Jump to content

RED production schedule


Carl Brighton

Recommended Posts

I just wondered what market do you think the red competes and wins in and on what evidence?

Oh, just forget the whole fu**ing thing already. I'm so sick of this argument I don't give a flying fu** anymore. Okay? Film's better. You happy now? You win. Yay you! Someone just put this thread out of its misery and kill it now.

Edited by Ralph Oshiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 495
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, just forget the whole fu**ing thing already. I'm so sick of this argument I don't give a flying fu** anymore. Okay? Film's better. You happy now? You win. Yay you! Someone just put this thread out of its misery and kill it now.

 

Apologies Ralph I am not trying to wrong foot you just a sensible discussion? Thats all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies Ralph I am not trying to wrong foot you just a sensible discussion? Thats all.

Apology accepted. My apologies as well. But isn't this argument getting just a WEE bit tired? Okay, here we go . . .

 

1. RED (or any digital motion picture acquisition) is only one of several alternatives to 35mm film.

2. Choosing a digital acquisition method offers an alternative to the costs associated with 35mm stock and processing.

3. Up until now, the defacto standard for high-end digital indie production was typically a Varicam or an F900.

4. RED offers much-improved resolution over the Varicam, and improved color space over the F900.

5. RED offers depth-of-field characteristics beyond F900-class, 2/3" imager-based cameras.

6. RED is more affordable to own than a Varicam or F900.

 

To me, RED is an F900-killer. That's my argument.

Edited by Ralph Oshiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RED camera is being used on a big budget project in Prague right now (Wanted)... with consequences I guess.

 

As for the names, we don't have permission to say other than Peter Jackson. But I think that will change in the next month.

 

A month ago, if I said we had a high profile director shooting our NAB footage... my bet is that there would have been skeptics if we didn't give out his name.

 

Jim

 

 

Ofcourse people are sceptical of things when we live in a world like we do. And people have every right to be.

Don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you are a little to used to the ones on the red user forum who suck everything up without asking any questions. Even if the sceptics are wrong in the end at least they were critical of the information they were given until it could be proven. Without turning this into something political... The lack of scepticism towards main stream media for instance is the reason why some news networks can continue to feed their viewers with misinformation and fabricated news stories which have absolutely no news value and only contribute to making our society dumber.

 

What really gets to people I think isn't that someone other than Panavision or ARRI are making a 4K digital camera. It's that the way it has been marketed is very un-like what one is used to in this business and it has also grown a very fanatical user base which many established industry professionals might find a little annoying. It lends to the idea that once you have a camera that under the right circumstances can capture an image close to 35mm you are suddenly a world class DP. Many of these people have spent years and years building their careers and for someone to come along and suggest that because of a camera they will now have their big break is also quite an insult to some.

 

The images look great and I really look forward to seeing the Red and trying it out, but rub me up the wrong tree and I will distance myself from it no matter what. It's just that natural defensive mechanism that kicks in. Human nature I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really gets to people I think isn't that someone other than Panavision or ARRI are making a 4K digital camera. It's that the way it has been marketed is very un-like what one is used to in this business and it has also grown a very fanatical user base which many established industry professionals might find a little annoying. It lends to the idea that once you have a camera that under the right circumstances can capture an image close to 35mm you are suddenly a world class DP. Many of these people have spent years and years building their careers and for someone to come along and suggest that because of a camera they will now have their big break is also quite an insult to some.

I agree, skepticism is a good thing. I wish that there were a "flame free zone" at REDUSER where posts such as yours could be published without any knee-jerk, RED-devotee reaction. I guess cinemtography.com is the best surrogate for that. I find the marketing complaint a bit surprising, but it's such a common complaint among many here, that there must be something driving it. Even David Mullen remarked about RED's marketing tactics. I think the enthusiasm, at least in my case, was incited by the company's founder being so close to its customers. The amount of customer interaction Jim and his team has engaged is unprecedented in this industry, at least in my experience. We, the customers, are able to talk to the actual engineer designing some component of RED, and actually suggest desired feature sets. Jim actively sought design feedback in this forum and others, very early in the development of RED. This is the kind of market-driven company that college-level marketing classes write cases about. I've never had that kind opportunity with, say, the F900 product manager or an F900 design engineer. Because to a company like Sony, I'm a very small fish. It's RED's connection to its customers, at every level of management, that I think, helped to create such a "fanatical user base."

