, someone talk some sense to me. at DVinfo.net

Brian Luce · November 17th, 2008, 01:38 PM

So I've been looking at a RED ONE. But then I heard about this new camera that's shipping now and only costs about $3,000. It's really cool, aside from the low cost, it shoots in 2k with 13+ stops of latitude and 4:4:4 color. And supposedly it yields a image more beautiful and filmlike than Genesis, Red One, Epic, any of them. Multiple frame rates? You betcha. You have to record audio on a separate device, but we've got a great digital audio recorder. Normally you get your files into the timeline at 4:2:2 DVCPRO HD at 1080p. There is no waiting list for this unit, maybe you've heard about it already, it's called a 16mm film camera.

Okay, the film stock, achilles heel right? Maybe not, 12 minutes of Vision II is $80. 15 minutes of footage telecined to DVCPROHD is $180. So your lab fees, cleaning fees, shipping, you're looking at a relatively low investment compared to RED provided it's short form production, like TV spots.

Now can someone talk me down from this? I'm not planning on making a feature, just high end broadcast, everything in short form. Doesn't this represent a far lower investment and better image than RED ONE? The only drawback I see is a 7 day lag in your workflow while your footage is telecined to hard drive.

Meryem Ersoz · November 17th, 2008, 01:49 PM

I know a few guys who still shoot 16mm...they make beautiful stuff. You should go for it. Shoot what makes you feel good.

Dylan Couper · November 17th, 2008, 02:13 PM

Why would we talk you out of it? Film is beautiful! If you can afford it, go for it!

Brian Luce · November 17th, 2008, 02:18 PM

The point I'm trying to make is that film, at least for short form projects, is cheaper than RED ONE. I'm trying to say that 16mm cameras are cheaper, simpler, and better. But I must be overlooking something.

Chris Hurd · November 17th, 2008, 02:29 PM

Brian, it certainly sounds like you had your mind made up before posting this thread -- nothing wrong with that, but your "question" isn't really a question at all. Plus, as you've seen by the replies you've received, nobody here is going to talk you out of film. I'll be the third person in a row to tell you to go for it -- and with that said, there's really nothing more to discuss here. Thanks all,

November 17th, 2008, 01:38 PM	#1
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	New camera prospects, someone talk some sense to me. So I've been looking at a RED ONE. But then I heard about this new camera that's shipping now and only costs about $3,000. It's really cool, aside from the low cost, it shoots in 2k with 13+ stops of latitude and 4:4:4 color. And supposedly it yields a image more beautiful and filmlike than Genesis, Red One, Epic, any of them. Multiple frame rates? You betcha. You have to record audio on a separate device, but we've got a great digital audio recorder. Normally you get your files into the timeline at 4:2:2 DVCPRO HD at 1080p. There is no waiting list for this unit, maybe you've heard about it already, it's called a 16mm film camera. Okay, the film stock, achilles heel right? Maybe not, 12 minutes of Vision II is $80. 15 minutes of footage telecined to DVCPROHD is $180. So your lab fees, cleaning fees, shipping, you're looking at a relatively low investment compared to RED provided it's short form production, like TV spots. Now can someone talk me down from this? I'm not planning on making a feature, just high end broadcast, everything in short form. Doesn't this represent a far lower investment and better image than RED ONE? The only drawback I see is a 7 day lag in your workflow while your footage is telecined to hard drive.

November 17th, 2008, 02:13 PM	#3
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Why would we talk you out of it? Film is beautiful! If you can afford it, go for it! __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

November 17th, 2008, 02:29 PM	#5
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Brian, it certainly sounds like you had your mind made up before posting this thread -- nothing wrong with that, but your "question" isn't really a question at all. Plus, as you've seen by the replies you've received, nobody here is going to talk you out of film. I'll be the third person in a row to tell you to go for it -- and with that said, there's really nothing more to discuss here. Thanks all, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 17th, 2008, 01:49 PM	#2
Meryem Ersoz Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 3,015	I know a few guys who still shoot 16mm...they make beautiful stuff. You should go for it. Shoot what makes you feel good.

November 17th, 2008, 02:18 PM	#4
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	The point I'm trying to make is that film, at least for short form projects, is cheaper than RED ONE. I'm trying to say that 16mm cameras are cheaper, simpler, and better. But I must be overlooking something.