RED production schedule

[David Mullen ASC]

When are we going to be able to actually go out a buy a RED system, or rent one and try out the workflow for a production?

 

Sometime this year.

[Werner Klipsch]

Hi,

 

Don't you really mean 22:22:22 when talking about HD?

 

Stephen

No, that does not represent anything meaningful. I know that such statements are common on the internet but they appear to derive from the assumptions of journalists with no understanding of the technology.

 

Even a 4K camera would still be described as 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.

 

A parralel example might be the decibel, many people are under the impression that it represents a specific level of loudness, where in reality it means a change of loudness (in audio at any rate)

[Stephen Williams]

Even a 4K camera would still be described as 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.

 

 

Hi Werner,

 

"4:2:2" and "4:4:4" are only relevant when speaking of STANDARD DEFINITIION. They relate SD sampling rates to the image structure. In HD the sampling rate is 5.5 times faster! Proper and accurate terminology for HD is "22:22:22" and "22:11:11" rather than their SD counterparts "4:4:4" and "4:2:2".

 

Stephen

[Carl Brighton]

Is "4k" going to revolutionize your whole image-making experience?

No! I was thinking more that something like the RED will reverse the current apalling trend toward mini-DV and other crap formats for TV production.

 

I was looking at a true 1980 x 1080 LCD TV the other day, and I couldn't find a single program that didn't look like somebody's home movies! Rubbish....

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> No! I was thinking more that something like the RED will reverse the current apalling trend toward mini-DV

> and other crap formats for TV production.

 

Why would you possibly expect that?

 

You can already buy a very good HDTV camera body for $17,000.

 

Phil

[Stuart Brereton]

No! I was thinking more that something like the RED will reverse the current apalling trend toward mini-DV and other crap formats for TV production.

 

I was looking at a true 1980 x 1080 LCD TV the other day, and I couldn't find a single program that didn't look like somebody's home movies! Rubbish....

 

 

If TV is crap & appalling, it's because of a lack of imagination and creativity on the part of those who commission and make it, not because of a lack of access to decent cameras.

 

RED will make NO difference.

[Will Earl]

"4:2:2" and "4:4:4" are only relevant when speaking of STANDARD DEFINITIION. They relate SD sampling rates to the image structure. In HD the sampling rate is 5.5 times faster! Proper and accurate terminology for HD is "22:22:22" and "22:11:11" rather than their SD counterparts "4:4:4" and "4:2:2".

 

Either way, your still expressing the same ratio of lumi-to-chroma samples. You could express 4:4:4 as 1:1:1 or 4:2:2 as 1:0.5:0.5 if you wanted to.

 

Even though the sampling frequency is higher for HD, the ratio of those sampling frequencies is still the same as SD.

[K Borowski]

I don't want to spark another ridiculous debate that will make this thread a single page longer, but filmstock is less than 1% of a big-studio budget. That's the way it should be on all productions. It isn't saving money on filmstock that will "revolutionize" the industry, it'll be when someone comes up with a way to get all of the other 99% of costs widdled down. Crew? Cast? Gaffers/Grips? Security? Caterers? Transportation? Continuity? Props? Pyrotechnics? Locales? Stunts?

 

Howabout all this stuff guys. Guys? Oh wait, that's right, almost every single person buying a RED doesn't have to worry about these "trite inconveniences" because they're involved in the innovative, highly artistic genre of teen horror flicks.

 

I've hear people say that the wonderful thing about film is the endless possibilities of outcome and storyline. I'd say that the thematic, cliche, horror "films" that pollute cinema are the strongest possible argument against this statement.

 

~Karl Borowski: Student Filmmaker who'd have as much trouble making a film with an IMAX Camera and free stock, processing, printing and telecine as he would with a RED and free accessories/film blowups.

[Daniel Stigler]

I don't want to spark another ridiculous debate that will make this thread a single page longer, but filmstock is less than 1% of a big-studio budget. That's the way it should be on all productions. It isn't saving money on filmstock that will "revolutionize" the industry, it'll be when someone comes up with a way to get all of the other 99% of costs widdled down. Crew? Cast? Gaffers/Grips? Security? Caterers? Transportation? Continuity? Props? Pyrotechnics? Locales? Stunts?