Edited by Ralph Oshiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apology accepted. My apologies as well. But isn't this argument getting just a WEE bit tired? Okay, here we go . . .

 

1. RED (or any digital motion picture acquisition) is only one of several alternatives to 35mm film.

2. Choosing a digital acquisition method offers an alternative to the costs associated with 35mm stock and processing.

3. Up until now, the defacto standard for high-end digital indie production was typically a Varicam or an F900.

4. RED offers much-improved resolution over the Varicam, and improved color space over the F900.

5. RED offers depth-of-field characteristics beyond F900-class, 2/3" imager-based cameras.

6. RED is more affordable to own than a Varicam or F900.

 

To me, RED is an F900-killer. That's my argument.

If there is a niche between the F900 and for 35mm then perhaps it has created a new space for films destined for the big screen. But the F900 is not just used for making cinema films its a whole lot more than that. With HD TV and even SD the F900 is a whole lot more than just a camera. I think the area where the red wins will be for those filmmakers wishing to use video for the big screen as opposed to film. My opinion is Film is better.

Edited by Mark Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a niche between the F900 and for 35mm then perhaps it has created a new space for films destined for the big screen. But the F900 is not just used for making cinema films its a whole lot more than that. With HD TV and even SD the F900 is a whole lot more than just a camera. I think the area where the red wins will be for those filmmakers wishing to use video for the big screen as opposed to film. My opinion is Film is better.

Yes, I believe that's generally it. I agree with your assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe that's generally it. I agree with your assessment.

 

But at this moment in time and from the footage we have seen the F900 is still better because the latitute wasn't there in the test film. However we have been promised it will be in the production model which is why we really have to wait until confirming the red is indeed an F900 beater!

 

I think its up to those wishing to replace their F900s with a red to do so on trust. Not a position I would be happy with myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only asked because the no. of films taking 100M + at the Box Office is fairly small. Therefore the no. of cinematographers shooting those films who have personally ordered a Red camera is under 1% of reservations & orders to date. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions.

 

Stephen

 

Why wouldn't any well-off cinematographer want to buy a RED? This is a brand new situation. The "Digital Cinematography" cameras that came before the RED were in the main, horribly expensive and mostly just tarted up HD ENG cameras. Plus, everything was so cloak and dagger you'd have to have been a complete fool to buy such a pig in a poke. How many people got to see any real-world footage from CineAltas on the big screen before they bought a ticket to Star Wars II? Did Sony/panavision go out of their way to show everyone how great it was? Like hell they did! They already knew the answer <_<

 

Compared to that, there's no question the RED works, and works well, and it's CHEAP! Maybe not Handycam cheap, but even if they didn't like its film-out they'd be hard-pressed not to find some useful work for it, even if it was just for rehearsals or casting. Even if they only used it as a glorified director's viewfinder it would still earn its keep!

Edited by Carl Brighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never and never will buy any sort of camera ,be it Red, super 8 S16 ,35mm or what ever it just doesnt make any finanical sense.

 

As a director, I never would have bought a film camera, because there's no point. It's one tiny part of the chain of processes involved. With a fully digital system you can control the workflow from the moment it's shot all the way to making final film prints without any additional expenditure after the initial outlay (in terms of stock/development and telecine hard costs) so it makes a lot of sense for me. I have a high def editing suite at home already, I can edit, I can colour correct, I can do 3d, I can do compositing, all up to a certain scale of course. And Red should be able to scale to the job required. And I can learn how to use the thing without spending a fortune in additional costs, so the time spent is not so precious - you can muck about doing tests in a casual way you could never afford to with 35mm, and *hopefully* without a major loss of quality compared with 35mm. Tests so far are promising anyway...

