Jump to content

RED frame grabs...


Jim Jannard

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
The "five times" thing wasn't just about cameras; I was also thinking of e.g. $1200 matte boxes, $8000 tripods and the like. This stuff just doesn't cost that much to make.

 

Hi,

 

I am not sure how much you understand about business. Sony sells its cameras below cost (a loss making company)

 

If matte Boxes & Tripods have such a high profit margin then other companies will enter the market place and the price will fall.

 

Manufacture often will receive less than half the selling price. Red has an advantage here by selling direct.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd be more specific rather than painting everyone here with such a broad brushstroke.

 

The RED camera is completely possible technically, so there is no reason why it -- or something like it -- will not come to the market. I've only questioned how a company can turn a profit selling it for $17,500, and the practicality of a 4K workflow for the average indie person (and I'm sure those issues are on the minds of the RED team)... but not the feasibility of the camera itself.

 

David you are one of the few on here I respect as a professional.. I wanted to say hi before I left. I have been on this board all of a day and that's enough for me! I am sorry if my Email was to broad, I don't have time to name names.

 

People on here spend far too much time being negative and argueing. What I find horrible is that some are not HOPING they succeed. RED proposes a wonderful tool and a great price.. This is good for everyone, people like Jannard move technology forward. Even RED's failure could change things.. Instead this current thread is made up of petty debates and naysayers.. Even a heartless few who call the breakin a "hoax" and use it as an excuse to predict RED's failure. No one has considered that this breakin has hurt and deeply troubled some talented people who are suffereing this morning because of it.

 

I have chatted with you before David, and I believe you to be a cool person, but I do not have time for people that do use their energy to down others and argue. I prefer those with positive attitudes who try hard to support people in all areas of this business. I expect people to show the same kindness and coutesy online as the do in person, when they don't I really don't want to know them in either place.

 

When I want to read about stupidy I look to congress. :)

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl, while I actually agree with a lot of what you say, I would hope that you'd agree that not all of your points are like-for-like comparisons.

 

My specific comments:-

 

1. It's certainly true that a lot of wedding and commercial photographers still shoot film, while others will tell you how they "went digital because it's much cheaper/faster and their clients can't tell the difference". BUT, in my experience here in the UK, it is medium format that serious photographers fall back to for their high end work, not 35mm. 35mm has been very largely replaced by digital (especially the astonishing Canon 1Ds and similar cameras), while medium format and other larger formats still hold their own for high end work. My point is simply this-- in the still camera world, 35mm has met its match with the current top-end cameras.

 

2. As a self-proclaimed audiophile, I'll say this-- Vinyl is a far more complicated issue than you make it sound! It is of course impossible to do a true like-for-like comparison of a recording, as the sources are so fundamentally different, and the material itself is mastered very differently for each medium (chiefly the butchering of the dynamic range to squeeze it onto the vinyl). CD systems took a long time to come of age, and suffered a lot of very justified criticism for the first decade or so. Vinyl has benefited from a resurgence largely because it's "cool", it's tactile, it's retro ... not because it's superior! There are many many dozens of online resources (and sound-designer's blogs) which will describe in detail why vinyl is inferior to CDs (and higher bitdepth/samplerate formats), and why CDs have suffered from unfair flack these past years (i.e. the jitter problem, a market flooded with poor DACs and clocks, the 'compression' addiction butchering commercial CD's dynamic range, and so on).

 

Ultimately, there is no voodoo- digital audio is technically far superior (and has been for a while now), but had a lot of technical issues (which manifested themselves as aesthetic inadequacies) to overcome. Digital photography is the same, but several decades behind. It certainly hasn't surpassed photochemical photography, but 35mm has met its match for sure. I don't think we'll see medium-format sized digital sensors which can challenge it's raw resolution and dynamic range anytime soon! Motion Picture photography is an interesting one, because it's raw resolution and dynamic range is of course not far from 35mm still photography. In terms of raw technical specs, it will be matched by digital video in the near future, that is for certain. I imagine that digital video will initially suffer from similar glitchery as audio-cds did, perhaps in the form of aliasing, and other various subtle phenomena that have give sub-conscious clues that it is digital ... but they will be overcome in time.

