1st RED footage

Patrizio De Sica · October 6, 2006

BTW, on the tarot quote, its meaning reminds me all what you want, less a rational preposition.

Thank you Emanuel. Once again.

It was what I thought when I read it. Well, I couldn't figure that these class interests are so worried because of the simple but effective meaning of my board signature.

After buying the camera, lenses, and storage, you may not have a paradigms left in your pocket.

It seems this is the real problem against this offer and its (his?) success.

Mark Allen · October 6, 2006

Im not quite sure what you mean by a "paradigm shift."

A paradigm shift is (quoting dictionary.com) " afundamental change of approach or assumptions."

The assumption (evidenced by the mass amount of people saying it was not possible to have a 4k camera for even 40k) would be broken if RED delivers. Thus, a paradigm shift.

I think DV was a paradgim shift as well. If you dont believe me, talk to distributors who are now innundated with movies shot on DV. A movie-making culture burst into our lives. Was that a good thing? Not really in the minds of most distributors who probably more than anyone else started feeling "shot on film" was a good thing simply because the sheer number of home productions entering their submissions. Yet, it was a huge change in the culture of movie making without changing the basic premise or necessary skills.

And the technology does affect the end result - sometimes in unexpected ways. Look at when 16mm cameras were introduced. Suddenly the cinema verite entered into the filmmaking vernacular. Today even in 35mm movies you see this as part of the language of movie making.

Gavin Greenwalt · October 6, 2006

I could see a huge shift if the Red delivers on quality.

We've already witnessed the almost complete replacement of 8mm with DV.

I wouldn't be suprised if RED doesn't start to cut deeply into the 16mm market. As far as budget and quality goes it could fit in very nicely. Right now I'm trying to decide whether a project I'm shooting next year will be shot on the RED/SI or on S16 and from my perspective it's looking like a close race.

With the next generation of CMOS chips I think we might see the real competition with 35mm film.

Like DV the RED camera isn't offering anything new, it's just offering what already exists to a market that was previously ignored.

If someone could sell a business jet for less than $100k it would be labelled a pardigm shift as well. It's not the technology it's the attitude of "Hey I might be able to afford that" that sets itself apart. And the one thing RED can't be denied of accomplishing is building ambition, perhaps even too much.

Matthew W. Phillips · October 6, 2006

A paradigm shift is (quoting dictionary.com) " afundamental change of approach or assumptions."

The assumption (evidenced by the mass amount of people saying it was not possible to have a 4k camera for even 40k) would be broken if RED delivers. Thus, a paradigm shift.

Of course its possible to have a 4k camera for under $40k and we already have one. Its called the hand cranked 35mm Konvas. You can get one on eBay now for $990 + $185 shipping

http://cgi.ebay.com/KONVAS-1KCP-Automat-35...1QQcmdZViewItem

I still have yet to be shown how RED creates a fundamental change or approach as far as cameras go. RED is just a camera...nothing else. It doesnt cure cancer or cook my dinner. Just adding more dots per inch doesnt make it anything other than a camera. I hate to break it to the little RED camera, but it cannot be whatever it wants to when it grows up. :o

Patrizio De Sica · October 6, 2006

Of course its possible to have a 4k camera for under $40k and we already have one. Its called the hand cranked 35mm Konvas. You can get one on eBay now for $990 + $185 shipping

http://cgi.ebay.com/KONVAS-1KCP-Automat-35...1QQcmdZViewItem

I don't know what I should do: if I'm grateful for your link or if I should send you the laboratory bill. My only doubt is how will be possible to pay it if we share the same love for the same kind of gas and we don't have a Ferrari. Even if on the latter case and just in my case (I can't speak for yourself), I'd add: not yet.

Emanuel A Guedes · October 6, 2006

Let's stop bickering, please? This is a web community not a battle field.

Nice find Matthew. Do you know I am an old film cameras curious? BTW, anyone can answer me if those lenses can be adapted to a PL mount?

LOMO PO61-5 f=2.5 / 28mm

LOMO OKC1-35-1 f=2.0 / 35mm

PO3-3M f=2.0 / 50mm

PO2-2M f=2.0 / 75mm

Jupiter-11 f=4.0 / 135mm

EDIT -- Thanks in both directions.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes · October 6, 2006

Sorry my last post. I tried to edit when I remember there is an open thread regarding the lenses item but there's no possibility at all now. If you Tim pass your eyes over here, edit please if you wish. Thank you for your time.

