Jump to content

RED production schedule


Carl Brighton

Recommended Posts

Well, you sound like a reasonable guy, Michael. In fact, I'm sure if all of us were in the same room, we'd all get along fine. But you've got to admit, the tone of these forums tends to be extremely condescending. I'm just continually surprised how many here, who claim not to have any serious interest in RED, seem compelled to continue to post here to "teach us a lesson" about one thing or another. Even your need to "enlighten" me in your last post is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? I mean, even if we are all a bunch of idiots for buying into RED, why do you all even care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 495
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm just continually surprised how many here, who claim not to have any serious interest in RED, seem compelled to continue to post here to "teach us a lesson" about one thing or another. Even your need to "enlighten" me in your last post is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? I mean, even if we are all a bunch of idiots for buying into RED, why do you all even care?

Ralph,

 

Did it occur to you that most here are not so much trying to teach you anything, but are responding to your and other's gratuitous marketing of this not quite a product yet? I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious in pointing out that most of the members of this site are working camera operators, so why does it surprise you that we are a bit skeptical of the hyped up marketing of an untested product? Moreover, what is the motivation behind your personal crusade? I am not trying to be sarcastic. It is a sincere question.

Edited by Ken Cangi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Maybe. But keep in mind, Red owners will have:

 

1) Full-time access to the camera, to practice whenever they want.

2) Real-time direct feedback at 1080p and though Red's focus assist software.

3) The ability to shoot lots of footage (to check focus on a big screen) without burning through film stock.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there's nobody in the history of focus pulling who has had all of these advantages while learning how to pull 35mm-format focus.

 

Hi Chris,

 

Keep in mind you will less DOF using a Red than shooting on 35mm film and way less than shooting with a Mini 35 adapter. You probably don't believe me!

 

FWIW I was shooting with a Viper last week, one difficult shot required over 100 takes to get it in focus. I always read on forums that with 2/3" cameras you get too much DOF, and a focus puller is not needed!

 

As you would need to be on a moving dolly, following a moving actor to practice follow focus it may not be as easy as you think.

 

As an owner of a 35mm film camera I can practice following focus for free too! I can tell from the eyepiece if I nailed it, so no need to shoot film. That is the beauty of a real eyepiece.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph,

 

Did it occur to you that most here are not so much trying to teach you anything, but are responding to your and other's gratuitous marketing of this not quite a product yet? I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious in pointing out that most of the members of this site are working camera operators, so why does it surprise you that we are a bit skeptical of the hyped up marketing of an untested product? Moreover, what is the motivation behind your personal crusade? I am not trying to be sarcastic. It is a sincere question.

Well, Ken, it would be my pleasure to answer your post, sincerely, without a sneer on my face, without any snide sarcasm, and without tongue-in-cheek. See? Why can't our posts here just be a bit more civil? You asked me a simple question, without any name-calling. My motivation behind my personal crusade? I just thought some here were excessively rude, and no one seemed to be calling anyone out on it. Your above reply may be the first, from among those who aren't fans of RED here, that I've received, that didn't also come with an insulting or grossly condescending comment attached. Let me respond in full a bit later . . . gotta take care of some GF stuff right now . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious in pointing out that most of the members of this site are working camera operators, so why does it surprise you that we are a bit skeptical of the hyped up marketing of an untested product?

Well, I dunno, but it does surprise me. I think RED has published ample data to show that they're for real, IMO. I've read all the publicly announced benchmarks that RED promised, and the RED team delivered on every one of them, as scheduled. I've seen the test footage and frame grabs online (but missed the 4K projection demo in L.A.), and found them to be very compelling "evidence" of their progress. If this were company 'X' with unknown financial assets, I too would be very suspect. But this is a company run by a person with few financial constraints. And it's obvious that Jim has a genuine passion for filmmaking, and according to what I've read, he's a highly accomplished image-maker in his own right.

 

Look, I've been to more NABs and SMPTEs than I care to remember. And I can smell vaporware as well as the next guy. This time it's different. If I'm wrong, I make $100. If I'm right, I make a movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not stoke the fires, but I got bored and thought, well, let's look at what's being said here . . .

 

[And I'm TOTALLY paraphrasing here . . .]

 

1. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll be so surprised by how hard it is to follow-focus, you'll just throw up your hands and stop shooting.

 

2. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll never be able to afford the finishing system.

 

3. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll never be able to afford to accessorize it.

