apple supports red

[Michael Campanella]

These Red threads are becoming ever so tiresome. Who cares about all these petty arguments? If the camera comes out and you use it for a particular job and it does what you need it then there are no problems. Some people will throw their money away hoping the camera can fulfill a dream, others will probably put it to good use. But that shouldn't be of any concern to you. If it's a good camera, then it will become an option among many others, and for some project it just might fit.

[David Mullen ASC]

Geoff Boyle banned film vs. video arguments from the CML and it probably was a good thing. We should be discussing the particular merits and flaws of a piece of equipment (which won't be possible until the camera is available) not just repeating tired old anti-digital or anti-film prejudices.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Geoff Boyle banned film vs. video arguments from the CML and it probably was a good thing. We should be discussing the particular merits and flaws of a piece of equipment (which won't be possible until the camera is available) not just repeating tired old anti-digital or anti-film prejudices.

No David, don't you understand? RED is REVOLUTIONARY! It changes EVERYTHING! It's the best-selling camera ever, and has single-handedly destroyed the need to shoot film! And that's apparently why every single thread about it devolves into worthless crap almost instantly.

[David Mullen ASC]

No David, don't you understand? RED is REVOLUTIONARY! It changes EVERYTHING! It's the best-selling camera ever, and has single-handedly destroyed the need to shoot film! And that's apparently why every single thread about it devolves into worthless crap almost instantly.

 

Both sides are to blame -- it doesn't help when someone counters with statements like "digital will never be as good as film". How can they know that? How is that not just personal opinion rather than fact?

 

Besides, we live in a practical world where both are being used -- that's how we should be discussing these issues. Afterall, a couple of the highest-grossing movies of all time were shot in HD (the last two Star Wars prequels), and probably the highest-grossing indie horror film is still "Blair Witch Project", shot mostly on a consumer Hi-8 video camera. So all of this philosophical posturing is impractical -- we need to understand all of these tools so we can make the best choices for our projects -- and for some people, the best choice will still be film.

[Brian Drysdale]

Seems like a red mist rises up around the word RED.

 

Both film and digital formats have advantage and disadvantages, it's a matter of using what is best for each production. Personally, I'd like to have the option of having the choice for many years to come.

[Jim Simon]

We should be discussing the particular merits and flaws of a piece of equipment

 

I kind of thought that was at the very heart of the conversation. I myself have been looking forward to the ability to shoot a 35mm feature without the expense of 35mm film. I was hoping the Red camera might make that possible. Given that it still does look like video, I'm not so sure it will fill that expected need. It may fill other needs fine, but I get the sense that a lot of folks will be disappointed that it doesn't fill the "film replacement" need.

[Ken Cangi]

Both sides are to blame -- it doesn't help when someone counters with statements like "digital will never be as good as film". How can they know that? How is that not just personal opinion rather than fact?

 

Besides, we live in a practical world where both are being used -- that's how we should be discussing these issues. Afterall, a couple of the highest-grossing movies of all time were shot in HD (the last two Star Wars prequels), and probably the highest-grossing indie horror film is still "Blair Witch Project", shot mostly on a consumer Hi-8 video camera. So all of this philosophical posturing is impractical -- we need to understand all of these tools so we can make the best choices for our projects -- and for some people, the best choice will still be film.

This is a very practical statement, as are most of yours, David. The problem with practicality is that it makes for less than exciting conversation for most people. Controversy, on the other hand, generally keeps people interested.

 

I believe that Jim Jannard is acutely aware of this human trait and exploits it very effectively as a marketing tool. I can't really say that I blame him if it has helped him to build such a successful financial empire. You all have to admit that he got his money's worth of free advertising on this site, even if it did cost him a few points for provocative behavior. I'm sure that his few moments of dropping his pants in these forums will be of little consequence to him if this camera gains even a portion of the success that he is most likely anticipating it will.

 

I probably rebuked him more than most, for blowing so many smoke rings, but I still can't really blame him for keeping his eye on the prize. Such premature fanfare isn't my personal style, although that isn't Jannard's problem. It's mine. Those Red forums escalated for one reason - because we wanted them to. It would have been much more effective to just ignore the hype and not post, but then that is not how we humans are wired, regardless of whether or not we are willing to admit it.