Jay A. Kelley · October 6, 2006

Of course its possible to have a 4k camera for under $40k and we already have one. Its called the hand cranked 35mm Konvas. You can get one on eBay now for $990 + $185 shipping

Matthew, I think you took his point a little out of context.. I believe he was commenting on a 4k ELECTRONIC film camera.. Not the traditional style. If your point was to say "you don't need to look to video, look at film" I think you may be in the wrong sub-forum for converts. :)

As for the camera being special.. Yes I believe that it is. As for origional.. In so much that Star Wars is origional I agree. I mean that SW took hundreds of preexisting styles and elements and combined them to make something new. I think REDs claim to fame (one of them anyway) is that it's attempting to go beyond the current envelope of todays HD standards. I am not saying there are not any 4k cameras out there. I am saying there are not any 4k cameras aimed at the income bracket they are aimed at with as much development and R&D money as they are putting into it

As a producer I am very well aware that part of the value of my picture will be based on what it was shot on. A MiniDV movie will pull less than an HD movie, and an HD movie will pull less than a 35mm movie.. I will be curious to see where a movie shot on RED falls.

Just my .25 cents

Emanuel A Guedes · October 10, 2006

2nd clip available there:

http://red.com/gallery-video.htm

jan von krogh · October 11, 2006

As a producer I am very well aware that part of the value of my picture will be based on what it was shot on. A MiniDV movie will pull less than an HD movie, and an HD movie will pull less than a 35mm movie..

DV agreed. HD, sorry, but as a matter of fact your speculation is simply completly wrong. SIN CITY, MIAMI VICE, SUPERMAN, SKY CAPTAIN ... now if your recent 35mm productions had a better pull.

Patrizio De Sica · October 11, 2006

DV agreed. HD, sorry, but as a matter of fact your speculation is simply completly wrong. SIN CITY, MIAMI VICE, SUPERMAN, SKY CAPTAIN ... now if your recent 35mm productions had a better pull.

Agreed. Jan, were you in the IBC presentation? I've noticed some strange noise in the black areas but only coming from the Quick Time Player... Not with the VLC player! Is it only with me or is it happening with others?

Edited October 11, 2006 by Patrizio De Sica

Keith Mottram · October 11, 2006

DV agreed. HD, sorry, but as a matter of fact your speculation is simply completly wrong. SIN CITY, MIAMI VICE, SUPERMAN, SKY CAPTAIN ... now if your recent 35mm productions had a better pull.

Looked like a continuous fx shot/ looked poop/ looked plastic/ looked like heavilly defused steaming poop. and they all had a catering bill bigger that your average indys entire budget. this is nonsense and has no place on a forum for professionals.

jan von krogh · October 26, 2006

Looked like a continuous fx shot/ looked poop/ looked plastic/ looked like heavilly defused steaming poop. and they all had a catering bill bigger that your average indys entire budget. this is nonsense and has no place on a forum for professionals.

Ok, now i understand: SUPERMAN looks "poop", especially compared to your work and isn´t professional either.

Then lets look around a little more - some more digital/1080p releases on your screen right now would be:

David finchers (you know, that FIGHT CLUB director guy) "ZODIAC"? "Plastic" and "unprofessional"?

Gibson "APOCALYPTO"? "non-sense" and "fx shots"?

CLICK? FLYBOYS?

I am sure, none of these completly unprofessional 1080p HD productions are in the league of your work, or, lets say, the average indy 16mm production...

there MUST be something Hollywood is missing you do know, that is for sure. All these clueless amateurs spending millions of dollars for HD/1080p production for cinematic release....

Additionally, we certainly have arrived at a point, where we need and have to re-educate the audience - they are going into these "poop"-movies and making giving them commercial success.

Maybe a law could help? It really can´t be that the audience ENJOYS digitally shot "plastic poop". Who are they to think that the movies are made for them?

http://ferox.haxial.net/clientreview/carmi...estimonials.mov

there it is, we have to stop the installation of those >2300 digital screens at carmike cinemas right now.

Furthermore, if we are at it, we could extend that law into the realms of still SLR cameras - it can´t be that nikon and canon are stopping to manufacture optochemical cameras, only because the buyers don´t buy them anymore.

sorry for the sarcasm :)

David Sweetman · October 26, 2006

DV agreed. HD, sorry, but as a matter of fact your speculation is simply completly wrong. SIN CITY, MIAMI VICE, SUPERMAN, SKY CAPTAIN ... now if your recent 35mm productions had a better pull.

I believe you are citing anomalies of HD feature production. These anomalies may well indicate where cinema is going, but regardless they have no current effect on Jay A. Kelley's context. Jay is not saying "an HD feature cannot gross more than a 35 feature." YOU put those words in his mouth. Rather he is saying "MY HD production would not gross more than MY 35mm production."

