Why Red causes conflict, and the future of filmmaking

[Chris Kenny]

People should quit getting dazzled over marketing hype and "numbers". (Wow...4K is a whole two-thousand more than 2K!) The differences between various electronic capture systems above the standard def level are far more subtle than they are dramatic.

 

There's a much smaller gap between, say, DVCPRO HD 720p and SD than there is between DVCPRO HD 720p and 4K. It's really not very subtle. 2K vs. 4K is more subtle.

 

And, of course, it's not just about resolution. RED will do variable frame rates, will probably have more dynamic range than most HD cameras, has an interesting compressed RAW workflow, etc.

 

Anyone who thinks yet-to-be-released technology is going to make them look any more professional than they would using current state-of-the-art gear (including 35mm) is sadly deluded.

 

It's not that there's no technology currently on the market that can achieve the results RED will probably be able to achieve. It's that it costs more than a lot of people can pay.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

I'm glad to say that I haven't even paid much attention to RED or any of the other latest round of digital equipment. I mean what is the point until it hits the market, people use it and you test it for yourself and you know what it can really do? Just give me the basic specs then I'll look at what the camera can do when I get to test it for myself.

 

Personally I don't care if it's a 4K camera because a few years from now there will be an 8k, then a 16k blah, blah, blah. How good is the image to my eye, is all that matters.

 

As far as the price level that this comes at, it doesn't matter if it costs even a $1.50. Just because you own one doesn't mean you have the talent to use it.

[Gunleik Groven]

Red will most likely not run other companies out of business. From the start they're hitting a "new" market for buyers and rental-houses alike.

 

Sony/Pana/Arri and the rest have their customer base, and judging from the posts here - they can rest asured.

 

Good!

 

In some smaller markets it will be a replacement to 35mm. In Norway - f. ex. - the average "full feature", has a much lower cost than what I see people refer to as "indie" productions in the US. Equipment is a real and big part of budgeting when you produce features in the 1-2 mill dollar range - which is the average for "biggies" - not indies - over here.

I just saw statistics that showed that 75% of Norwegians directors only make one movie.

This has a lot to do with the pure technological cost of productions and is a problem for the industry as far as noone (almost) are alowed to "learn by doing".

 

Red will give - if realized -a lot more people access to technology - which stirs up things.

 

The music biz analogy is interesting.

For a while "everyone" could buy "everything".

But you still have to know your tools. A good recorder does not make a blockbuster.

So generally the industry is back to scratch. The people in the know do well, even though "anyone" can buy good equipment.

 

Of course we'll see tons of youtube and internet material shot on the Red. Total overkill!

So what?

People have to use it to learn it.

 

And some might.

 

I think I see this trend everywhere these days. Things have the highest momentum on the high-end and the low-end (read: 4k shooting & Internet delivery for video)

 

That - of course - brings up the more philosophical questions of

"What is evolution?"

"Where are we going?"

 

Or to bring in the music analogy again:

Is "new" music mor evolved than "old"?

Is Rap the quintesence of what Palestrina and Schönberg did at their respective times?

Is Iannis Xenakis more or less worthy than Christina Aguileira?

What tools make art? Are they skills or are they tecnology?

 

As one who happen to like Xenakis, achoustic, electronic and electric music (plus of course Sex Pistols) this is a hard one.

 

Of course I admire Xenakis more than the Pistols for how he masters his tools!

That has still not hindered me from having lots of obnoxious fun with "God save the queen".

 

What this boils down to is that:

Yep. Red may be total overkill - if it materialises - for most uses and many of those now ordering will not know how to handle it at - if it ever shows up. So are my microphones for most of what I use them for. I just feel safe and content using them, even when the delivery medium does not demand it, or the artists (or my) talent is not up to them.

And Red will most likely never replace celluloid for most of the people accustomed to shoot on film.

But it may give people who come from the digital domain the option to use "real" glass and discover some of the good things "real" film people are used to...

 

And is there any other Ultra HD manufacturer out there with a 1000+ units backlog?

Those numbers give me the hope that they'll make a business out of it and that the product can survive after development (given that they manage to deliver).

 

So what?

What exactly is bad about that?

 

 

 

Gunleik

[Emanuel A Guedes]

There's a much smaller gap between, say, DVCPRO HD 720p and SD than there is between DVCPRO HD 720p and 4K. It's really not very subtle. 2K vs. 4K is more subtle.