 

Anyway, regarding your post, opening our minds to all of the available technology is not only intelligent, but also crucial to staying on top of the game. This same technological paradigm shift occurred not too long ago in the still image profession, and the death cries were every bit as piercing as the ones expressed in these film vs., digi debates. Just as is the case with cinematography, film held some distinct advantages over digital capture for quite some time. The ultimate irony was that the final professional turn came not as a result of the capture medium, but mostly from quantum leaps in ink technology. Epson was really the major player in bridging the gap in print quality from film to inkjet prints. Digital capture vs. film really was a moot point after 5 megapxal camera technology hit the market. After all, most print advertising never exceeds 8.5"x11", anyway.

 

My closet friend quieted several critics when one of his spec shots was requested by Sekonic for a full-page magazine ad that ran in PDN and several other major photography rags. This image was shot on a Canon 10D. Every one one of his colleagues and professional peers in L.A., who saw the ad and portfolio print, refused to believe that he shot the image on a 5 megapixal camera. As you said in a prior post, and I am paraphrasing - I believe what my eyes tell me.

 

 

Here is the image and his website, which has a link to the Sekonic campaign: http://www.jeffboxer.com/

 

I pulled this low res Jpeg from his site.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Andrew Ray]

I kind of thought that was at the very heart of the conversation. I myself have been looking forward to the ability to shoot a 35mm feature without the expense of 35mm film. I was hoping the Red camera might make that possible. Given that it still does look like video, I'm not so sure it will fill that expected need. It may fill other needs fine, but I get the sense that a lot of folks will be disappointed that it doesn't fill the "film replacement" need.

 

Film after DI process looks like output from good quality 2K camera to me.

I guess some people still listen to the vinyl records, some to the CDs and some take 32 bit recorded music and put it through digital profile of vinyl sound characteristics and they have vinyl sound.

 

I think 4K post production tools will be able to simulate color, grain and softness of any combination of film stock and camera hardware, including specific look and color of the lenses.

 

Andrew

[Jim Simon]

Film after DI process looks like output from good quality 2K camera to me.

 

I don't know. I've not seen the output from a "good quality 2K camera" first hand. But aren't most Hollywood features using DI in post these days? They still look like film to me even after such processing.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't know. I've not seen the output from a "good quality 2K camera" first hand. But aren't most Hollywood features using DI in post these days? They still look like film to me even after such processing.

 

It seems to vary, but some films that have gone through a DI do have a bit of a HD video quality, especially in bright high key scenes.

[Max Jacoby]

If I remember correctly, the Arricam is listed at 210.000$, i'd say it's close enough :P

But a body alone is not going to get you anywhere :P

[Andrew Ray]

I don't know. I've not seen the output from a "good quality 2K camera" first hand. But aren't most Hollywood features using DI in post these days? They still look like film to me even after such processing.

 

I don?t know other DI processes, however ARRI is just using 4K sensor to scan the film and then the rest is digital at 16 bits.

So the only difference from shooting straight from 4K camera and DI processed film is that 4K camera is looking directly on the talent and film camera DI processed film is adding one more process of looking at your talents via extra layer of film exposure.

However this is where color, grain and softness is added to the process.

The lenses are the same. ARRI DI post is bit more mature and well known, also better understood.

[Jay Kelley]

This is a very practical statement, as are most of yours, David. The problem with practicality is that it makes for less than exciting conversation for most people. Controversy, on the other hand, generally keeps people interested.

 

I believe that Jim Jannard is acutely aware of this human trait and exploits it very effectively as a marketing tool. I can't really say that I blame him if it has helped him to build such a successful financial empire. You all have to admit that he got his money's worth of free advertising on this site, even if it did cost him a few points for provocative behavior. I'm sure that his few moments of dropping his pants in these forums will be of little consequence to him if this camera gains even a portion of the success that he is most likely anticipating it will.

 

I probably rebuked him more than most, for blowing so many smoke rings, but I still can't really blame him for keeping his eye on the prize. Such premature fanfare isn't my personal style, although that isn't Jannard's problem. It's mine. Those Red forums escalated for one reason - because we wanted them to. It would have been much more effective to just ignore the hype and not post, but then that is not how we humans are wired, regardless of whether or not we are willing to admit it.

 

Well Ken,

 

While one of your older posts got me a little angry, this one gets respect. I cannot say how dissappointed I am that I am not at NAB to see the short film Peter Jackson made.. More cause I think it's very cool a high end director is making a short film.. I was bummed that the music Universal donated will keep it off the web until they remix it.. But a lot of friends called me and said the movie looked amazing.. That's a good thing.

 

As for the film vs. video debate. Truth is I do not feel qualified to enter into it. I have used much less film than video so I cannot compare the differences very well. My feeling is simple, I live video. Do you like film? The go for it and I'll help you! Neither is right or wrong... Just different. Pick what works.

