RED production schedule

[Francesco Bonomo]

The red is a box that can take information from a lens and record it as HD data on tape.

 

if you change last sentence a little bit you can apply it to any film camera too.

 

The rest is up to the user.

 

that's always true.

 

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.

 

From what I understand, the Red doesn't really belong to the miniDV segment of the market, both in terms of quality and price.

 

I don't really know where this thread is going, I can't understand why some people want this camera to fail so bad.

[K Borowski]

if you change last sentence a little bit you can apply it to any film camera too.

that's always true.

From what I understand, the Red doesn't really belong to the miniDV segment of the market, both in terms of quality and price.

 

I don't really know where this thread is going, I can't understand why some people want this camera to fail so bad.

 

Francesco, I never said a film camera is any different. I also didn't say a Red was in the mini-DV segment. So why are you trying to make my post out as if I am disagreeing with Red. I make no apollogies for prefering film, but I don't really knock cameras that try to be innovative (just the people that use those cameras, and especially those who use them, then lie and say they're better than film ;-)

[Francesco Bonomo]

So why are you trying to make my post out as if I am disagreeing with Red. I make no apollogies for prefering film, but I don't really knock cameras that try to be innovative (just the people that use those cameras, and especially those who use them, then lie and say they're better than film ;-)

 

I apologize if I misunderstood your words, Karl, but if I understand your thought correctly, you're assuming that people would spend $25,000 to buy it just because they're sick of their MiniDV cameras and they blame them for not being able to capture their masterpieces.

I don't think that Red "fans" are like that: some of them, maybe 1%, are, but 99% are working professionals who are investing (big) money on a new tool. And if they think it's better than film, I don't really see anything wrong with it...it's just technology, and it's not going to make movies any better.

[Werner Klipsch]

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

I know that this is widely believed and widely quoted, but nonetheless it is incorrect.

 

The actual resolution of an electronic display or recording system has two parts.

 

The first is the base resolution of the system. With a more recent LCD HDTV monitor, it will consist of 1920 x 1080 RGB pixels on the screen. (In fact, there will really be three times this, since each "pixel" is made up of a red, green and blue pixel).

What that means is that the system is capable of displaying a picture made up of 1920 vertical lines, in actuality 960 black lines on a white background.

 

The same applies to a full HD video recorder in that it can store 1920 x 1080 pixel images.

 

 

However, even though the recording or image may be made up of 1920 x 1080 pixels, by no means does this mean the actual resolution of the picture has this value. For example, domestic VHS only has a horizontal resolution of about 200 lines, but most HD TV sets will happily display those signals. The screen imnage has to be made up of 1920 pixels horizontally no mater what, so basically, each VHS "pixel" is spread over about 10 HD pixels

 

 

The"4:4:4" or similar notation is the second part of the description. The proper terminology is 1080 line 4:4:4 (or whatever). If it's 4:4:4 that means that the 1920 x 1080 display grid is being used to its maximum ability it is capable of, that is 1920 x 1080 equal bandwidth RGB pixels.

 

1080 line 4:2:2 means a lesser signal, but one that is perfectly adequate for large screen non-interlaced displays. 4:1:1 means it has all the bandwidth that can be used by an interlaced scan TV set.

 

The earlier Sony HD Digital betacam recorders could only record 1440 pixels horizontally and so they were described as 3:1:1, but that really meant 1080 3:1:1

 

If you had a video camera that could produce 4000 RGB pixels across the screen, that would be a 4K 4:4:4 camera. 22:22:22 is meaningless as an American saying "I have forty quarters" when he really has ten dollars.

[Troy Warr]

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.

This statement is all well and good when you're judging the Red One based on its improvements over the miniDV or Super-8 formats. Unfortunately, I don't think that the majority of the target users of the camera are upgrading from miniDV or Super-8.