 

4. Okay, even if RED does come out, you won't be able to pony up the $16,500 remaining balance.

 

5. Okay, even if RED does come out, DeBayered images suck ass.

 

6. Okay, even if RED does come out, it won't matter, because it's all about story anyway.

 

7. Okay, even if RED does come out, and you start shooting stuff with it, and you start showing it to people in Hollywood, "You'll never work in this town again!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll be so surprised by how hard it is to follow-focus, you'll just throw up your hands and stop shooting.

Make no mistake about it--S35-sized image-area follow-focus with large apertures is gonna be a bitch.

 

2. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll never be able to afford the finishing system.

Right! But I'm only going to archive the 4K masters, and immediately transcode to 1080p for finishing.

 

3. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll never be able to afford to accessorize it.

I already own most of the accesories I need.

 

4. Okay, even if RED does come out, you won't be able to pony up the $16,500 remaining balance.

Yes, I will.

 

5. Okay, even if RED does come out, DeBayered images suck ass.

They looked pretty good to me.

 

6. Okay, even if RED does come out, it won't matter, because it's all about story anyway.

I think my scripts are coming along quite nicely.

 

8. Okay, even if RED does come out, film is still better.

I never said it wasn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not stoke the fires, but I got bored and thought, well, let's look at what's being said here . . .

 

[And I'm TOTALLY paraphrasing here . . .]

 

1. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll be so surprised by how hard it is to follow-focus, you'll just throw up your hands and stop shooting.

 

2. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll never be able to afford the finishing system.

 

3. Okay, even if RED does come out, you'll never be able to afford to accessorize it.

 

4. Okay, even if RED does come out, you won't be able to pony up the $16,500 remaining balance.

 

5. Okay, even if RED does come out, DeBayered images suck ass.

 

6. Okay, even if RED does come out, it won't matter, because it's all about story anyway.

 

7. Okay, even if RED does come out, and you start shooting stuff with it, and you start showing it to people in Hollywood, "You'll never work in this town again!"

 

You left out:

"We've heard the same sort of poop a dozen times before from a variety of manufacturers, and none of their products has come close to living up to the hype. Why exactly should the RED be any different, particularly coming from a manufacturer whose commercial expertise starts and stops with manufacturing sunglasses?"

 

In point 7 above one might be moved to retort :"Again?!"

 

I can't noticing a disturbing similarity in the fanboys who post here. They always misrepresent our arguments in more or less the same way, and they always seem to use some variant on the phrase: "Gotta go now, I've got work to do ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8. Okay, even if RED does come out, film is still better.

I think Francesco may have hit the nail on the head. It may not be about Jim or RED, or any of that. It may just be the old "film is better" argument. I hate the way HDW-F900s look, compared with film. HATE IT! CAN'T F*CKING STAND IT! No matter what we do with our pull-down cadence, our frame rate, our gamma curves, our colorimetry settings, video always somehow looks "different." But with RED, it's "different" looks pretty good. No digital imaging system I've ever seen emulates the look of film perfectly. Only film looks like film. I don't have to tell you guys that modern color negative has incredible visual properties, compared with film stocks of just two decades ago. Contrast-handling, color gamut, culturally-ingrained "film" aesthetic--that's all film's domain. But the "film is better" argument is not my argument here. The "I can shoot whatever I want, whenever I want, with no stock/processing cost, with 35mm-class, cine-style depth-of-field, and have it look pretty good" is my argument. Right now, the best game in town toward that goal for the money is RED.

 

"Gotta go now, I've got work to do ..."

Hey Carl! It wasn't "work" that I had to do with my GF!

 

 

You left out:

"We've heard the same sort of poop a dozen times before from a variety of manufacturers, and none of their products has come close to living up to the hype.

Well, that's exactly my point, Carl! I've heard this poop from a sh*tload of manufacturers before, too! I know the drill. This one seems different. I already said why. Tell me what you think after NAB. Loser buys at the overpriced Starbucks concession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Ralph. Just admit that you work for Red. Yours is not a casual defense of the project. You have avoided answering that question several times. So many NAD's tells me that you are involved in the marketing of this rig, which would explain your bias.

 

Here is Jannard's mistake, as I see it: He is marketing an untested product to movie industry professionals, who depend on those tools to feed their families, and he is using the same hyped-up approach that he used to market fashion accessories to the general public. Consequently, it should be no surprise to you that untested tools are regularly met with acute skepticism until they have proven themselves in the field.

 

What you are doing is asking us to take your word, because of some footage that you've seen, that this camera is the real deal. First question: Who the hell are you that we should accept your word for anything? I have asked you, three times, what your connection to Red is, and you have conveniently avoided answering me on every occasion. If you do work for Jannard, you are making him look as bad as he made his self look last time he entered this forum. At least he was wise enough to realize that arguing the merits of a ghost, with professional camera operators, was not in his best interest.

 

If you are looking for politically correct pillow talk, you are probably in the wrong place. It is pretty clear that the consensus on this board is that the proof will be in the pudding - or not. Let the camera speak for itself.

 

KC

Edited by Ken Cangi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge, there's nobody in the history of focus pulling who has had all of these advantages while learning how to pull 35mm-format focus.

 

I dunno, there's nothing like figuring it out as you go with 15 people behind you looking at the video tap monitor :D

 

-Sam "sweat equity" Wells

 

 

FWIW I was shooting with a Viper last week, one difficult shot required over 100 takes to get it in focus. I always read on forums that with 2/3" cameras you get too much DOF, and a focus puller is not needed!

 

No for eye focus it's more difficult with more DOF sometimes, you can't 'read' the oof texture & bokeh & change of same etc as clearly.

 

-Sam Wells

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
-Sam "sweat equity" Wells

No for eye focus it's more difficult with more DOF sometimes, you can't 'read' the oof texture & bokeh & change of same etc as clearly.

 

-Sam Wells

 

Hi Sam,

 

The shot started with 3mm DOF & ended up with 12mm (1/2 inch). It was obvious on a 6 inch monitor when the focus puller got it right, no need to look at anything bigger!

 

Funny thing I have done similar shots on 35mm stopped down 1/2 a stop more & had less problems. I think it will ber very difficult to pull off some of the focus pulls I am used to on a RED.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let Red come out - what has anybody got against it? Think about, it can only do good. It won't in anyway harm the film industry, so why bother fighting it? If it's better than cameras with the same price, then you can use it, but don't actively go against it. If you're going against it to equal out the people who are supporting Red with enthusiasm, think about it this way; they will help the film industry and its evolution, you won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing that this is a cinematography forum, where people generally either ask for help, or share their experience with others seeking advice, it's no wonder that people become so annoyed with those that would use this forum merely to endlessly promote their fantasy camera. Consequently, they've offered nothing useful to those on this forum who want to learn more about cinematography, but have instead merely wasted space trying to pummel us into sharing their excitement (with barely concealed desperation). No wonder people get annoyed, and would like these obsessed crusaders to give us a break. Who is it you're trying so desperately to convince...us or yourselves?

 

Yeah, the nerve those guys have, coming over here and talking about the RED camera in the RED forum. Some people.

 

Seriously, go read Reduser.net. Yes, there is mindless fanboyism and rampant speculation. There are also a lot of meaningful discussions about what tools to use when working with the footage, how to store the footage, what sort of packages people are planning to buy, how the sample footage looked, what people saw at the screenings, what insurance to get, what tax incentives there are in various states, etc. There is enough information out there about the camera that one can meaningfully discuss these things.

 

What this forum should be is that sort of discussion... with the addition of contributions from the folks here who have years of industry experience. There are a few people who do this... I appreciate the contributions Stephen Williams makes, for instance. But a lot of you guys seem to refuse to take the camera seriously enough to post anything other than skepticism. It's always the same arguments, some of which are obvious nonsense, and the tone is often very patronizing or downright insulting. This doesn't contribute anything useful. I'm frankly not sure I understand what would motivate someone to post in a forum about a camera they don't believe will really exist or will matter if it does. Are you looking for a fight?

 

As you would need to be on a moving dolly, following a moving actor to practice follow focus it may not be as easy as you think.

 

Seems to me there are a fair number of simpler exercises that one could benefit from, particularly early on building the skill up from nothing.

 

As an owner of a 35mm film camera I can practice following focus for free too! I can tell from the eyepiece if I nailed it, so no need to shoot film. That is the beauty of a real eyepiece.

 

Sure, but pulling focus looking through an eyepiece isn't quite the same as pulling focus as a camera assistant, and I would suspect (though it's hard to know for sure) that a 1080p screen or the output of the focus assist software will make it easier to judge focus than an optical viewfinder. Particularly for people who haven't spent a lot of time looking through optical viewfinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph you do know that framing the questions and then answering them yourself is a bogus way of dealing with these issues. It just makes you look foolish.

 

And theres always a Fransesco that comes on and stirs the pot with "film is better" and now it gives fanbots free rein to paint everyone with that brush. Again foolish.

 

And please stop being so sensitive to words like enlighten and foolish. Trying to wrap the use of those words around you as protection to make your point.

 

Focus pulling is at least a two person process. More complcated moving shots will require more people to pull proper focus like a dolly grip etc., and no matter if you have 24 hour access to the cam you will never be able to practice those shots. Seems some of you are going to do this alone. Can't be done no matter how much new tech the cam has. One operates, one takes measurements and pulls focus the dolly grip better be on his mark, an AD may have to cue someone, the actor may be a drifter of just two inches and on and on. And the focus puller better be on their toes especially in low light situations where its crazy tough even for a veteran focus puller to keep it itogether.

 

I'll also go back to the Phil Rhodes and Graeme Nattress tech questions. Phil asked a question and from what i could tell never got a real answer. It seems like an attempt to dazzle me with all the form factor stuff but a real important tech question gets answered as if one were at a political debate. Thats what I believe is the essence of the issue on this board about this camera. And don't get me wrong i think Graeme is one of the more knowledgeable people around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Sure, but pulling focus looking through an eyepiece isn't quite the same as pulling focus as a camera assistant, and I would suspect (though it's hard to know for sure) that a 1080p screen or the output of the focus assist software will make it easier to judge focus than an optical viewfinder. Particularly for people who haven't spent a lot of time looking through optical viewfinders.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I know a talented DOP who is going blind, his focus puller will always know if he got the shot or not! I think the cost to production in time wasted viewing footage just to see if it was in focus will outweigh the cost of hiring a pro. focus pulller in the first place.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Focus-pulling at 35mm-level depth of field characteristics will always be part science, part art. Anyone who hasn't shot 35mm should listen to those of us who say it's a real challenge, a very real problem to be solved. I have to deal with it everyday on my current TV series, and it's even worse for material to be projected theatrically. You have no idea how hard it is, how critical it is.

 

I was just driving home the other day thinking about what if I ever shot a 4K feature on the Dalsa or RED camera, and if it were viable and practical for the focus puller to have a large enough 1080P monitor to judge focus on. But if you've ever been on a film set, you know the problems with this technique, which are many:

 

You either have to have a large monitor near the camera, which is difficult if the camera moves, or you have the focus puller with a remote device over at a monitor at a remove, which is difficult if they now are no longer sitting at the lens looking at the actors in real life, because then they will be late if all they see of the actors is what appears on the monitor. They need to both see physical distances with their eyes and look at the monitor, and that's tricky. Otherwise, if all you see is a monitor and the actor goes soft, you will have to guess correctly whether you are focused too near or too far, because refocusing the lens back & forth to find the focus will ruin the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
or you have the focus puller with a remote device over at a monitor at a remove, which is difficult if they now are no longer sitting at the lens looking at the actors in real life, because then they will be late if all they see of the actors is what appears on the monitor.

That's exactly it. When you see that an actor is soft, it is already too late. Focus-pulling is about anticipation, not correction. A good focus-puller keeps the focus in sync with the actor, not trailing behind while he checks on a monitor to get it sharp.

 

Anyone who thinks that they don't need a focus-puller when shooting with 35mm depth of field has no idea what they are talking about. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that they don't need a focus-puller when shooting with 35mm depth of field has no idea what they are talking about. Period.

 

I haven't seen anyone say a focus puller isn't necessary. I've only said that focus pulling is a learnable skill and someone with regular access to a RED will be in a better position than most to learn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Max,

 

I think that deep focus will become a hot topic later this year.

 

Stephen

I get the distinct impression that most of the RedUser Fanboys experience with focussing starts and stops with handycams with 1/5" (or less) CCD sensors, where the depth of field is about the same as a football field! You woudn't believe how many idiots I've had the misfortune to get into a conversation with who think the wide depth of field is actually a defect of 35mm still cameras!

 

Another point that rarely gets mentioned is that most video cameras rely on artificial edge correction to get their apparent sharpness. The major problem with this is that the camera doesn't know that some parts of the image are meant to be out of focus, and dutifully tries to sharpen those up as well. With small-format imagers used for newsgathering and the like, this one-size-fits-all approach is actually an advantage because it lets relatively inexperienced operators get sharply focussed shots under difficult conditions and where there is no chance of a reshoot.

 

However for studio drama productions this can be a real pain. The first time I saw this was on the third (I think) season of the Canadian/German Sci Fi show "Lexx" where they started using an HDW 700 for some scenes. They tried running with the iris wide open for some of the critical shots, but they still couldn't get enough DOF and the overall focus was getting marginal. Later they switched to the HDW-F900 which seems to be better, possibly because it uses less detail correction or maybe just does a better job of it.

 

I noticed that for the most recent season anyway, they went back to film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...