Werner Herzog was apparently not impressed<p><a href="http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAInterviewWernerHerzog.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAIntervi...</a><p><i>Q: What about shooting digitally?<p>A: We used the RED camera for My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done. It's an immature camera created by computer people who do not have a sensibility or understanding for the value of high-precision mechanics, which has a 200-year history. It's terrible: Whenever you have to reboot the camera, it takes 4½ minutes or so. It drove me insane, because sometimes something is happening and you can't just push the button and record it. An assistant cameraman said this camera would be ideal if we were filming the National Library in Paris, which has been sitting there for centuries. But everything that moves faster than a library is a problem for the RED. Super 35 mm celluloid is still better</i>
RED has been driving some tremendous innovation in this space. Their cameras are an order of magnitude cheaper than anything remotely comparable, and they've built the entire ecosystem around standard video editing software (Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, etc.) making this kind of technology accessible to a whole new market of amateur and non-feature filmmakers for whom it was previously out of reach.<p>They are a fascinating company born out of Jim Jannard's passion. The only reason they exist is because the industry dinosaurs had been happy to eschew innovation in favor of consistent and sustained profit models. Jannard's only goal is to build the camera that the competitors told him he couldn't have.
I can't speak for this model. However, in the past, the problem with the RED has been the rolling shutter, the same problem you find in DSLR's.<p>Instead of capturing full frames, it's scanning from top to bottom at 24fps. It's fine for static shots, but as you introduce motion, or fast moving subjects, you get a "jelly" effect.<p>I have a friend who does highend visual effects. In his experience, the RED also isn't suited for green screen work. Can't remember off the top of my head if it's for rolling shutter or the dynamic range, but it's another limitation.<p>However, it hits a sweet spot for less demanding productions, like The Social Network.
Looking forward to seeing what the next Canon 5D will do.<p>Could very well have 2k resolution and do 120+ fps at lower resolutions with it's big full frame sensor.
For those who want the info from the source:<p><a href="http://www.red.com/products/epic" rel="nofollow">http://www.red.com/products/epic</a><p>Check out the features tab for HD comparison, and tech specs for the details.
If you want in-depth coverage of the Epic (and other digital cameras) listen to "the rc podcast" at <a href="http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/</a><p>Their Canon 5D and 7D stuff was really informative also.
Can anyone explain the use of such high resolutions? I know it could be nice to crop some parts of the movie and still have a nice set of pixels. But in reality you will just shoot the scene again or leave it out. Nowadays everybody is shooting millions of pixels but I never saw someone who used a cropped versions professionally.
Meh. The pricetag on this makes it really unappealing to anyone except multimillionaires and professional cinematographers. When Red can produce a 4K camera for under $1,000 I'll be the first in line to get one. Until then it's little more than a curiosity. An awesome curiosity but a curiosity nonetheless.