 

Jay

[Ken Cangi]

Well Ken,

 

While one of your older posts got me a little angry, this one gets respect.

I appreciate that, Jay. I try not too judgmental in forming opinions of people online - especially before I have had the chance to meet them in person. No hard feelings.

 

My feeling is simple, I live video. Do you like film? The go for it and I'll help you! Neither is right or wrong... Just different. Pick what works.

 

Jay

I enjoy both mediums, and I feel that each look has its place in certain creative applications. I love the look of film, just as I enjoy the process of working with it, although I rarely have the opportunity to do so. As an indie filmmaker - a relatively new one, at that - my budget doesn't usually allow for the use of film. Consequently, I work mostly in digital formats. This is not a problem for me because my emphasis is on the actual movie making. I personally find the film vs. digital debate to be a pointless exercise and a waste of valuable time. I am not an engineer. I make films, or at least that's the goal.

[Jay Kelley]

Hey Ken,

 

I am in the same boat, I tend to use a SDX900 for most creative work, but that will change when my RED is ready to ship.

 

With the announcement of the 4k projectors, and the 4k monitors, it's clear that Jannard is in this industry to make some serious bucks.

 

Truth is sir, I'm tired. The constant shift and flow of technology can be exhausting for those of us who just want to tell stories.

 

I'm glad RED made it out of the gate in one piece.. Should be a fun ride.

 

I was VERY excited about Apple's support and the introduction of COLOR

 

Jay

[Guest]

"Truth is sir, I'm tired. The constant shift and flow of technology can be exhausting for those of us who just want to tell stories."

 

Ok well look I'm not trying to provoke you here, but, if that's how you feel then why not shoot film?

 

Video formats change monthly and there are dozens of them.

 

I have a BL2 built in the early 80s that still runs great and produces a terrific 35mm picture. So if you really just want to tell stories and skip the endless shifts in technology why not go with film and have done with it? Far fewer technological shifts on the gear front to deal with.

 

I hope you enjoy your Red and have great success with it, but as I'm sure you realize there will be a new and improved Red in 12-18 months. And you'll go right back into the technology shift vortex.

 

Rental companies that invest heavily in HD already have this issue. Producers want to always be shooting on the very latest HD cameras. With film the gear stays the same, and Kodak and Fuji improve the medium over time.

 

R,

 

Ok Jan, let me have it.

[John Michael Corey]

Final Cut pro will support redcode native for editing and DI.

shipping july.

price 3495$.

 

Jan, I'm confused.

Where do you get the $3,500 figure?

 

 

Final Cut Studio (which includes FCP) sells for $1,300 on Apple's website.\

 

Thank you.

 

Richard Boddington, maybe shooting RED will be like shooting with hypothetical 105mm or 140mm filmstock. The 105mm or 140mm negative would have much more detail, but it would still retain the film look, wouldn't it? Or, would it??? Would the new standard for what is deemed as "film" then be 105mm or 140mm filmstock? I believe that is sort of the point that RED enthusiasts are making about image quality. Film-making is being taken to a whole new level. RED maybe the first stab into that realm. Video-ishness is what i believe film-lovers rightfully loathe. If i am not mistaken, the technology exists (or will shortly be perfected) to render digital images (with identical gamma curves and such) as to make them indistinguishable to the human eye (the audience) as to those shot on film.

 

All this flim vs. HD arguing reminds me of the story of the lone shipwrecked priest. The supremely devout priest prays to God to send him a sign telling him what to do. A week passes, and God has yet to speak to the priest. Soon, a ship comes by and asks the priest if he needs help. The priest says, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." The priest repeats his prayers every night. Another week passes and a second ship comes by, and the thinning priest again refuses saying, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." A third ship offers help, but the emaciated priest whispers, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." The priest soon dies.

Upon entering the gates of Heaven, the priest increduously asks God, "Why didn't you give me a sign?"

God quickly replies, "What do you mean? I sent you three God-damned ships!"

 

Here's a question i've been wondering: Even if filmstock were free, would developing & scanning costs just be too high to overcome to justify shooting on film? ...because you could buy an HD camera and editing computer and still save enormously in time, money, and hassles.

 

Thanks.

[Michael Nash]

All this flim vs. HD arguing reminds me of the story of the lone shipwrecked priest. The supremely devout priest prays to God to send him a sign telling him what to do. A week passes, and God has yet to speak to the priest. Soon, a ship comes by and asks the priest if he needs help. The priest says, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." The priest repeats his prayers every night. Another week passes and a second ship comes by, and the thinning priest again refuses saying, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." A third ship offers help, but the emaciated priest whispers, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." The priest soon dies.

