mattsteg wrote:That's actually ridiculously cheap, not "good lord expensive", given the capabilities. Red One certainly has the look of something with the ability to undercut the competition in a huge way and really deliver the goods at a low cost.
Realize that full-functioned still cameras of the same pixel resolution at 9 fps (no idea how the per-pixel quality and sensitivity compares) go for up to almost 1/3 the price of the Red One, which purports to offer that resolution at 60FPS.
You could even mount your existing lens collection on itjobodaho wrote:That's a pretty cool camera, and I like that you can get different lenses for it. I haven't done much (none really) research on video cameras, but I really don't think that I would use one as much as my still.
Yeah, the real killer is the support costs. You need insane amounts of storage and a ridiculous amount of computing power. The lenses are pretty similar to those for a good still camera setup - with an adapter you can mount Nikon, Canon, etc. lenses so lens cost is to a large extent a wash although certain characteristics will be better optimized on video-camera lenses (i.e. focus shift while zooming and a stronger emphasis on smooth zooming for example) which is likely why their costs are a bit larger. The system is "expensive" but it also looks to be a pretty substantial bargain.cass wrote:I was more or less considering the cost of the system. I figured by the time you bought the camera, some lenses, the handles, mounts, port options, viewfinder or screen, power sources, and some usable storage, you would be in the $120,000 - $200,000 range. Crap I forgot about the $8000 editing system for a MAC only.
Your point is valid though this stuff is getting down in the range of where it can be rented and used. I am glad to see it.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 4 guests