It would probably work better with a lens on it, and with the cap removed. ;)

talk about some drag in the air :) - that baby's gotta pull back on your head pretty hard.

Dave

can we say "neck support"? Some pro football neck support gear may save a broken neck encase a wrong angle of attack in the air stream is achieved. ;-)

No neck support needed. At 12-13 lbs depending on the lens/battery, it's a great package, and lighter overall than a Z1 with a wide angle adapter on it.

Between a Z1 and a 35mm XTi cam, the RED package weighs less than the normal load.
Either way, it's exciting that these cameras are finally a reality.

Is this the beginning of the end for Cinema Lens Adapters?

I'm also wondering how many RED owners will use the expensive RED lenses as opposed to their manual Nikon SLR lenses?

ALSO why can only the screw 35mm lenses record 2540p RAW?

Hey Spot, nice to see you are watching the RED development as well. I've been watching and posting on the REDUser forums quite a bit the last few days and have watched its development since the first rumblings on the DVXUser forums a couple of years ago. Any plans to pick one up?

I'm also wondering how many RED owners will use the expensive RED lenses as opposed to their manual Nikon SLR lenses?

100% of those in the know.

The RED lenses should be optimized for its smaller image circle (to fit its sensor frame as opposed to a 24x36mm still frame), and the camera has built-in CA correction for them.

There were some RED zooms also, as I recall. Presumably these don't have the massive breathing that still camera zooms have (the REDs may fix this too with electronic compensation).

Real cine glass is totally different to 35mm stills glass. It costs a LOT more for a good reason. However the less than very latest and greatest isn't that expensive to rent and produces an image you'd have to look pretty hard to tell the difference all the extra money buys you. The Russian knock offs are pretty good too for 1/6th the price.
With either the RED or the SI 2K focussing is a real challenge, using a tape measure is one reliable way to get it right. I suspect a lot of people are going to discover just what a two edged sword the shallow DOF is, especially once you see the footage on the big screen.

Bob.

This is precisely the reason that Vegas Pro 8 has gotten all of my attention: Digital Cinema. I can't wait to see the results all the new REDone owners are getting. Would you mind posting test footage for us?

Spot, can't wait till you can post some Red footage, with and without Pan & zoom, in free fall ;-)

Um... great news from technical stand point but "no news" in movie terms. DVX100 was out 4-5 years along with Canon XL2 and such and what have we seen taht was done with those break-through cameras? "November" -- that i saw only to see what DVX looks like in pro hands not for its boring story; "28 days later" -- which i saw only to see what a pro film shot on DV would look like since i don't give rat's ass about zombies; i guess "Full Frontal" with its bizare mix of uber-cheap video with uber-expensive movie stars was refreshing.

My point is that all that technology allows people to produce more polished pieces then before yet not too many people are doing much interesting stuff with that great power at their hands.

Savant - Footage is being posted at www.reduser.net in the Footage / Field Tests section.

Patryk - The release of RED 1 is a much bigger deal than you realize. Comparing it to the DVX is like comparing 8mm to 35mm. And at the price point, what RED has essentially done is given indie filmmakers 35mm at the cost of the DVX (assuming you rent) or at the cost of the SDX (assuming you buy.) Steven Soderbergh is already shooting his next feature on it, Peter Jackson shot a short on it and that is just the tip of the iceberg. By this time next year (or sooner) you will realize what I mean.

Spend an hour or two at reduser.net and red.com and you'll start to understand.

Mark so u saying that all thso ebrilian filmmakers were holding off in creating their project becasue they were working with standard deff of rather then 35mm-like digital?

I think RED is a big deal technically but i wouldn't hold your breat expecting that thanks to that tool you gonna see tons of brilian filmmakers making their dream come true.

Spot..

I am so so envious. ;o)

Couldn't agree more on your points, Patryk.
I'm no great filmmaker. I'm a good producer, editor, composer, and a reasonably good camera op. I'll admit that having access to this quality of gear full-time makes me want to be the next Spielberg, but I'm lacking the talent.
RED is very innovative, and it will open a lot of doors for less than stellar storytellers to create better bad video. In other words, the 24p of the DVX can be held responsible for more crappy work than just about any other camera in history.
Most of it at the end of the day is hype. RED is part of that.
However, it's hype we bought into. :-) Mostly from a different viewpoint than most will have, but we bought into it.

Well, no, giving everyone a RED does not release a flood of Spielbergs on the world. But as an indie producer who had to stretch our summer 2007 budget to afford three weeks rental of an HVX and P2 cards, it's exciting to see the likes of RED at a similar price point. Being a production house made up 2/3 of talented and professional actors, it's good to see technical barriers falling, for we are well on our way to having our artistic challenges in hand . For us, it simply makes a huge difference in the technical quality of our work. The only way we could have gotten RED quality in June 2007 (our shoot dates for our current feature) would have been to shoot prohibitively expensive 35mm. In June 2008 or 2009 we'll be shooting our third feature on RED and the simple fact is that it will make a difference - technically.

Fianlly, the end of the tripod as we know it!
How much?
I never get to say that with my wife present without getting an elbow in the ribs.
So, I just have of ask.

RED is HUGHE. With this technology introduced at just $17K and the popularity of Cinema Lens Adapters for those who can't yet afford RED, every digital camera maker must be thinking 35mm (or big) sensors are the next step.

I will comment on what Coursedesign said (Date: 9/3/2007 12:21:49 PM) in response to "I'm also wondering how many RED owners will use the expensive RED lenses as opposed to their manual Nikon SLR lenses?" answer: 100% of those in the know.

At 17k for the camera and 19K for the zoom lens I see a problem. This camera introduced at 17K will be 6K in three years, but 19K lenses are 19K lenses. Who will buy a 6K camera and put a 19K lens on it? There has to be a revolution in lens making technology and pricing.

This camera introduced at 17K will be 6K in three years
wanna bet?

Red primes cost significantly less than similar primes on the market... a set of Red primes cost about ~$20k, whereas Cookes are around $20k each.

The Red 15-50mm zoom is $6,500.

2- I doubt the camera will depreciate that fast... the DV cameras around haven't depreciated at that rate even with HDV making it (somewhat) obsolete.

>>>>My point is that all that technology allows people to produce more polished pieces then before yet not too many people are doing much interesting stuff with that great power at their hands. <<<

Because you still can't buy brains at B&H

I've seen films made with 5k HDV cameras and cinema lens adapters that look as good as anything I have seen. To have a 35mm digital camera to avoid the CLA is great, but Indie makers are making these great looking films now with old used Nikon SLR lenses, so I think we will find in a cost conscious future, where digital items will be cheap, that justifying 20K glass will be a joke. Massive receptors and 128bit NLEs will more than compensate compensate for the difference between a 20K Red lens and a 1K used SLR lens.