 

You've been watching David Mullen's movies...

[Alexander Joyce]

Jan, I'm confused.

Where do you get the $3,500 figure?

 

He would be referring to the Apple / AJA HD IO box that sells as a separate product. So you need a copy of Final Cut in addition to that.

[jan von krogh]

Jan, I'm confused.

Where do you get the $3,500 figure?

Final Cut Studio (which includes FCP) sells for $1,300 on Apple's website.\

Thank you.

my mistake, sorry, 1300 is correct -

3500 was the price for the aja i/o hardware which they announced.

 

Here's a question i've been wondering: Even if filmstock were free, would developing & scanning costs just be too high to overcome to justify shooting on film? ...because you could buy an HD camera and editing computer and still save enormously in time, money, and hassles.

these were important reasons to integrate digital for us, but we still used 35mm for special creative purposes. with red the reasons for this are now gone and we will switch to almost complete digital - that is if the tests show that the camera fullfills in reallife application what the specifications promise.

 

 

I hope you enjoy your Red and have great success with it, but as I'm sure you realize there will be a new and improved Red in 12-18 months. And you'll go right back into the technology shift vortex.

partly true. until there comes the "good enough" state of technology - and 4k is more than good enough for the next decade as we won´t have any mainstreams forms of distribution which goes higher, heck, even digital 2k is ints rolloutphase.

 

a good example is compact disc.

since years its no problem to deliver 24bit/96khz to customers, but they stay CD or worse, mp3 - because its good enough.

 

so, even if lets say, red will introduce 8k red two at NAB, we will most probably not order or upgrade. think about 35mm / 65mm.

 

Rental companies that invest heavily in HD already have this issue. Producers want to always be shooting on the very latest HD cameras. With film the gear stays the same, and Kodak and Fuji improve the medium over time.

as rental you have to plan to fully break even in maximum 24 months.

HDCAM gave us almost 5 years until now - and i don´t see film or hdcam dying at once due to red, so we won´t sell the hdcam systems as they keep on making good profits.

lenses last longer (but are more expensive to maintain).

 

however, i fully agree when it comes to cheap technology - if you buy dv, hdv, xdcam, p2 etc you basicly have a short lifespan in the product until better stuff comes down from the higher valued segments of the market, and "good enough" doesn´t apply. also, your obervation is correct for many computers.

[Brian Drysdale]

Richard Boddington, maybe shooting RED will be like shooting with hypothetical 105mm or 140mm filmstock. The 105mm or 140mm negative would have much more detail, but it would still retain the film look, wouldn't it? Or, would it??? Would the new standard for what is deemed as "film" then be 105mm or 140mm filmstock? I believe that is sort of the point that RED enthusiasts are making about image quality. Film-making is being taken to a whole new level. RED maybe the first stab into that realm. Video-ishness is what i believe film-lovers rightfully loathe. If i am not mistaken, the technology exists (or will shortly be perfected) to render digital images (with identical gamma curves and such) as to make them indistinguishable to the human eye (the audience) as to those shot on film.

 

I'm not where your 105mm or 140mm figure came from. 4k is the supposed figure for 35mm neg film, although Arri seem to regard their 3k bayer camera to be the same as 20mm (hence the cameras name - D20).

 

The latest digital methods do offer many possibilities, however, it's part of the creative process to use the medium that best suits you and the way you wish to tell the story.

[John Michael Corey]

I'm not where your 105mm or 140mm figure came from. 4k is the supposed figure for 35mm neg film...

 

Picked the numbers randomly out of the air.

 

Trying to make the point that for film to compete with HD in the future, the film negative would have to be substantially increased in size. However, that would make traditional cameras even more cumbersome and (considering the costs for developing and scanning the footage), realistically, obsolete.

 

For instance, what if in 10 years movie theatres digitally project films at 8K? And in 60fps?! Yeah, now consider the larger size filmstock cost, the almost tripling in required film, and the increased developing & scanning costs, let alone the costs to purchase cameras designed to use the larger negative filmstock... Hello, digital! Audiences may then look down on 35mm features, because the image quality (movie-going experience) would be less than what has become "expected."

 

Hope that makes some kind of sense.

 

Michael Nash,

 

I did see Northfork which i believe the still is from. However, i butchered the joke about 3 shipwrecked men. Something like a priest, a thief, and a lawyer. I can't recall...

[Brian Drysdale]

Picked the numbers randomly out of the air.

 

Trying to make the point that for film to compete with HD in the future, the film negative would have to be substantially increased in size. However, that would make traditional cameras even more cumbersome and (considering the costs for developing and scanning the footage), realistically, obsolete.