 

As I said, there is no voodoo .. this is evidenced by the fact that 35mm footage scanned at 2/4K, graded and re-printed retained it's "Film Warmth"! If there was true voodoo, then surely it would be neutered by any digital process?

 

In terms of raw resolution and dynamic range, film is soon to be matched by digital. In terms of capturing the true romance and "warmth" of film, we will soon find out whether the first 4K cameras will offer us this. Perhaps skilful colour grading will give us this, or perhaps we'll have to wait until the 2nd or 3rd generations of 4K cameras before we truly understand (and overcome) the sub-conscious glitchery and inadequacies that contribute to this inexpressible ?soullessness? that so many predict. Once this is understood and overcome, then ?digital? in films will no longer be a dirty word ? much the same as ?digital? in the audio / music / sound-engineering industries is no longer a dirty word!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another additional point-- you talk about Vinyl as being vastly superior for playback .... how is this a useful comparison? If analogue audio was still superior, then surely recording studios would use exclusively the best available (i.e. fully analogue systems), and then consumers would be in two classes-- those who care about quality would listen on vinyl, while the masses would listen on cheap digital systems.

 

This obviously isnt the case.

 

Recording studios use very digital systems, almost exclusively so. There are lots of interesting systems, such as tube or hybrid pre-amps, which provide a gorgeous warmth to vocals, but they are used as small "special purpose" units, of course ... but recording, mixing and mastering mediums are very digital. Lots of people love their analogue synths, etc. and "sample" them into their digital workflows. For the past half a decade there has also been a rise in VST/etc plugins which are digital *simulations* of analogue equipment! It has become possible to fully emulate every physical detail of certain analogue pieces of equipment, which is a very interesting thing indeed. Perhaps this will give some insights as to where digital cinema could go over the next decades.

 

In terms of playback, the majority of high-end systems audiophile systems are CD-based. Lots like their vinyl systems. It's a matter of choice, as it should be!

 

Once digital video matures, I've no doubt that there will be lots of interesting preferences in different circumstances and for different tastes... But the time of "digital" being a dirty word will pass! Besides, what modern films are taken from the camera to the screen without ever being digital?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if Red doesn't work out there is always this:

 

http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/

 

It's built and ready for sale, I hear the retail is lower than Red.

 

R,

 

 

I personally think the SI camera is WONDERFUL! I think the RED camera is WONDERFUL! I think any company that attempts to give me a choice in how I do my work is wonderful.

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According ot the Eastman Kodak company, over 70% of wedding photographers still shoot film.

Sorry, I wasn't planning to use RED to shoot my child's first steps or my neighbor's wedding. Of course, one has that option. Your mileage may vary.

 

As for your diatribe over club music, the reason DJs spin records is because there is an art in mixing that you can't recreate with a CD. It has nothing to do with perceived quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well if Red doesn't work out there is always this:

 

http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/

 

It's built and ready for sale, I hear the retail is lower than Red.

 

R,

 

Not a bad looking camera, it does do 72 fps and whatsmore, its built so they back up the words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dudes...Oliver Twist had a digital intermediate. The "richness" of film was actually digital manipulation. Oh. Oops. Not saying it can't be done in camera. Saving Private Ryan and Munich have their moments of "wow."

 

The frame grabs are nothing great in terms of shot composition, lighting, whatever. The colors also look a bit garish. But the resolution, lattitude (at least so it seems), and whatever else appears to be there. Sure, you may never get the exact same aesthetic, but whatever. Had I not been told Superman was digital I would have just assumed a strong 2K digital intermediate. And, whatever..it looked great.

 

So give it a rest and give this time. It's exciting to people who don't have access to 35mm film (or have limited access) and even if it's not exactly what you want, it's a step in the right direction for the industry in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Had I not been told Superman was digital I would have just assumed a strong 2K digital intermediate. And, whatever..it looked great.