 

Karl, your Auricon may suit you just fine for the type of work that *you* do. I also have a lowest-budget-possible mentality, but the nature of the industry is that some folks need to use very expensive equipment to realize the production quality that is dictated by industry standards. $25,000 is a hell of a lot of money to me, too, and I don't think that even most "West Coast" folks would sneeze at that kind of cash. It's dismissive to assume that anyone looking at a Red One (granted, except for Jim Jannard himself) can or will plunk down that kind of money on a whim.

 

The Red One's apparent promise is that such image quality can be had for a fraction of the price of traditional methods like 35mm film or very high-quality video like the Thomson Viper. Whether or not the camera delivers on this or any other promises remains to be seen, and it's useless to speculate, as the design of the camera is not even yet finalized.

[A. Whitehouse]

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.

 

Why did you quote me? Im not part of any revolution, Im not power tripping in the least...

[Michael Most]

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.

 

If you're an "ultra low budget production" - and I would translate that as "do it yourself, no money, personal project" - you really can't afford a $30K-$40K (minimum) camera package, which is what Red is once you make it usable (i.e., lenses, accessories, etc.)

 

I really don't know why the DV "wannabes" are drooling over Red when it's been made very clear that its something they can't afford - not to mention figure out a post path for. I guess hype has a way of disguising even the most obvious truths.

[Chad Stockfleth]

and around and around and around we go.......

[Troy Warr]

I really don't know why the DV "wannabes" are drooling over Red when it's been made very clear that its something they can't afford - not to mention figure out a post path for. I guess hype has a way of disguising even the most obvious truths.

I think the fascination lies in the fact that the pinnacle of DV imaging - currently only high-priced workhorses like Viper, CineAlta, Dalsa - that are way out of reach for most aspiring filmmakers, could potentially become much cheaper. Anyone who is serious about digital video knows these cameras and companies, and likely aspires to one day be able to climb the ladder far enough to be able to shoot with this kind of equipment. If Red lives up to the expectations, then the ladder immediately gets much shorter.

 

But, I think that kind of excitement can lead people to forget (or at least not want to acknowledge) that there's still an entry price that's well above their means. I'm a car guy, and I got very excited when the Lancer Evolution came onto the American scene and could trounce some sports cars costing $100,000 or more. That still doesn't change the fact that I drive a Mazda pickup that cost me $10,000.

[Mitch Gross]

Well, I guess one could choose to put some Nikons on a RED and call it a day. But the REALITY of the REAL PRODUCTION WORLD will not be doing this. Even most people using the cheapo 35 adaptors for their MiniDV cameras all want Zeiss SuperSpeeds. So to stick some inexpensive Nikons on a 4k camera may be possible, but not realistic. If ou want to do it to make your little indie film be my guest, but 1500 RED cameras are not going to be used in this fashion, not by a longshot.

[Chris Kenny]

Well, I guess one could choose to put some Nikons on a RED and call it a day. But the REALITY of the REAL PRODUCTION WORLD will not be doing this.

 

Not to put too find a point on it, but I strongly suspect this statement relies on a circular definition of what constitutes the "real production world".

 

Even most people using the cheapo 35 adaptors for their MiniDV cameras all want Zeiss SuperSpeeds. So to stick some inexpensive Nikons on a 4k camera may be possible, but not realistic. If ou want to do it to make your little indie film be my guest, but 1500 RED cameras are not going to be used in this fashion, not by a longshot.

 

You need fast lenses with those 35 adaptors, because they typically lose a fair bit of light.

 

Nikon photo lenses clearly have the optical quality to produce good 4K or better images. They do it on high-end dSLR photo cameras millions of times a day! Racking focus with these lenses probably won't be much fun, and some models breathe more than one would want for a motion picture lens... but they're not going to create blurry images, or have unacceptable levels of flaring or distortion.

 

While there is some actual material difference in quality between cine lenses and photo lenses, it is not nearly as large as the cost differential would suggest. Cine lenses are in large part so expensive simply because they sell in extremely small volumes.