 

For instance, what if in 10 years movie theatres digitally project films at 8K? And in 60fps?! Yeah, now consider the larger size filmstock cost, the almost tripling in required film, and the increased developing & scanning costs, let alone the costs to purchase cameras designed to use the larger negative filmstock... Hello, digital! Audiences may then look down on 35mm features, because the image quality (movie-going experience) would be less than what has become "expected."

 

I think you're talking about shooting on 65mm film with 8K (That film gauge could actually be higher than 8k). They shot 65mm at 60fps for the Showscan format and its been used in theme park rides.

 

Some film stocks carry a lot of data and they also seem to keep improving.

[Guest]

"so, even if lets say, red will introduce 8k red two at NAB, we will most probably not order or upgrade. think about 35mm / 65mm."

 

Ok Jan, so the next logical question is, what happens if your customers start demanding the 8K Red and you don't have them but your competitors do?

 

R,

[jan von krogh]

Ok Jan, so the next logical question is, what happens if your customers start demanding the 8K Red and you don't have them but your competitors do?

8k might be the wrong example, as for the next 3-5 years, or at least the foreseable future, there would be no distribution in any form for that resolution, besides i suppose the demand for 8k with the associated postproduction cost might be of a similar faith like 65mm...

 

lets rather go to the core of your question with some better examples.

 

what if red offers or annouces a camera with, lets say, 240p instead of 120p, only 2kg instead of 4.5kg, 13 stops instead of 11.2 stops dynamic range and only 12.500$ instead of 17.500$ in lets say:

 

24-36 months and up.

easy answer - i order and pay with a part of the money i have made out the first red, keeping the first red and moving it down in price.

 

12-24 months.

easy answer - i order and pay with a part of the money i have made out the first red, keeping the first red and moving it down in price. if i didn´t earn money on the first red, i sell the first red to get a revenue.

 

6-12 months.

tougher call, when i still would be undercovered with the buyprice of the first red i woud closely examine the competition and decide which strategy might be appropriate.

the 17.500 per body can be earned back in 3 months, or if youre unlucky, not in 16 months.

If they camera, lets say, has to mayor teething problems etc. wouldn´t be earned back over 3 featurefilms and a better red would be announced -so that would be in the worst case scenario then.

A the situation, where one would have to underbid the the better equipped competition could result, slowing down the revenue and investment cycles of my company.

 

this planning is always the same, was no different with HDCAM back in 2002, we projected it for 2 years, did a lot of talks before and then started 2003 with the investions.

 

some things to consider:

- red has stated several times, that they built the camera modular to allow updates later on.

- reds next camera doesn´t aim for higher quality, but for ultracompact

- red has as a (meanwhile 14 man operation) 4k displays, 4k projectors, several lenses & peripherals in development and a camera which will have to be updated in the field until ~Q3/4 2007 to unlock more features - this doesn´t indicate that their R&D is on the next better sensor right now.

- also, red shared all their goals and R&D targets open as no company i saw before, so most customers have a pretty good idea whats coming next, quite different from the behemonts a la sony or the "hey, surprise, here is the 235!" approach of arri.

- furthermore, basic business. this industry moves slowly, much slower than still photography, boadcast, music. print, web etc. product cycles are pretty long in the upperclass of the market, and rarely not motivated by competition.

red has now a pretty good gap to their next competition (panavision, GV, arri, sony, SI, dalsa in the cinemamarket) in terms of technolgy, price and buzz. so different from industries where tough competition forces, lets say canon and nikon in a frenzy of new cameras, the market will be rather slow until finally we get good competition for red, and be it from themself.

- the investment is pretty small. for hdcam over 500.000 bucks were necessary to built a complete workflow with new lenses, vtr, class 1 monitor, 2 online NLE & CC, power etc. for red i can start with 40.000-80.000, use our 35 & 16mm PL-glass and simply add 2 apple macs with FCS, so the risk is quite lower than we anticipated, we basicly thought that the next wave would be 300-700k.

 

and finally, besides all this business - i am way to much of an moviemaniac to not be REALLY exicted by all the cool shots we will be able to pull of at 120p, having 35mm dof and digital, substantially more colorinformation in grading... hey, simply put, it will us give a better tool for better images, so i might even have considered buying the camera for one pupose alone, if there would be no rental demand - to improve our own productions.

 

but rest assured - the rental demand is quite ok, 2 cameras total ~6months ahead of the buyers who order now in an area with 20.000.000 people and next competition is ~450km away (hello claus, btw)...