 

So give it a rest and give this time. It's exciting to people who don't have access to 35mm film (or have limited access) and even if it's not exactly what you want, it's a step in the right direction for the industry in general.

 

Er dude, this is a forum for professional motion picture people. ie those who can tell the difference between 35mm and HD capture. Red might be exactly what i want, but i dont know as currently it is at best pre-production. then again what does it matter as it is a revolution. and with 4k even the most inexperienced filmmaker will take on hollywood. or some other bollocks. really this subforum is making cinematography.com as stupid and immature as all the dv forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Dudes...Oliver Twist had a digital intermediate. The "richness" of film was actually digital manipulation. Oh. Oops.
Look at Polanski's other films and you'll know that this isn't the case. Sets, costumes, makeup, lighting, lenses, composition / mise en scène are much more important in acheiving the look in his films.

 

I'm not saying they didn't take advantage of the DI because they did, but here's what his DP Pawel Edelman had to say about it (ASC article):

 

?I?ve used the DI process on the last four movies I?ve shot, and although I understand how great it is to have this tool in our hands, I also believe we?re losing a lot,? he says. ?The quality of the image still isn?t as good as that from the original negative. We?re losing some sharpness and definition. The ideal situation would be to have the possibility of a DI with the same quality and definition as the film image. Perhaps higher resolution will make this possible.? Looking forward to his next project, he adds, ?I?ve done 20 movies without a DI without any problems, and I will probably do my next movie in Poland without it.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm I the king of the hill in motion picture production... no... but I have done five features as either a producer or line producer...

 

Four on 35mm... the last one which is soon to be picked up on HD... I find it funny that people on both sides of the fences are fighting over stupid stuff...

 

Look I love film... but as an independent producer and soon to be a first time feature director... I look at what is the best to get my story told... if I can have more creative freedom (control over my project) by shooting HD or if the Red makes it that's what I'll do... so that I can avoid an investor who wants to put in 10% of the funds and wants 100% control...

 

The only really complaint that I have on Red which who knows if this is the company or those who layed down the $1,000 to get a camera is that is still promoted as a $17,500 camera... its only that amount for the body... you have to add all the other goodies...

 

Just my .02 for the day...

 

Gary

Edited by Gary McClurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I love film... but as an independent producer and soon to be a first time feature director... I look at what is the best to get my story told... if I can have more creative freedom (control over my project) by shooting HD or if the Red makes it that's what I'll do... so that I can avoid an investor who wants to put in 10% of the funds and wants 100% control...

 

Gary

 

Well I'm shooting a feature now and I had zero interest from distributors when I said HD. I say 35mm and they are much more interested. I signed a deal memo last week with a pretty large distributor and the contract very clearly spells out, "to be shot on 35mm."

 

Stretching into 35mm on a first indie movie is well worth it. You are put into a different category than the HD people. I attended a big industry party at TIFF, and no mater who I talked to they all said, "you're making the right choice to shoot on 35mm."

 

If you have to wait a year so that you can shoot on 35mm, it will be well worth it on the distribution end of things. The market is getting saturated with indie HD stuff.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's perhaps because your surname is not Lucas

 

If that's a joke, Ha Ha! And yes probably so. Lucas could use Super 8 and be ok.

 

If it's not a joke, you'll have to let me know so I can post a different reply.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucas could use Super 8 and be ok.

 

I think they'd let Lucas shoot with a cell phone... and they'd buy it...

 

I don't know our last feature was shot HD and several buyers have made offers...

 

But that will be on hold because of another problem which I can't go into right now...

 

Gee haven't quite figured out the quote thing right now...

 

Was going to qoute from Richard about shooting 35...

 

But since it didn't work... I'll just post this way instead...

 

I know I'm going to get beat up now... since the name of this forum is cinematopraher.com... but I think your viewer doesn't care what it was shot on... all they care is who's in it and what's it about...

 

As long as it looks like a pro movie... and of course its the story... if the story isn't there... well it doesn't matter if you shoot 70mm...

 

That's just my .02

Edited by Gary McClurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...