Could we start discussing Red over here, please!

[Gunleik Groven]

Hi.

 

The Red is here and being delivered in its first batch as we speak.

 

Wether it "really, really" is 2k or 4k is of less importanse to me personally, I just care what the images look like and that there is a working workflow.

 

The images are compelling. Dropping 4k (or whatever you preffer to call it -;) RAW files into a FCP timeline, gives us a double workflow alternative - eg

 

Redcine to dpx or whatever.

RedRAW to FCP into ... whatever.

 

 

Whether it's "better" or "worse" than other HD/2k/UHD cameras is IMHO also of less interest, as it "is what it is" and has a very compelling price point, compared to the rest.

 

What I'd love to see in THIS thread - if possible - are first hand experiences from NAB - both from people who have tried it, and from people who have seen the footy and discussed the footage and workflow _FIRST HAND_ with Jim, Ted, Jarred, Graeme and the crew.

 

Like this excellent and information ladden post from David Mullen:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=22419

 

I don't care so much whether someone thinks it's still a hoax. By now we know that certain people think so. Point made. Let me get screwed if that's what I want -;)

 

If someone have seen "bad" stuff, get it on the board, but please let's stop bashing eachother with stupidities.

 

Is this possible?

 

Cheers!

gunleik

[Carl Brighton]

Hi.

 

If someone have seen "bad" stuff, get it on the board, but please let's stop bashing eachother with stupidities.

 

Is this possible?

 

Cheers!

gunleik

I seriously doubt it.

Actually it's rather cute the way threads like this one always seem to turn into the most violent slanging matches and eventually have to be closed :D

[Mark Williams]

If someone have seen "bad" stuff, get it on the board, but please let's stop bashing eachother with stupidities.

 

Is this possible?

 

Cheers!

gunleik

You first?

[David Mullen ASC]

It would be a major hit to the credibility of this website if the RED camera can't be discussed as objectively as any other camera, whether it is a DVX100 or an Arricam LT.

 

However, since a few people are determined to take a knee-jerk hostile attitude, my suggestion is to simply not engage them in an argument. The "Ignore Posts" feature is a great tool. I've noticed that it only takes a couple of people to cause these flame wars to begin all over again, usually the same people. So just ignore them. Or if you must, just respond with factual information and ignore any of the more provocative statements.

 

As for live monitoring in 4K, why would you need to do that? Typical on-set monitors are in the 7" to 20" size range, where 720P to 1080P is plenty sharp.

 

I know that the moderators are only able to delete posts in the General Discussion category, but perhaps until the noise dies down, Tim Tyler should give them the ability to moderate the RED forum.

[Tom York]

I also would like to discuss this camera and any new possibilities it may offer in the ever delicate balance between a producer's need to cheapen the production process and the director's / DP's duty to not let this affect the image quality and technical integrity of the movie. In other words, can this camera be a real world replacement for 35mm in independent features? If so, then maybe the green-lighting of more artistically adventurous scrips will become easier.

[David Mullen ASC]

I also would like to discuss this camera and any new possibilities it may offer in the ever delicate balance between a producer's need to cheapen the production process and the director's / DP's duty to not let this affect the image quality and technical integrity of the movie. In other words, can this camera be a real world replacement for 35mm in independent features? If so, then maybe the green-lighting of more artistically adventurous scrips will become easier.

 

This is where I think you can be overly optimistic regarding the impact of the RED camera. The camera acquisition end of things has never really been the hurdle for independent filmmakers. We've had theatrical releases shot in cheap consumer DV cameras for several years now, and lately, many have been shot with existing HD cameras. And there's Super-16. So cheaper alternatives to 35mm have been around now for a few years.

 

Getting a greenlight from an investor or studio has never been about being able to shoot in 35mm -- you get a budget based on what you can raise, who are your lead actors, the marketability of the genre and story, etc. Then with that budget, you figure out what you can afford to shoot on, whether it is Super-16, 35mm, 24P HD, whatever -- and some of those decisions will be artistically-based, not just financially-based. You make deals with the rental houses, post houses, etc. or you find people with equipment, etc.

 

So, yes, once you have money in place, then when it comes time to discuss the shooting format with the DP and director, the RED camera opens up a whole new range of possibilities. But what if the story is set in the streets of New York with some homeless teenagers and handheld Super-16 would give you are better look for the mood you want to create, and Super-16 is within your budget? You don't automatically reach for the cheapest tools if some other tool is better-suited artistically?

 

As for greenlighting more artistically ambitious projects, again, it's not the shooting format that makes investors more scared of artistically ambitious films. The cost of distribution is SO much higher than than the cost of acquisition that the fear comes from those expenses and not recouping them.

[John Holland]

david i am sure you know your comments on here and CML are being quoted all over the place by the Red people , hope they send one to you as a present , its the least they could do .

[Tom York]

This is where I think you can be overly optimistic regarding the impact of the RED camera...

 

Ah David, I feel I must disagree with what you are descibing.

 

I think it basically only applies to the U.S. industry (or similarly healthy ones). In the contry where I am operating all that you describe is turned upside down. Budgets rarelly exceed 2 million and on average are closer to 1.5 million. Many don't even approach one million. At this level the posibility of having an extra 200K makes a big difference. Also, the use of 'stars' doesn't really matter here either because there are basically only two or three of them and they are not always right for every script and most importantly, they don't guarantee a strong opening weekend. Also there is not the tradition of pouring money into a film's marketing since recoupment would then be impossible. poop, many times the distributor will make the producrer pay for his or her own prints... upfront!

 

So, with no marketing and no stars... the standards by which these distributors here judge a film are:

 

1. Concept and Story

 

2. Technical Quality

 

3. That's it.

 

Also, in a strange twist of circumstances, most films here do get distributed (unlike the US). This is because so few of them get made. But the distribution for poor films can sometimes net the producer only $10,000 total, especially if it is not shot in 35mm. So in this climate the production values and format of the movie are bargaining chips. I think Red can make a real difference here. Remember, quality cinema doesn't just come from posh US productions where even thinking about saving money in the camera department is considered un-filmmaker-like.

[David Mullen ASC]

OK, I admit the market forces are different in smaller countries and the RED camera will probably be a big help... but ultimately, I would hope that you would allow your director and cinematographer to pick the right tool for the story if the budget allowed it.

 

Yes, if they want 35mm quality and can't afford 35mm, then they may get excited about the RED camera. Or maybe not -- some people don't like the look of DSLR still camera images afterall. They may rather shoot in Super-16. There is such a thing as personal taste, no matter what part of the world you work in, and it's not always logical. As a producer, you have to respect that a director and DP have a visual aesthetic -- afterall, that's one reason you hired them. Sure, I admit in cash-strapped countries, they may have fewer choices due to budget.

 

With an all-American name like "Tom York" it was easy to assume that you were in the U.S.... Maybe people should put their location in their signatures like I do. Or fill-out the "from" section in their profile on the left.

[Ken Cangi]

David,

 

Did the Red folks mention anything about if and when Jackon's short would be available to view online or on DVD?

Edited April 19, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Tom York]

OK, I admit...

 

Actually I am originally from the US. It's just that right now I am a guest in another country. Regarding the discussion, I agree that in an ideal situation the producer would allow each and every single department complete creative and technical freedom... but from just the way I phrased it you can tell that this is definitelly not always the case.

 

But this is where I think a product like the Red camera can change things. I could now tell our battered directors, "Okay, you can shoot in 35mm and have 21 days to get everything... or you could shoot Red and have 35 days and apply to the pristine 4K master whatever grainy look you want in post... I hear they have a great new Blair Witch filter."*

 

 

*I always find it better to add some attempt at humor when giving a battered director a 'choice'

[John Allardice]

David,

 

Did the Red folks mention anything about if and when Jackon's short would be available to view online or on DVD?

 

Jim Jannard had mentioned that they'd finally got the rights issue with the music sorted, so the short will be up on the red.com site in "a couple of days".

[Douglas Hunter]

Tom,

 

what country do you live in now? The situation you describe sound pretty good to me! no, I'm not joking.

[Tom York]

One more thing, the reason I joined this forum, as a modest producer (in spending ability and maybe not nescesarily in attitude? although I?ll try :D ), is to find out over the next weeks if the Red One can realistically mimic at least 90% of the film experience (for audiences and not the filmmakers). And what I mean by the Red One is the camera itself and whatever additionally can be done to its footage in post. I sincerelly hope people in this forum can help me find this out.

[Ken Cangi]

Jim Jannard had mentioned that they'd finally got the rights issue with the music sorted, so the short will be up on the red.com site in "a couple of days".

Thank you, John.

[Tom York]

Tom,

 

what country do you live in now? The situation you describe sound pretty good to me! no, I'm not joking.

 

Let's see if you can guess:

 

Its the land representing the 5th most important territory for Hollywood Distributors... Country with (acording to Variety) the world's best equiped movie theatres... and Nation with one of the most screwed up national film industries (if you can call it that).

[David Mullen ASC]

For actual details on posting RED footage, you probably should be over at the REDuser site.

[Tom York]

For actual details on posting RED footage, you probably should be over at the REDuser site.

 

That site moves too fast for my taste. I like the more plotting response time of this site. It gives one more time to think what one says... okay, probably not in everyone's case :P