A more realistic view of RED

[Walter Graff]

http://www.fxguide.com/article412-print.html

[Erik Olson]

Actually, they're careful to point out that their "sister site" is a RED reservation holder. There goes at least a bit of their capacity to be objective.

 

It still doesn't change the inherent truth about the RED product within this blog / pod.

 

e

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

that was written almost a month ago and is full of speculation and questions, many of which have been answered. I'm no RED cool-aid drinker, i wander how much manipulation REDCODE RAW can handle in post for one.

 

one wanders why you are so desprate to knock down something you have never used, kinda a reverse jumblemouth.

[Erik Olson]

Fear of the unknown?

 

e

[Walter Graff]

I don't think RED is a bad thing so don't look at the fact that they ordered a RED being bad, it's just refreshing to see they have a much more open attitude. It seemed to be a much more reasonable article than these RED fanatics who somehow think a camera is going to change the course of all film and TV as we know it. But of course one has to ask with RED already being outdated by newer much more "high" HD down the road, when does this ridiculous marketing of HD stop? Does it get to the point that HD sees so much better than us that it sees beyond our dimension? There's a movie in there somewhere. The problem isn't RED. RED is just caught up in the bigger gimmick of HD in general.

[Daniel Smith]

I think whoever wrote that article ought to get a PD-170 kit.

[jan von krogh]

So, heres the actual report of the "more realistic" authors for red@nab:

 

http://www.fxguide.com/article420.html

[Alexander Joyce]

f2.8 15mm lens

f1.9 25mm

f1.9 35mm

f1.9 50mm

f1.9 85mm

 

Wonder why the Red lenses use f-stops? :unsure:

[Daniel Smith]

Not trying to start something here, just adding another point. From a film students point of view.

 

35mm film seems like a very 'elitist' format to me. The question was never, is 35mm film good enough to shoot our film on, it was, are YOU good enough to shoot on 35mm film?

 

With this RED camera, they are purposely aiming to make 35mm quality accessible to film students like myself, all the way to the professionals.

 

The way see it, RED was designed for the consumer. The consumers have to be designed to use 35mm film.

 

And considering the advances made in digital technology in the space of time it has been around, I'd say that certain peoples predictions that mention film staying as the prime format for the next 30 years is based purely on 35mm being the 'norm', the de facto of professional film making formats (the mainstream, trusted choice). Not quality.

 

I hate getting involved in these controversial debates but I can't stand watching people trying to pull apart a brave new, groundbreaking piece of technology. It reminds me of my granddad pulling apart all of the modern day films. They're certainly not bad, he just doesn't understand them as well, they don't speak his 'language'.

 

I suppose the only good thing about people trying to pull it apart is the fact that it will only entice the designers of RED even further to make it succeed and prove everyone wrong. Therefore giving people like me better technology.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[jijhh]

Enough already, jesus christ.

 

Arguing digital over film might as well be an unending philosophical argument.

 

And for those of you who are anti-RED, all you are doing is PERPETUATING THE HYPE.

 

I'm tired of seeing a list of RED posts every time I come on.

[Max Jacoby]

35mm film seems like a very 'elitist' format to me. The question was never, is 35mm film good enough to shoot our film on, it was, are YOU good enough to shoot on 35mm film?

I understand what you mean, but look at it this way: at least the cost of shooting 35mm (and the whole cost of shooting a film in fact) encouraged a certain natural selection, since one needed to convince financiers (be they public, private or corporate) to give out money for one's filmshoot. Chances are that if you couldn't even convince people to invest in your film, then it is very likey not going to be succesful either.

 

Now I find it exciting that prices are coming down so far that everyone gets the opportunity to make a film, as there will certainly be some gems to be discovered, as has happened in the music industry for instance, but the thruth is that most people who didn't manage to get their films made previously were out of the industry for a simple reason: they are just not good enough. Now loads of horrible films that never should have been made will get made anyway, because prices are coming down, but that does not change anything to the natural selection process which will only kick in at a later stage than before: the number of films that will never see the light of day will increase exponationally.