Yes, it's true.

Personally I don't care if it's a 4K camera because a few years from now there will be an 8k, then a 16k blah, blah, blah. How good is the image to my eye, is all that matters.

I wouldn't say the same but I can catch the point and agree. Precisely 'cause of the Chris' explanation:

And, of course, it's not just about resolution. RED will do variable frame rates, will probably have more dynamic range than most HD cameras, has an interesting compressed RAW workflow, etc.

It's not that there's no technology currently on the market that can achieve the results RED will probably be able to achieve. It's that it costs more than a lot of people can pay.

One day, Chris will be wrong as we all will be anytime, at least. Until then, we can read him with all accuracy. This young future RED user knows what he's posting about. :) Edited November 3, 2006 by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes

[Chris Kenny]

Yes I'm sure zooms are still around...the point I was aiming at was that Red should have come out with a nice four set of primes to go with the camera.

 

Jim just posted:

 

"We are considering (don't count this as an announcement) a full set of T1.9 primes. We just need to make sure there is enough of a market for them."

[Guest]

Jim just posted:

 

"We are considering (don't count this as an announcement) a full set of T1.9 primes. We just need to make sure there is enough of a market for them."

 

Interesting...does this mean I can take credit for the idea?

 

Yes Jim there will be a market, do it.

 

R,

[Nathan Milford]

"We are considering (don't count this as an announcement) a full set of T1.9 primes. We just need to make sure there is enough of a market for them."

 

I'm quite sure there is a market for a good set of S35mm primes. They might even do well to make a few wider S16 ones for the 2K windowing mode... With systems like the Movietube and Pro35 out there Superspeeds and even Zeiss standards are difficult to find and S4s, Ultra and Masterprimes are way, way out of the budget of many of the people purchasing or renting such systems. Also the SI camera with it's optional PL-mount will add to the market, on top of Redone owners.

 

Yeah... I'd say there is quite a market for them assuming they're as good optically as a set of Illuminas and of a better build quality.

 

T1.9 isn't fantastic, unless they perform fantastically at T1.9. Zeiss Standards (which can be had for reaonable rate) open up to T2.1... Most people crave the Speed's T1.3 (who shoots at 1.3 anyways? nutjobs!).

 

- nathan

[Gavin Greenwalt]

From a business standpoint the zoom made a lot more initial sense.

 

You only have to develop one SKU. One set of glass, on set of mechanics. If you have a 5 or 6 piece prime set, I would expect your development costs to skyrocket. Not to mention, a lot of RED customers will have an easier time buying one zoom than 6 primes.

 

The final benefit for the zoom was the speed they could get it to market. It's already going to be a tight race to offer a wide range of lens lengths near the time the camera hits the market.

[Chris Kenny]

T1.9 isn't fantastic, unless they perform fantastically at T1.9. Zeiss Standards (which can be had for reaonable rate) open up to T2.1... Most people crave the Speed's T1.3 (who shoots at 1.3 anyways? nutjobs!).

 

Heh. I guess if you're shelling out the cash for a Pro35 or whatever for the specific purpose of getting shallow depth of field, shooting at T1.3 makes you feel like you're really getting your money's worth or something.

 

I've heard Superspeeds start getting soft below T2.0 anyway, while the Standards are still pretty sharp at T2.1. Is this accurate?

 

I'm thinking of picking up a set of primes, so any other recommendations, etc. would be great as well.

 

The final benefit for the zoom was the speed they could get it to market. It's already going to be a tight race to offer a wide range of lens lengths near the time the camera hits the market.

 

The zoom apparently isn't showing up until late next year anyway, well after the camera. As of now, the only Red lens due at the same time as the camera is the 300mm. Depending on how many cameras Red is turning out a month, this could do some pretty whacky things to the value of used PL lenses.

[David Sweetman]

Two point seven inches.

That is the distance from the "I" key to the shift key on my keyboard.

Hahaha, nice. Thanks for converting it to imperial too.

 

I think manufacturing a zoom is a good choice considering much of RED's market...those inclined to use primes likely already have others they prefer, unless Red makes comprable primes available for much less.

 

Well the shoot I was on the other day had that Optimo on their A-cam, ext. night, shooting at 2.8 on 18; they also had a B-cam on a stedicam and a C-cam, (milleniums) as well as a 435, I think for high-speed stuff.

 

It looked like they were using the zoom just to save time -- lots of quick re-frames throughout the shot, apparently to varry the coverage. They were about a day behind schedule, which may have factored into that use of the zoom.

[Max Jacoby]

Well the shoot I was on the other day had that Optimo on their A-cam, ext. night, shooting at 2.8 on 18; they also had a B-cam on a stedicam and a C-cam, (milleniums) as well as a 435, I think for high-speed stuff.

That was the small Optimo then I presume, because the big one only goes down to 24mm.

[Keith Mottram]

I'm not a professional DoP, if that's what you mean. I'm forming a company with a couple of other people (who have done some shooting on 16mm, etc.), that will do a range of video production work, with the goal of increasingly shifting over toward producing features. I'm personally coming into this from the tech industry. I have a pretty broad skill set; everything from network administration to web development to video editing, including significant experience with the more creative side of things (web design, etc.).

 

I think that's a pretty valuable skill set to have, in terms of tackling the technical and creative challenges that will be associated with this camera. With, say, web development, there's a lot of technical stuff, but it all works in service of an end-user experience incorporating beautiful design, streamlined functionality etc. It's very much a creative process. This kind of marriage between the creative and the technical is also why I'm attracted to filmmaking, I think. I've been having a lot of fun giving myself a crash course in, well, pretty much everything related to making a feature.

 

None of this is waiting around for RED; the wheels are already in motion. But RED seems pretty much ideal for this operation. It's one camera with the flexibility to do just about everything we'll be doing, that's cheap enough for us to buy outright. Being able to buy is important, since we'll be using the camera many more days per year than we'd be likely to if we were just shooting features.

 

Chris, I dont mean to be patronising, but your post reminds me of the reason why i cannot take dvxuser posters, amongst others seriously. they are frequently 'about to do something' be it form a company or make thier opus and ofteon have no professional cinematography experience. i'm afreaid that network administration and web development would be low in a priority list of skills needed in evaluating a 'potential' camera system, digital or otherwise. there is also a snobbery in the 'industry' from certain people (which includes me) that tend to question the wisdom of people who do a bit of editing/ cinematography/ etc on the side of their other computer skills/ other proffessions and thinks that makes them a qualified film professional. Those who have spent a decade plus working in the film/ television business tend to be more sceptical. this is not because they are stuck in their ways, this is because we have used the new 'toys' before. and whilst i own a small ammount of kit, i know from personal experience that it is rare that buying outright makes enough money to make it worthwile. in my own field a good example would be fcp- which is significantly cheaper that avid, something that myself or the production i worked for rented. fcp is a lot cheaper, but even now when a decent(ish) fcp hd system costs less than £30,000 you need to put through a significant of work to make it a viable purchase option. i also refused to use an fcp system for the first few years, something which to a certain extent may be the opinion of many cinematograhy professionals with regard to red cameras.

 

keith

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Chris, I dont mean to be patronising, but your post reminds me of the reason why i cannot take dvxuser posters, amongst others seriously. they are frequently 'about to do something' be it form a company or make thier opus and ofteon have no professional cinematography experience. i'm afreaid that network administration and web development would be low in a priority list of skills needed in evaluating a 'potential' camera system, digital or otherwise. there is also a snobbery in the 'industry' from certain people (which includes me) that tend to question the wisdom of people who do a bit of editing/ cinematography/ etc on the side of their other computer skills/ other proffessions and thinks that makes them a qualified film professional. Those who have spent a decade plus working in the film/ television business tend to be more sceptical. this is not because they are stuck in their ways, this is because we have used the new 'toys' before. and whilst i own a small ammount of kit, i know from personal experience that it is rare that buying outright makes enough money to make it worthwile. in my own field a good example would be fcp- which is significantly cheaper that avid, something that myself or the production i worked for rented. fcp is a lot cheaper, but even now when a decent(ish) fcp hd system costs less than £30,000 you need to put through a significant of work to make it a viable purchase option. i also refused to use an fcp system for the first few years, something which to a certain extent may be the opinion of many cinematograhy professionals with regard to red cameras.

 

keith

Even if following your point, on your «have no professional cinematography experience» I remember there are a lot of departments into the industry and different levels of professional moviemaking. Maybe this RED enthusiasm affects more than anyone else the professionals coming from the production, directing and writing departments, it's true. But that's our right* or isn't it so? To each his own.

 

* interest and business

 

:)

Edited November 5, 2006 by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Even if following your point (...)

I stand corrected: «Even following your point (...)»; even if I could say: «Even if I can follow your point (...)».

 

:) (once again)

Edited November 5, 2006 by Mr. Emanuel A. Guedes

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, I dont mean to be patronising, but your post reminds me of the reason why i cannot take dvxuser posters, amongst others seriously. they are frequently 'about to do something' be it form a company or make thier opus and ofteon have no professional cinematography experience. i'm afreaid that network administration and web development would be low in a priority list of skills needed in evaluating a 'potential' camera system, digital or otherwise. there is also a snobbery in the 'industry' from certain people (which includes me) that tend to question the wisdom of people who do a bit of editing/ cinematography/ etc on the side of their other computer skills/ other proffessions and thinks that makes them a qualified film professional. Those who have spent a decade plus working in the film/ television business tend to be more sceptical. this is not because they are stuck in their ways, this is because we have used the new 'toys' before. and whilst i own a small ammount of kit, i know from personal experience that it is rare that buying outright makes enough money to make it worthwile. in my own field a good example would be fcp- which is significantly cheaper that avid, something that myself or the production i worked for rented. fcp is a lot cheaper, but even now when a decent(ish) fcp hd system costs less than £30,000 you need to put through a significant of work to make it a viable purchase option. i also refused to use an fcp system for the first few years, something which to a certain extent may be the opinion of many cinematograhy professionals with regard to red cameras.

 

I'm frankly not sure you read my post closely enough. Just to hit on a couple of points:

 

1) I'm not buying this camera to "make my opus". I'm starting a business with a couple of other people that will use the camera extensively.

 

2) I'm not "about to do" something. Things are in the early stages, but they are in motion.

 

3) I don't believe my tech skills make me a qualified film professional. I do believe that strong tech skills will be a necessary part of the equation for any shop that plans to work with this camera, particularly early on when the workflow isn't fully nailed down.

 

As with any business, there's risk here. But it's calculated risk. A lot of people who've been in the industry for a while are no doubt familiar with stories about people blowing their life savings to make a movie that never goes anywhere, and I think some people are assuming that's going on with Red. And maybe in some cases that's true. But new more flexible technologies open up alternatives to this kind of "bet the farm" approach for people working outside of the system.

 

In terms of your comments about owning kit -- it all depends on how much you use it. Yes, if you just want to shoot a movie, you're better off renting. There will be many other ways a creative business can generate revenue with a device like this, however, and we intend to pursue them.

 

You talk about a Final Cut HD system costing "less than £30,000". I'm not sure how you get the price that high, frankly. Buying a deck, I guess? That's pretty much irrelevant to non-tape workflows. CineForm is talking about real-time online 4K editing on $5K worth of hardware, today. In five years, it'll be $1000 worth of hardware. This changes the cost/benefit equation for owning vs. buying in dramatic ways.

 

On a more general note, as barriers to entry come down, this industry is going to become increasingly like the software industry, where everyone now basically accepts that the next big thing is as likely to come out of a college dorm room as it is from Google. (Hell, that's where many of today's successful tech companies came from in the first place.) Those who are established in the filmmaking industry would do well to take this phenomenon seriously.

[Stephen Williams]

On a more general note, as barriers to entry come down, this industry is going to become increasingly like the software industry, where everyone now basically accepts that the next big thing is as likely to come out of a college dorm room as it is from Google. (Hell, that's where many of today's successful tech companies came from in the first place.) Those who are established in the filmmaking industry would do well to take this phenomenon seriously.

 

Hi Chris,

 

The barriers came down when DV arrived.

 

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Chris,

 

The barriers came down when DV arrived.

 

Stephen

 

In some sense, making a movie independent of the established system has been possible for decades. But the technical quality that can be achieved keeps rising, and the cost keeps falling, and every time that happens, more people enter the market and some of them produce better stuff.

 

The ultimate goal is that eventually, access won't matter anymore, and it'll be all about talent. DV was a step in that direction. Affordable technology that can produce images suitable for large-screen exhibition is another big step.

[Stephen Williams]

In some sense, making a movie independent of the established system has been possible for decades. But the technical quality that can be achieved keeps rising, and the cost keeps falling, and every time that happens, more people enter the market and some of them produce better stuff.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I accept that the technical quality that can be achieved with Red will rise, however the costs will rise, rather than fall verses a DV movie.

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

It's important to remember that making films is collaborative art. It's not usually one person on their own. Although an animator can operate on their own, that's not the case with a live action movie. The camera is just one factor/cost in making a successful film and it's usually one of the cheaper items in the overall budget.

 

Shooting in 4k will add more demands in art direction, costume and make up. Things that you got away in DV just won't hold with the increased definition.

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Chris,

 

I accept that the technical quality that can be achieved with Red will rise, however the costs will rise, rather than fall verses a DV movie.

 

Well, Red is an interesting case here. If one thinks of the motion picture camera market as a continuum, with low-end consumer camcorders at one end and film cameras at the other, for a very long time, products have been clustered mostly at the extremes, without much in the middle. This makes sense, historically, because for a long time shooting at high quality could only be made so cheap (due to the unavoidable cost of film stock), while video could only be made so good (due to technological limitations). There really wasn't much of a continuum at all; there were two distinct markets with very different budget ranges and requirements. (16mm, etc. screws up this nice neat model to some extent, but I still don't think I'm too far off base here.)

 

High-quality digital acquisition has broken that paradigm, and for some years now we've been seeing consumer camcorders slowly creeping up-market and being used increasingly for filmmaking, rather than just for birthday parties. Red has clearly recognized this trend and decided that rather than taking small steps in this direction, as the traditional video camera vendors have been doing, they're just going to go right ahead and build the camera low-budget filmmakers want at a price they're willing to pay.

 

(This is, incidentally, a huge relief to those of us who have been watching the almost painfully cautious approach companies like Sony have been taking.)

 

So, anyway, yes, Red costs more than the prosumer cameras that it will, in many instances, replace. But it's a much better value for the money, for people trying to make low-budget movies, I think. (To put this in extremely crude and not particularly meaningful terms, you get 13 times the number of pixels of an HVX for only three times the price!)

[Chris Kenny]

It's important to remember that making films is collaborative art. It's not usually one person on their own. Although an animator can operate on their own, that's not the case with a live action movie. The camera is just one factor/cost in making a successful film and it's usually one of the cheaper items in the overall budget.

 

Shooting in 4k will add more demands in art direction, costume and make up. Things that you got away in DV just won't hold with the increased definition.

 

The reason getting the cost of the camera (and related expenses) down is so important for the ultra-low-budget crowd is because those expenses are some of the few that are virtually impossible to circumvent, no matter how creative you are and how much time you're willing to invest. Your rich uncle might let you shoot on his boat for free (write it into the script to add production value), your sound guy who you know from college might be willing to work deferred, and there are lots of unknown actors who will work for noting if they think your feature might go somewhere and get them discovered.

 

But odds are nobody is going to lend you a 35mm camera for a few weeks for free. And they're sure as hell not going to hand you 50,000 feet of film for free, or process it for free, or conform your negative for free.

[David Sweetman]

That was the small Optimo then I presume, because the big one only goes down to 24mm.

(sorry it's of absolutely no use for the present conversation, but I meant 5218, not 18mm...out of curiosity, what do they call the small Optimo? I guess the 12-1 is the big one?)

[Max Jacoby]

17-80mm T2.2 is the small one.

15-40mm T2.6 is the baby one.

[Brian Drysdale]

The reason getting the cost of the camera (and related expenses) down is so important for the ultra-low-budget crowd is because those expenses are some of the few that are virtually impossible to circumvent,

 

Yes, but is this the RED market? This sounds more HDV than the higher priced RED kit: a shooting RED rig is going to cost as much as a SD broadcast camera.

 

Best bang for bucks could be the SI Mini into a laptop, that would make more sense. Then spend the difference on your movie.

[Chris Kenny]

Yes, but is this the RED market? This sounds more HDV than the higher priced RED kit: a shooting RED rig is going to cost as much as a SD broadcast camera.

 

This is part of the Red market. Red isn't cheap compared with prosumer cameras, but there are still a lot of people who can afford Red, but will be making movies for very low amounts of money. Just because you can spend $30K on a camera package, doesn't necessarily mean you've got tens of thousands to spend on a feature that might not sell as well.

 

Best bang for bucks could be the SI Mini into a laptop, that would make more sense. Then spend the difference on your movie.

 

Does that end up being very much cheaper? Maybe with 16mm lenses, I guess. But of course Red can use those as well, and gives you an upgrade path when you have more money.