[Stephen Williams]

While there is some actual material difference in quality between cine lenses and photo lenses, it is not nearly as large as the cost differential would suggest. Cine lenses are in large part so expensive simply because they sell in extremely small volumes.

 

Hi Chris,

 

Having tested 35mm Nikon primes V a 30 year old Cooke 20-100 bought on Ebay, I can tell you¨there is a huge difference between the quality of motion picture glass and still lenses.

 

Big problem that is not what people want to hear.

 

Stephen

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Nikon photo lenses clearly have the optical quality to produce good 4K or better images. They do it on high-end dSLR photo cameras millions of times a day!

 

While there is some actual material difference in quality between cine lenses and photo lenses, it is not nearly as large as the cost differential would suggest. Cine lenses are in large part so expensive simply because they sell in extremely small volumes.

 

& how large of an image are these photos shown at? a 4x6 print? a magazine page?

 

& the mechanical constuction? might the cine lenses have a higher degree of precision and tolerances than mass produced lenses?

Edited February 8, 2007 by Leo Anthony Vale

[Francesco Bonomo]

Having tested 35mm Nikon primes V a 30 year old Cooke 20-100 bought on Ebay, I can tell you¨there is a huge difference between the quality of motion picture glass and still lenses.

 

There's a huge difference, that's true, but it also depends a lot on the lens itself: for instance, there are many differences between the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and 1.4, so a lens by lens test would be required.

No one is expecting a 500$ lens to outperform a 40.000$ cine-lens, but there are some SLR lenses that could do a very good job anyway. The new Zeiss lenses for Nikon sound very promising (I still have to test them), considering their price, especially theT2/100, based on the optical design originally developed for the ARRI/ZEISS Master Prime T1.2/100

[Stephen Williams]

There's a huge difference, that's true, but it also depends a lot on the lens itself: for instance, there are many differences between the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and 1.4, so a lens by lens test would be required.

No one is expecting a 500$ lens to outperform a 40.000$ cine-lens, but there are some SLR lenses that could do a very good job anyway. The new Zeiss lenses for Nikon sound very promising (I still have to test them), considering their price, especially theT2/100, based on the optical design originally developed for the ARRI/ZEISS Master Prime T1.2/100

 

Hi,

 

Handling is probably more important than optical quality, the 30 year old Cooke will also be hugely more user friendly, with a hugely expanded focus range and minimal breathing. For stock photography & background plates the new Zeiss (nikon mount) will perform very well.

 

Stephen

[Francesco Bonomo]

Handling is probably more important than optical quality, the 30 year old Cooke will also be hugely more user friendly, with a hugely expanded focus range and minimal breathing. For stock photography & background plates the new Zeiss (nikon mount) will perform very well.

 

Stephen, that's exactly my point...I'm not saying people would use Nikon lenses on Red to shoot feature films (and we have yet to find out if the camera will be capable of producing pictures that are good enough for that purpose anyway), but in theory they could use those lenses for other things.

Going through the Red forums i can see there are many users who are spending more than $80k for a whole kit, including camera and lenses. Personally, I think it would feel quite strange to use a $200 lens on a $18,000 camera, but I'm sure there are people who will try to do that (and my feeling is they will be quite disappointed by the results).

[Max Jacoby]

Going through the Red forums i can see there are many users who are spending more than $80k for a whole kit, including camera and lenses. Personally, I think it would feel quite strange to use a $200 lens on a $18,000 camera, but I'm sure there are people who will try to do that (and my feeling is they will be quite disappointed by the results).

On a related note, that rumor about Cooke making the Red zoom might not be as far fetched than people think, since Cooke have a history of making custom zoom lenses for Technovision among others. But given the price, I would not expect a performance from the Red zoom that is up to the usual Cooke standard.

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Chris,

 

Having tested 35mm Nikon primes V a 30 year old Cooke 20-100 bought on Ebay, I can tell you¨there is a huge difference between the quality of motion picture glass and still lenses.

 

In terms of the quality of the image that ends on on the film/sensor, or just in terms of handling and breathing and such? I think people who are considering photo lenses are mostly aware of the problems with the latter. Some people also seem to believe there are serious problems with the former, but I think examining a frame from a Nikon DX2 taken with decent Nikon glass reveals that such concerns are basically unfounded.

[K Borowski]

Why did you quote me? Im not part of any revolution, Im not power tripping in the least...

 

Sorry, I hit the quote button by mistake, although your comment about Red posters becoming Red users was part of what I was one of the posts my reply was addressing. I don't think a lot of those people's becoming Red users will change anything.

 

Let me put this as a car analogy. I didn't come up with this quote myself, it was a groom or groomsman from a wedding I did a while back: "You mean the guys that buy a $10,000 Honda Civic, put $20,000 of custom modifications into it and still have a $10,000 Honda Civic?" You can use a $60,000 camera to shoot your crummy movie and still have a crummy movie.

 

I mean, look at movies like Blair Witch Project and a whole bunch of made for TV movies shot on SD tape. Look at documentaries shot on Super 8 or 400-speed Video News Film 16mm that have become famous. Pi certainly isn't a "Hi-definition product". It's not what the resolution of your movie that matters, it's the story you tell with it.

 

Same thing's true with still photography. I have a book that has all of the Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs. There are shots taken with Box Brownies, the '50s equivalent of disposable camras. There are shots that are enlarged from individual frames of 35mm movie film that won the prize. The most famous of WWII pictures was from a frame of 8 perf 35mm still film that was partially melted in a darkroom mishap. Need I go on? I've taken pictures for newspapers using aa $100 SLR witha $50 lens that were occasionally better than the $8000 DLSRs next to me.

 

There's a minimum standard. Obviously you couldn't use a box brownie or a disposable camera to shoot sports, but you can use some old beat-up equipment and do it for far less than the $10,000 newspapers are putting into their systems.

 

Frankly, I think the best student filmmakers are the ones that master cutting corners and working with shoestring budgets. THey tend to make the best movies when they're actually given a lot of money because they know what to do with it, not the rick kids whose parents gave them $50,000 to shoot their student thesis films on 35mm.

 

Becoming a good filmmaker has mostly to do with your ability to light and tell a story visually, to create compelling images. It's easier to do that with higher-resolution cameras, but let's face it, even VHS is good enough to tell a story visually that people can identify with.

 

There was a post earlier that said something about digital distribution going to revolutionize hollywood filmmaking. There you go again with that word. If by "revolution" you mean destroying an established industry with 100 years of history and two major film manufacturers as well, then yes it will be a revolution. Theatres will close across the country, and all we'll ahve to watch are $50,000 horror films distributed on the internet. I can hardly wait. . .

[Chris Kenny]

& how large of an image are these photos shown at? a 4x6 print? a magazine page?

 

It's not unheard of to use 35mm stills on billboards.

 

& the mechanical constuction? might the cine lenses have a higher degree of precision and tolerances than mass produced lenses?

 

I would expect so. And they're probably individually tested, etc. As I said, there is some difference. It's just not as large as the price difference would suggest. IOW, if cine lenses benefited from the same economies of scale as photo lenses, you might see them only costing three or four times as much, instead of often costing 20 times or more what photo lenses cost.

[Chris Kenny]

There was a post earlier that said something about digital distribution going to revolutionize hollywood filmmaking. There you go again with that word. If by "revolution" you mean destroying an established industry with 100 years of history and two major film manufacturers as well, then yes it will be a revolution. Theatres will close across the country, and all we'll ahve to watch are $50,000 horror films distributed on the internet. I can hardly wait. . .

 

I'd actually expect much more diversity and much more interesting stuff happening in a market where there are a larger number of cheaper movies. If you make a $100M film, it practically has to be lowest-common-denominator, because you need millions of people to see it to even have a chance of turning a profit. If you make a $50K movie, all you have to do is get 10K people to buy it for $9.99 on iTunes (if it opens up to indies, which I think is inevitable), and you're in pretty good shape.

 

Digital theatrical projection has interesting implications as well. I will allow movies to start off in a small number of theaters, and, if they're being well received, scale up to much larger distribution far faster, because there's no need to strike additional film prints. This could result in traditional distributors being more likely to agree to distribute non-mainstream stuff in the first place (it eliminates some risk), and conceivably could even lead to cases of self-distribution actually working (which it essentially hasn't, historically).

 

Digital projection also opens up theaters to new types of content that aren't seen much now. Archival stuff would be much easier to show (you don't have to obtain a print, you just have to download some data), local stuff would probably get in the door more often... it even opens theaters to live broadcasts.

 

It's hard to make the case that this is going to be less interesting than the current system, dominated by a handful of large players producing and/or distributing primarily mass-market product.

[K Borowski]

Yeah, you're absolutely right, look how the introduction of cheap digital audio mastering revolutionized that market.

 

Come on, you're dreaming. If major studios fail I doubt we'll see half of the good films we see today, and that is half of a small number anyway.

[Chris Kenny]

Yeah, you're absolutely right, look how the introduction of cheap digital audio mastering revolutionized that market.

 

Cheap digital audio mastering is the music industry equivalent of cheap 35mm-quality digital acquisition, which we've already agreed won't, by itself, change the industry radically.

 

Cheap digital music distribution is another matter. That's already causing the industry to seriously rethink some things, and it's barely had enough time to really get underway so far.

 

Come on, you're dreaming. If major studios fail I doubt we'll see half of the good films we see today, and that is half of a small number anyway.

 

A significant fraction of interesting movies are already made outside of the studio system, though they may be sold to major distributors. Independent filmmaking is hardly a new phenomenon. I'm sure you're aware of this. Do you believe that the collapse of the major studios would undermine independent film as well?

 

Seems to me that revenue models other than "Let's make this and then try to sell it to one of the big guys (even though they're going to keep most of the money)!" would be pretty good for the world of independent film.

 

Anyway, I disagree with the premise you're arguing from. It isn't likely the major studios will collapse, nor is this necessary for something to occur which could validly be called revolutionary. Conditions will change significantly; major studios will re-invent themselves.

[Stephen Williams]

I would expect so. And they're probably individually tested, etc. As I said, there is some difference. It's just not as large as the price difference would suggest. IOW, if cine lenses benefited from the same economies of scale as photo lenses, you might see them only costing three or four times as much, instead of often costing 20 times or more what photo lenses cost.

 

Chris,

 

I don't think you have any idear what goes on with motion picture lens production. They are individually calibrated! The distance marks & T stops are measured for that lens, its not a quick process!

 

If you strip down a Nikon zoom V a Cooke zoom you would not find it hard to see why one costs 20 times more.

 

Out of interest have you ever used modern motion picture glass, Cooke S4, Ultra Primes or Master Primes?

 

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

Chris,

 

I don't think you have any idear what goes on with motion picture lens production. They are individually calibrated! The distance marks & T stops are measured for that lens, its not a quick process!

 

I know. In mass production this could almost certainly be automated to a very large extent. Possibly completely. Cooke makes something like 250 zooms a year, if I'm not mistaken. Don't tell me they couldn't be massively cheaper if that were 250,000.

 

If you strip down a Nikon zoom V a Cooke zoom you would not find it hard to see why one costs 20 times more.

 

Out of interest have you ever used modern motion picture glass, Cooke S4, Ultra Primes or Master Primes?

 

No, but since I've already acknowledged cine lenses will win out on handling, and my points apply only to raw image quality, this isn't a particularly relevant question.

 

And even taking handling into account, and accounting for the extremely small volumes.... It also seems pretty clear that modern cine lenses are built well beyond what the point of diminishing returns would be for many potential users. To use common computer industry terms, the performance is great, but the price/performance ratio sucks. Unfortunately, since most existing customers have such deep pockets, the market basically only has a (very) high-end at the moment.