[Walter Graff]

So, heres the actual report of the "more realistic" authors for red@nab:

 

http://www.fxguide.com/article420.html

 

 

Seems like a very well written and level headed review of RED and their current undertakings. Now if only the amateur REDheads could act as civilized.

[jan von krogh]

Seems like a very well written and level headed review of RED and their current undertakings.

listening to the (long) podcast inside the article is recommended as well.

 

Now if only the amateur REDheads could act as civilized.

the red-community is very civilized. spend some time at that other site, be polite, and you will come to no other conclusion.

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

I understand what you mean, but look at it this way: at least the cost of shooting 35mm (and the whole cost of shooting a film in fact) encouraged a certain natural selection

 

 

does this apply to michael bay or Uwe Bol? :lol:

[Walter Graff]

listening to the (long) podcast inside the article is recommended as well.

 

 

the red-community is very civilized. spend some time at that other site, be polite, and you will come to no other conclusion.

 

 

For the few who actually make a living off film and video who are into RED I haven't a problem. These are folks who would actualy use the camera to make a living although as I said, your buying a sensor and have to find a whole bunch of things ot attach to it to finally get it to record, not my favotie pick up and go senario, but if these folks think they need 4k, then great I wish them luck.

 

No, I'm referring to what I call REDheads, amatuer/hobbiests who are teh core of hte free marketing that has made RED a name. These are those that can't afford RED and wouldn't have a need for it and frankly any camera really. And as for the site, a few good threads and posts but mostly REDheads with such posts as:

"Guy I know this sounds trivial, but I need to wear this shirt to let people know, YES I HAVE THIS CAMERA AND WILL SHOOT YOUR PROJECT WITH IT.

When and where can we buy them?!"

 

"I second that! I don't have a camera (student poor and it's beyond my current skills) but I want to show my support for RED and what they are doing. A couple years down the road I want to use this camera."

 

"The guy even went as far as to say that the HVX was a failure because of it's small image sensor and P2 format which is slowly proving to be a non-reliable media. I realize that the XDCAM has better specs technically, but has anyone seen 24P XDCAM footage that looks as filmic as an HVX with 35mm adapters? If you have please link me to it!"

 

" Well that's all for now - I'm thrilled about the camera and Red's sudden and much needed entry into the world of cinematography."

[Michael Newton]

For the few who actually make a living off film and video who are into RED I haven't a problem. These are folks who would actualy use the camera to make a living although as I said, your buying a sensor and have to find a whole bunch of things ot attach to it to finally get it to record, not my favotie pick up and go senario, but if these folks think they need 4k, then great I wish them luck.

 

No, I'm referring to what I call REDheads, amatuer/hobbiests who are teh core of hte free marketing that has made RED a name. These are those that can't afford RED and wouldn't have a need for it and frankly any camera really. And as for the site, a few good threads and posts but mostly REDheads with such posts as:

"Guy I know this sounds trivial, but I need to wear this shirt to let people know, YES I HAVE THIS CAMERA AND WILL SHOOT YOUR PROJECT WITH IT.

When and where can we buy them?!"

 

"I second that! I don't have a camera (student poor and it's beyond my current skills) but I want to show my support for RED and what they are doing. A couple years down the road I want to use this camera."

 

"The guy even went as far as to say that the HVX was a failure because of it's small image sensor and P2 format which is slowly proving to be a non-reliable media. I realize that the XDCAM has better specs technically, but has anyone seen 24P XDCAM footage that looks as filmic as an HVX with 35mm adapters? If you have please link me to it!"

 

" Well that's all for now - I'm thrilled about the camera and Red's sudden and much needed entry into the world of cinematography."

Ha! You really do have time on your hands, don't you?