You further show your tendency to ignore context when you do not see that Keith is not saying SUPERMAN looked like "poop," but rather that it "looked plastic," and each successive description separated by slashes (/) corresponds directly to each successive feature you mention. Therefore Sin City "Looked like a continuous fx shot," Miami Vice "looked poop," Superman "looked plastic," and Sky Captain "looked like heavilly defused steaming poop;" the description of one can't necessarily be transposed to another.

Anyway I really don't see what the argument is about, I'm just trying to clear things up around here.

And by the way, can we all agree that the "I don't see your movies doing any better" is a red herring logical fallacy? Not to mention that it boarders on ad hominem?

jan von krogh · October 26, 2006

I believe you are citing anomalies of HD feature production. These anomalies may well indicate where cinema is going, but regardless they have no current effect on Jay A. Kelley's context.

I don´t get what you mean by anomalies. A-Budget digital cinematic production is a normal thing. In HD. And below. As were chatting here, position 1 of the german cinema charts is once more digital. Nothing unusual.

Jay is not saying "an HD feature cannot gross more than a 35 feature." YOU put those words in his mouth.

Good. As a matter of fact, HD can gross more than 35. The other way around as well. So, what is the sense in the original post then?

Rather he is saying "MY HD production would not gross more than MY 35mm production."

While i believe that at once, my 1080p HD productions earned me -quite- a bit more than my 35mm since 2002.

You further show your tendency to ignore context when you do not see that Keith is not saying SUPERMAN looked like "poop," but rather that it "looked plastic," and each successive description separated by slashes (/) corresponds directly to each successive feature you mention.

Aha. Do you agree, btw?

Therefore Sin City "Looked like a continuous fx shot,"

interesting. did you realize that it was a continuous VFX shot?

Miami Vice "looked poop,"

a highly qualified comment. The DOP Dion Beebe and the director Michael Mann certainly are not so well educated - they certainly didn´t know what visual style they wanted.

Superman "looked plastic," and Sky Captain "looked like heavilly defused steaming poop;" the description of one can't necessarily be transposed to another.

look, i usually have a slight little bit more respect regarding the work of other filmmakers. maybe thats why the highly arrogant tone is irritating me.

And by the way, can we all agree that the "I don't see your movies doing any better" is a red herring logical fallacy? Not to mention that it boarders on ad hominem?

Oh - i think in 2006 it still is quite important to remember certain folks here that digital cinematographers are highly successfull and acclaimed in international A-budget production. I am looking forward to the comments on the DOPs work on ZODIAC & APOCALYPTO.

Max Jacoby · October 26, 2006

Yawn...

Someone please wake me up when an informative post appears here.

jan von krogh · October 26, 2006

Yawn...

Someone please wake me up when an informative post appears here.

sadly, this certainly became the wrong board for informative posts regarding red.

most of the well informed people which once frequented this subforum don´t post on cinematography.com anymore, at least when it comes to red.

Mainly due to the rather harsh tone, and then simply some folks always went off-topic ("film good, digital evil" topic for 95%), became insulting or worse here in the RED subforum. Didn´t see the red crowd posting that much in the 35mm forums, anyway.

if you want information regarding red, this is the place to be.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=58

David Sweetman · October 26, 2006

interesting. did you realize that it was a continuous VFX shot?

Hey, you made it look like I said those bad things about those movies! Of course I realize Sin City is one long visual effects manipulation and the criticism of Miami Vice was altogether too brief, judgemental, and conclusive -- but with fairness, it was designed that way for rhetorical impact.

Aha. Do you agree, btw?

The only thing I'm sure I agree with here is Max's last post, athough I guess I'm one of the few who loved the visual style of "Miami Vice."

Anyway, I guess I'm on RED's side, even though RED has no real "side" in the current discussion, since I've got a feature in mind which would be the perfect application of RED ONE.

Gavin Greenwalt · October 27, 2006

Yawn...

Someone please wake me up when an informative post appears here.

This has little to no chance of happening on these forums for at least 6 months.

Why? Because the 1st parties left, and whenever someone tries to re-post information from another forum they immediately get flamed. So ... no 1st or 3rd party items of interest leaves nothing but these ancient ass-backwards topics which are all that will seed discussion in this sub-forum until march.

Yawn indeed.

Brian L Schilling · October 28, 2006

The online footage certainly does not impress me. I do not think any of us can properly evaluate what this camera is capable of by viewing a highly compressed QT movie on a computer monitor. I need to see it blown up!!