 

 

Not to forget that cameras that run film are by now a lot easier to work with than any videocamera i've ever seen. I took a look at the RED website last week and i really hope the final camera will not be like the graphic. What am i supposed to do with a camera without any 24V RS outlets? To name just one flaw...

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Not to forget that cameras that run film are by now a lot easier to work with than any videocamera i've ever

> seen

 

That's at best a difference in perspective and at worst complete drivel.

 

Phil

[K Borowski]

Hi,

 

> Not to forget that cameras that run film are by now a lot easier to work with than any videocamera i've ever

> seen

 

That's at best a difference in perspective and at worst complete drivel.

 

Phil

 

Phil, I completely disagree with you there.

 

 

That statement is at best some wonderful propaganda ;-)

 

~K

[Chris Kenny]

I don't want to spark another ridiculous debate that will make this thread a single page longer, but filmstock is less than 1% of a big-studio budget. That's the way it should be on all productions. It isn't saving money on filmstock that will "revolutionize" the industry, it'll be when someone comes up with a way to get all of the other 99% of costs widdled down. Crew? Cast? Gaffers/Grips? Security? Caterers? Transportation? Continuity? Props? Pyrotechnics? Locales? Stunts?

 

Howabout all this stuff guys. Guys? Oh wait, that's right, almost every single person buying a RED doesn't have to worry about these "trite inconveniences" because they're involved in the innovative, highly artistic genre of teen horror flicks.

 

Look, this is getting really old. You don't need millions of dollars to make a worthwhile movie. A serious drama doesn't have to cost any more to make than a teen horror flick.

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

Howabout all this stuff guys. Guys? Oh wait, that's right, almost every single person buying a RED doesn't have to worry about these "trite inconveniences" because they're involved in the innovative, highly artistic genre of teen horror flicks.

 

I can see that you have more insight into what any potential RED costumer is going to do with the camera than even the people at RED can possibly have...

 

How nice it must be to judge 1500 filmmakers as easy as that...

 

As for me I think more options is better, RED is a nice addition and if succesful it will make a mark in the filmmaking world, probably even in high budget Hollywood films.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Eirik Tyrihjel

[K Borowski]

Look, this is getting really old. You don't need millions of dollars to make a worthwhile movie. A serious drama doesn't have to cost any more to make than a teen horror flick.

 

Chris, I don't pretend that every film needs a 20 million dollar budget, but it sure helps. Don't get all confrontational, it's a fact that it's a LOT easier to make a film with $20 million than with $0.002 million. There've been quite a few brilliant 16mm films shot for almost nothing out there too, so Red isn't changing anything in that regard. I think "Pi" had a terribly low shooting ratio. "Clerks" was shot in B&W just so they didn't have to gel the windows. I've seen several other excellent short films in the past couple of years shot on 16 for a song. I'm making a 10-minute short right now that I intend to finish, on film, for under $300, not a blowup, but a finished 16mm print. Red isn't going to be an earth-moving revolution as all the hype says it will be. I'm not knocking Red either (if it actually gets put out on the market) and doesn't turn out to be all hype. I refuse to comment until I see a feature film shot with this prototype of theirs. Improvement and change is good, but it isn't going to upend an industry with a century's worth of time to become established and immovable. The halls of Paramount aren't going to come crashing down because of any newcomer camera. Digital is doing a number on the studios though, because of simultaneous or early releases of DVDs and unchecked blatant movie piracy. Those are the movers and shakers that really scare me. Contrary to the rhetoric I like to spout, Hollywood still makes a "good film or two" each year.

[Francesco Bonomo]

It isn't saving money on filmstock that will "revolutionize" the industry, it'll be when someone comes up with a way to get all of the other 99% of costs widdled down. Crew? Cast? Gaffers/Grips? Security? Caterers? Transportation? Continuity? Props? Pyrotechnics? Locales? Stunts?

 

Is every future Red user going to produce a visual masterpiece for 1/1000 of a Hollywood blockbuster budget? No, and whoever thinks that should spend more time in understanding the complexity of even a small production, but saving money is not the whole point.

If the camera delivers high quality images that can be compared with high-end digital cameras (or even film) for a fraction of the cost, then I don't know why we should complain or argue about it. Some people will use it better than others, some stories will be better told than others, but the overall masterpiece/crap ratio will stay the same. I think too many people on each side, fans and critics, are just putting too much importance into a new piece of technology (that hasn't been seen or used by anyone yet).

 

One more thing about hypothetical budget savings: I've worked on a 26-episode tv series for 10 months last year, 16mm like 99% of the series shot in Italy, and that's an industry that could benefit quite a lot from a camera like Red, though I'm pretty sure things won't change for a while.

 

Howabout all this stuff guys. Guys? Oh wait, that's right, almost every single person buying a RED doesn't have to worry about these "trite inconveniences" because they're involved in the innovative, highly artistic genre of teen horror flicks.

 

While I do agree that technology is not going to make stories better, I also believe there aren't lots of teens around who can spend almost 20000$ for a camera.

I often read what the RED fans have to say on their forums, and some of them do indeed sound like fanboys who just "don't get it", but most of them are just professionals who know how to use cameras, film or video, and see it as everyone should, i.e. a tool.

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, I don't pretend that every film needs a 20 million dollar budget, but it sure helps. Don't get all confrontational, it's a fact that it's a LOT easier to make a film with $20 million than with $0.002 million. There've been quite a few brilliant 16mm films shot for almost nothing out there too, so Red isn't changing anything in that regard. I think "Pi" had a terribly low shooting ratio. "Clerks" was shot in B&W just so they didn't have to gel the windows. I've seen several other excellent short films in the past couple of years shot on 16 for a song. I'm making a 10-minute short right now that I intend to finish, on film, for under $300, not a blowup, but a finished 16mm print. Red isn't going to be an earth-moving revolution as all the hype says it will be. I'm not knocking Red either (if it actually gets put out on the market) and doesn't turn out to be all hype. I refuse to comment until I see a feature film shot with this prototype of theirs. Improvement and change is good, but it isn't going to upend an industry with a century's worth of time to become established and immovable. The halls of Paramount aren't going to come crashing down because of any newcomer camera. Digital is doing a number on the studios though, because of simultaneous or early releases of DVDs and unchecked blatant movie piracy. Those are the movers and shakers that really scare me. Contrary to the rhetoric I like to spout, Hollywood still makes a "good film or two" each year.

 

OK, I basically agree with this. It isn't digital acquisition that'll radically change Hollywood. It has a role to play, but the main driver of change is going to be digital distribution. But if Red delivers... well, I've discussed this before. Right now, on ultra-low-budget movies, image quality is often a liability. That may not be true soon. This is something that individual filmmakers are justified in getting excited about.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Actually, I guess there is one positive thing to come out of this - people will no longer be able to claim that thei shitty DV cameras are making their movies look poop. They'll have to admit it's lack of ability.

 

Phil

[Francesco Bonomo]

Actually, I guess there is one positive thing to come out of this - people will no longer be able to claim that thei shitty DV cameras are making their movies look poop. They'll have to admit it's lack of ability.

 

Phil, how I wish you were right! Unfortunately, I guess people like that will keep blaming the technology, just like they did when they moved from miniVHS to miniDV to HDV. Not even 65mm could possibly change their mind.

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

Phil, how I wish you were right! Unfortunately, I guess people like that will keep blaming the technology, just like they did when they moved from miniVHS to miniDV to HDV. Not even 65mm could possibly change their mind.

 

What on earth does this have to do with the RED camera?

[Mitch Gross]

What on earth does this have to do with the RED camera?

Not much. If anyone really thinks they're going to make a no-budget movie using a RED then the have no clue as to what it will cost just to support the thing. I think the RED One will be a great tool, for profesionals. It will be interesting to see how many on that reservation list actually pony up the money when the time comes in a few months, and it will be more interesting still to see the level of activity all these RED cameras actually do or do not have in say one year from now. There's going to be a lot of Ferraris being driven as taxi cabs, if one can even afford the sparkplugs to make them run.

[Chris Kenny]

Not much. If anyone really thinks they're going to make a no-budget movie using a RED then the have no clue as to what it will cost just to support the thing. I think the RED One will be a great tool, for profesionals. It will be interesting to see how many on that reservation list actually pony up the money when the time comes in a few months, and it will be more interesting still to see the level of activity all these RED cameras actually do or do not have in say one year from now. There's going to be a lot of Ferraris being driven as taxi cabs, if one can even afford the sparkplugs to make them run.

 

A package using photo lenses should be able to come in under $25K. Add maybe $2000 per feature for storage (less soon). Costs related to the camera don't have to be all that high. Sure, you can accessorize the thing with an $8K tripod, $4K matte box and $60K zoom lens, but it is, contrary to what appears to be popular belief in some quarters, actually going to be possible to get an image onto the sensor without those things.

 

I spend a fair bit of time over at Reduser.net, and I haven't gotten the impression that there are major unavoidable expenses associated with the camera about which many people are unaware.

[Stephen Williams]

A package using photo lenses should be able to come in under $25K. Add maybe $2000 per feature for storage (less soon). Costs related to the camera don't have to be all that high. Sure, you can accessorize the thing with an $8K tripod, $4K matte box and $60K zoom lens, but it is, contrary to what appears to be popular belief in some quarters, actually going to be possible to get an image onto the sensor without those things.

 

I spend a fair bit of time over at Reduser.net, and I haven't gotten the impression that there are major unavoidable expenses associated with the camera about which many people are unaware.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I am waiting the first Red production using Nikon lenses and low cost accessories, then we will all know the answer!

 

Stephen

[K Borowski]

A package using photo lenses should be able to come in under $25K. Add maybe $2000 per feature for storage (less soon). Costs related to the camera don't have to be all that high. Sure, you can accessorize the thing with an $8K tripod, $4K matte box and $60K zoom lens, but it is, contrary to what appears to be popular belief in some quarters, actually going to be possible to get an image onto the sensor without those things.

 

I spend a fair bit of time over at Reduser.net, and I haven't gotten the impression that there are major unavoidable expenses associated with the camera about which many people are unaware.

 

I paid $400 for my Auricon with a lens, $100 for a tripod, $100 for an optical sound recorder, and got 8 hrs. of film for free. For $2000 more, I could almost shoot my own feature, on film.

 

$25K for a camera and lenses? What a jip. There are HOUSES that go for $25K around here. . .

 

Pros on this forum point out time and again that renting a camera is far more economically viable than owning one. I'd hate to have a $25,000 loss riding around with me that had to be constantly guarded, and kept under lock and key. That's not chump change, except on the West Coast I guess.

 

Thing is, with all the stuff you mention, you still haven't gotten any closer to the (supposed) goal of making a movie. Equipment should be the easiest part. And don't talk about "innovative stories". Everyone has one. . .

[A. Whitehouse]

A package using photo lenses should be able to come in under $25K. Add maybe $2000 per feature for storage (less soon). Costs related to the camera don't have to be all that high. Sure, you can accessorize the thing with an $8K tripod, $4K matte box and $60K zoom lens, but it is, contrary to what appears to be popular belief in some quarters, actually going to be possible to get an image onto the sensor without those things.

 

I spend a fair bit of time over at Reduser.net, and I haven't gotten the impression that there are major unavoidable expenses associated with the camera about which many people are unaware.

 

Maybe they will become more apparent when the posters on Reduser.net become red users. What do they talk about? With the price of storage coming down so quickly its amazing how much more competitive than tape its becoming. If only festivals would screen from portable drives...

[K Borowski]

Maybe they will become more apparent when the posters on Reduser.net become red users. What do they talk about? With the price of storage coming down so quickly its amazing how much more competitive than tape its becoming. If only festivals would screen from portable drives...

 

So is the "revolution" brewing? I'm not trying to quash your power trips here guys, it's great that you care about image quality, but having been to that crazy Red forum, I've seen stuff that reminds me of a line from a television show that I like to quote:

 

You may find that HAVING is not as fulfilling as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often the truth.

 

The red is a box that can take information from a lens and record it as HD data on tape. The rest is up to the user. It's one thing moving above the limitations of a shitty format like miniDV or (dare I say it) Vision500T Super 8, quite another spending $25,000 to get there.