[Thomas James]

The fact of the matter is that I cannot afford to shoot and to process 35mm film when the cost of archiving Red footage in any digital format is a fraction of the cost. Plus I cannot afford to distribute my movies unless they are in a digital format. Yet if I am going to be competitive I need the quality of 35mm film. Traditional 1080 or 720p high definition is fine for the home theatre but it is never going to get the consideration that 35mm or 65mm film gets when people actually pay to see a movie at a theatre otherwise people will just wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray and watch it on their home theatre.

 

Plus I am very interested in promoting the Showscan format which plays at 60 frames per second. If I try to shoot and distribute Showscan at 720p60 resolutions everyone one will just laugh at me and call my work video. But if I can shoot and distribute Showscan at 4k resolutions then I think they might call it the IMAX experience.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Yet if I am going to be competitive I need the quality of 35mm film. Traditional 1080 or 720p high definition is fine for the home theatre but it is never going to get the consideration that 35mm or 65mm film gets when people actually pay to see a movie at a theatre otherwise people will just wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray and watch it on their home theatre.

 

I'm not a RED fanboy, but sorry, your comment is far from true. How do you know, you've tried? I'm curious as to your reasons behind your statements.

 

There have been many successful films shot in 1080 or less and distributed widely, many making a healthy profit on their investment. Also, 99% of an audience does not know when they are deciding to see a movie what format is was shot on. So the idea that people are going to pass on a theatrical film just because it's HD is ridiculous. It didn't seem to affect Star Wars, Blair Witch, Borat, or Click.

 

FYI..you know that 1080 resolution is less than a couple hundred pixels difference from 2k, yes?

[Daniel Smith]

I understand what you mean, but look at it this way: at least the cost of shooting 35mm (and the whole cost of shooting a film in fact) encouraged a certain natural selection, since one needed to convince financiers (be they public, private or corporate) to give out money for one's filmshoot. Chances are that if you couldn't even convince people to invest in your film, then it is very likey not going to be succesful either.

 

Now I find it exciting that prices are coming down so far that everyone gets the opportunity to make a film, as there will certainly be some gems to be discovered, as has happened in the music industry for instance, but the thruth is that most people who didn't manage to get their films made previously were out of the industry for a simple reason: they are just not good enough. Now loads of horrible films that never should have been made will get made anyway, because prices are coming down, but that does not change anything to the natural selection process which will only kick in at a later stage than before: the number of films that will never see the light of day will increase exponationally.

True enough... now that RED is coming out, almost any maniac like myself can get their hands on technology that isn't all that distant in quality to what the pro's are using. But having said that, perhaps RED or someone else will create a new camera that is 4 times the cost of the current RED camera and superseeds its quality by far. Technology that will only be available to the large productions.

 

But from my point of view, I'll be very lucky to shoot on 35mm. I don't want to make films about politics, I want to make films that tell stories that I'm passionate about. Which renders my chances of making big in Britain, crap.

 

But with RED, I'm using technology that in ways, competes with 35mm film. So I can still make the films I want to, but also compete with the quality of some of the larger films.

 

I would agree that only the natural selection get to shoot on 35mm, but I personally don't think that is 100% of the case here in Britain.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Michael Nash]

The RED camera produces 4K images -- it does NOT produce feature films! It does NOT produce the 100's of thousands of dollars it takes to produce a quality feature film. And it certainly does not produce talent!

 

It gets tiresome to hear these arguments that a camera will somehow equalize all the costs and difficulties of getting a quality feature film up on the screen in front of a paying audience. 4K projection is not in theaters yet. People don't pay to see short films and music videos in theaters (not in significant numbers anyway).

 

It's a camera, not friggin' microwave oven for movies... <_<

[Daniel Smith]

The RED camera produces 4K images -- it does NOT produce feature films! It does NOT produce the 100's of thousands of dollars it takes to produce a quality feature film. And it certainly does not produce talent!