 

All the above makes zero difference on a commercial shoot of course, where you need a huge amount of people and resources beyond just the camera itself, but if you needed to do a quick pickup or insert shot, you can avoid the whole chain of cost. Never before could you do this digitally without a major quality hit, since hdv is much less likely to intercut seamlessly with 35mm.

 

Makes sense to me anyway. Each to their own.

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One really has to question the validity of Reduser.net. The admin over there is taking the "protection" of Red to an extreme.

 

One guy over there posted the following:

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

RED - The camera looks better

 

Film - The image looks better

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

And is now listed as "Banned." I mean come on lighten up. This guys silly post is some sort of threat?

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I saw his user name, OakleyKnockoffs, but again to me it's no big deal.

 

Just ignore him, why give him the PR by banning him?

 

It's your site of course you can do what you want.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Yeah I saw his user name, OakleyKnockoffs, but again to me it's no big deal.

 

Just ignore him, why give him the PR by banning him?

 

It's your site of course you can do what you want.

 

R,

 

Hi Richard,

 

That guy was lucky he was able to make 2 posts before he got banned. I remember somebody from this forum being banned on DVXUser after just 1 post!

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richard,

 

That guy was lucky he was able to make 2 posts before he got banned. I remember somebody from this forum being banned on DVXUser after just 1 post!

 

Stephen

 

 

In other news: cinematography.com is the last bastion of hope for a few DP's who refuse to bow to the idea that a 4K bayer chip can truly produce a 4K image.

 

Seriously though. These sites are supposed to be open forums where one should be able to discuss what ever one sees fit with other members of that forum. Now as long as one is not being directly abusive towards those other members and one keeps to the un-written "rules" of how to behave in a civilised manner then I see excluding someone as an irrational action and the forum moderators are treading a dangerous line between sensorship and "concern" for those other members when doing so.

 

fo·rum

n., pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr'?, f?r'?).

 

The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

A public meeting place for open discussion.

A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If a forum is too unmoderated, then a person can get away with merely being disruptive simply for the sake of offending as many other people as possible and then watching the fireworks that result.

 

I think many of us have been on the internet long enough to know the patterns of discussion threads that can result in different circumstances, and that rarely does anything good result from some types of confrontations. This is one of the reasons that CML is so heavily moderated.

 

It's good to err on the side of being overly open to any type of discourse, but there has to be limits for a forum to retain any practical value to its members. We've all seen various forums and usenet groups destroyed by trolls over time who take advantage of a lack of moderation.

 

I don't think the whole 4K issue is as black and white as you make it out to be. While, yes, it can be argued that de-Bayered 4K cannot truly be "4K" RGB, that there has to be some sort of resolution loss, in practical terms, what does it really mean?

 

De-Bayered 4K versus... what? A 4K camera with three RGB sensors? A 4K RGB scan of film? Are those the only practical 4K benchmarks to compared de-Bayered 4K? I mean, at some point, it's a lot of academic hair-splitting because we don't have many 3-sensor 4K cameras to compare a de-Bayered 4K camera to, and comparing to a 4K scan of a film frame introduces other issues into the mix. And while one could design a monochrome 4K single-sensor still camera and shoot through red, green, and then blue filters to create a digital 4K RGB image as a benchmark for what is "true 4K digital", again, what does that really mean and is there any practical application?

 

What really matters is whether the image compared favorably to well-shot 35mm in terms of resolution, in terms of fine detail rendered. That's all the really matters for a cinematographer in terms of this 4K issue, not whether it's really 3.5K or whatever. I mean, pixel resolution isn't really a measurement of image resolution anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a forum is too unmoderated, then a person can get away with merely being disruptive simply for the sake of offending as many other people as possible and then watching the fireworks that result.

 

Now we both know that 90% of the people who frequently post on these forums behave in a civilised manner. These are professionals who come to these pages to seek knowledge about their field of work, but there are those who also come to pick a fight. Now a forum would never work unless it was moderated. Even the old Romans understood that one needed a moderator of the forums. The danger comes when the moderators begin to mix politics into it and let their own personal agenda shine through.

 

I don't think the whole 4K issue is as black and white as you make it out to be. While, yes, it can be argued that de-Bayered 4K cannot truly be "4K" RGB, that there has to be some sort of resolution loss, in practical terms, what does it really mean?

 

I was just using it as a way to state my point regarding free speech in reference to some of the discussions that have been going on here and not as another never ending pointless discussion as to wether it is one thing or the other :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richard,

 

That guy was lucky he was able to make 2 posts before he got banned. I remember somebody from this forum being banned on DVXUser after just 1 post!

 

Stephen

 

Yes!! Hilarious!!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . for myself I find owning Kit is a pain.

 

I have never and never will buy any sort of camera ,be it Red, super 8 S16 ,35mm or what ever it just doesnt make any finanical sense.

Certainly in the film world, few would need or want to own a 35mm motion picture camera--this just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The traditional owner/operator model of doing ENG/EFP work, however, is more applicable here. But I imagine most customers' objective for owning RED is different. That said, I've never owned a broadcast video camera package to hire out as an owner/operator. It's far too much trouble, and too much worry. Sure, you make double your rate with a package, but you basically have to have available to your clients all of the resources of a traditional rental house: a runner to replace things that go down in the field, a rendundant unit for every key component of your package (camera, audio, etc.) to replace a broken one out on a job at a moment's notice, etc.

 

But I think many RED owners are like me. They plan on making their own short- and feature-length films. And owning the camera using this production model makes a lot of sense. Owning your own acquisition tools enables a lot of things. You can shoot tons of beauty shots, magic hour shots, e.g., "stock shots," that you can later use in your short- or feature-length personal films. These kinds of shots often either rarely occur, occur without notice, or occur unpredictably. Those of you who live in L.A. know how rare clouds are here. After an unexpected rain shower, someone who owns their own acquisition tools, can just go out and grab all their "cloud" and "cloud with L.A. skyline" shots they need, and then bank the shot, for use later. By the time you could book a rental, drive to pick it up, then drive to your location, the shot would be over.

Edited by Ralph Oshiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the key difference among us is, there are filmmakers who want to shoot their own projects, and there are those (who have no interest in owning a camera) who have no such aspiriations, and are perfectly fulfilled by applying their craft on other's projects. Or, perhaps, some of you do want to shoot your own projects, but only if green-lit at a much higher budget than you would personally care to invest (and you would choose to shoot 35mm anyway, in that case). So I think there's a lot of crosstalk on this board that results from assuming that we all have the same sort of goals. We don't. How many film DPs are there here that have shot a personal short film in the last 12 months? How many film DPs here want to? How many don't?

Edited by Ralph Oshiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Carl,

 

How could I answer for others, for myself I find owning Kit is a pain.

 

Stephen

 

Yes but we're in a different world now (or we will be when Jannard is able to crank up his production line to meet all his orders!)

 

Video cameras in general don't wear out or need anywhere near as much maintenance as film cameras. Up until now, the most problematic part of a camcorder (of any sort) has always been the tape deck. If you have a HD camera like the RED with essentially no moving parts, and the ability to take whatever cine lens sets you own or have access to, you're talking about a totally different ball game.

 

If a RED cost the same as a fully kitted 435 or Arricam, well yes, most people would be happy to continue renting. But it's not anywhere near the price of one of those! And I'm sure that any pro cinematographer worth his or her salt would soon be able to earn enough on the side using a RED to pay back the purchase cost, and get some real-word experience at the same time.

 

Plus you don't have to pay for film or processing while you're getting up to speed.

 

Mind you, many of the more fervent RED-Heads wouldn't be able to get up to speed with hurricane Katrina behind them :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think many RED owners are like me.

 

What? you don't exist? :lol:

 

As far as I know, at present the only "RED owners" are Jim Jannard and a couple of his close cohorts.

 

Somebody else also made reference to the "Red User Base", but I can't find the post now.

 

Look let's not get Previous the Script here; I have no doubt that Jannard will eventually start shipping product, but it hasn't happened yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...