 

It gets tiresome to hear these arguments that a camera will somehow equalize all the costs and difficulties of getting a quality feature film up on the screen in front of a paying audience. 4K projection is not in theaters yet. People don't pay to see short films and music videos in theaters (not in significant numbers anyway).

 

It's a camera, not friggin' microwave oven for movies... <_<

I'm not sure where you're hearing all of these comments saying that...

There's far more, and probably more important aspects that make cinema quality films.

 

But the RED camera will compete with the professional formats qualities.

 

35mm doesn't produce any of those things you mentioned either.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Thomas James]

The fact of the matter is that 720p or even 1080p may be okay for todays theatres considering that by the time a 35mm print goes through generational losses and is projected you are only going to see 700 lines of resolution. But the fact is that if movie theatres want people to get away form their HDTV's they are going to have to go 65mm film or digital 4k projection. And yes of course a good script and talent will be required but are people really going to take you seriously if you cannot produce the image quality that rivals the big boys ?

[Max Jacoby]

But with RED, I'm using technology that in ways, competes with 35mm film. So I can still make the films I want to, but also compete with the quality of some of the larger films.

The problem is that 35mm image quality is just a small part of what makes a quality film. Forget about competing with decently budgeted independent/art films let alone large scale Hollywood films if you don't have the budget for proper actors, proper lighting equipment, proper set design, proper sound recording, proper special effects, proper CGI, proper sound design, proper ADR and Foley, and the list goes on and on. Even on a say 1 Million budget the 35mm equipment/stock/processing should be not more than 10-15 percent of the budget, which mean that you will still be 850.000 short, best case scenario, to be able to compete with properly funded films.

 

I think a certain type of minimalist art film, that can afford a very small crew which only shoots when the conditions are right (weather, actors, locations) and relies less on tradiitonal story telling and acting will be able to make a much better film than before, but a 'regular' film that has to compete with similar, but properly budgeted product will have a harder time being compareable.

[Michael Nash]

And yes of course a good script and talent will be required but are people really going to take you seriously if you cannot produce the image quality that rivals the big boys ?

 

How does this apply to the real world we live in, right now? 4K projection isn't in theaters yet. Until it is, the 4k acquisition of the RED affects filmstock, lab, and scanning costs only.

[Daniel Smith]

The problem is that 35mm image quality is just a small part of what makes a quality film. Forget about competing with decently budgeted independent/art films let alone large scale Hollywood films if you don't have the budget for proper actors, proper lighting equipment, proper set design, proper sound recording, proper special effects, proper CGI, proper sound design, proper ADR and Foley, and the list goes on and on. Even on a say 1 Million budget the 35mm equipment/stock/processing should be not more than 10-15 percent of the budget, which mean that you will still be 850.000 short, best case scenario, to be able to compete with properly funded films.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think a certain type of minimalist art film, that can afford a very small crew which only shoots when the conditions are right (weather, actors, locations) will be able to make a much better film than before, but a 'regular' film that has to compete with similar, but properly budgeted product will have a harder time being compareable.

That's fair enough, I agree. But I still think the shooting format has a lot more say over a movies quality than most people think. Not so much the resolution, but the colour quality etc.

 

I've seen plenty of cinematography that was done with natural lighting. It looks far better than anything I've ever done. It's not that I couldn't do it (it was fairly simple stuff), it's that I didn't have the camera.

 

I know it may sound like I'm trying to blame my own bad cinematography on the shooting format, where as I should be looking at lighting e.t.c. but I still believe that the shooting format gives movies a certain look and production value. Moreso than a lot of people think.

 

My personal opinion.

 

How does this apply to the real world we live in, right now? 4K projection isn't in theaters yet. Until it is, the 4k acquisition of the RED affects filmstock, lab, and scanning costs only.

Not trying to play devils advocate here Michael but, 'only'? I think that on its own accounts for quite a lot.

 

And there's also the cost of the camera to consider.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith