Peter Jackson's Movie Live

[Mark Williams]

I wish they had bought Starbuck and Apollo from the original series back and made some film versions even if they started the series from the beginning and had them reprise their roles I bet they could have gone on like Star trek if handled right. In fact is it still a possibility?

Edited April 27, 2007 by Mark Williams

[Douglas Hunter]

But now I have an HVX taste in my mouth. I know, I know, watching a download doesn't say much, but it does speak a little.

 

I was thinking exactly the same thing but didn't post it. The shots had a nice clean look that folks are going to want to use for a variety of applications, but in the example, compressed on the web as it was I would be hard pressed to tell it from HVX footage.

 

Maybe video is just going to have to be a look in it's self.

 

It already is, I learned a lot on the show I wrapping now. It was shot on on the Genisis which is as close to a noiseless image as I've ever seen, the color correction session was pretty amazing, as was the process of applying looks to the camera master signal. But the Genisis, it seems to me, has its own characteristics. It does not look like film, and really it does not need to. If I was going to shoot anything that should look really sexy, and glam like a high end car ad, I would advocate for the Genesis to be sure. great signal, tons of flexability, easy to create very sophisticated looking images.

[jan von krogh]

Anyone watch the Shield?

no, but sounds interesting. will have a look.

 

Everytime I see BSG I can't help but think it's little Sony HDV cam.

ups, you can' t tell hdcam from hdv?

or is it the "handheld"-style they move the 900 which you are referring to?

 

It's at least worth the thought to wonder how it might feel if they had the budget for film;

doable, the first episodes were 35mm. was a double-episode pilot.

 

I'd certainly, subconsciously, give it more credit if stopping to watch it for a second.

even if i personally prefer classic, "expensive" looks for our productions:

for me it was the opposite, i always give unconventional looks more credit.

nothing against digital "grand spectacles" a la superman etc, but i am personally more interested in shooting styles which are untraditional,

 

And is anyone like me with this RED footage sample? I feel strangely confused now. I was one of the guys that was very likely going to buy one 6+ months from now since I know I could get certain types of work with it. But now I have an HVX taste in my mouth. I know, I know, watching a download doesn't say much, but it does speak a little.

i think you should have a look at it in 4k, projected. your opinion might be -slighty- altered then.

 

Maybe video is just going to have to be a look in it's self. Or, maybe some on-lens filters would help people (the ones like me) like it more. I don't know, I'm more confused now.

if you don't try to make digital cinema look like photochemical, it will, especially if projected digital, have a different look than 35mm.

the absence of grain from the stock & flicker from the projector are unfamilar in the beginning.

 

if you shoot for matching & filmout however, with a good dp & colorist its easy going to match them. we have done several mixed 35mm & hdcam productions, and often even the director was confused if we were on the 35mm roll or the hdcam footage - a seasoned dop and seasoned colorist will most probably still be able to tell the difference, the audience however doesn't.

 

Film is surely going to live on for a long while, it just needs to get freaken cheaper!

film has many years of life in it.

for me the benchmark is - when will be more cinema shot digitally than on film.

in the pre-red era i thought 10-20 years from here, now it can easily happen under ten years, but thats all speculation.

however film won't get cheaper i am afraid.

[Stephen Williams]

however film won't get cheaper i am afraid.

 

Hi Jan,

 

That's really not an issue for many productions.

 

Until digital projection becomes the standard for cinema, the cheapest way to get a film on the silver screen will remain 35mm origination with a photochemical finish.

 

Stephen

[Douglas Hunter]

however film won't get cheaper i am afraid.

Hi Jan,

 

That's really not an issue for many productions.

 

Right, and as HD keeps getting more expensive, and HD workflows more complex (I'm talking about the high end here, not the mid to low end of the market) I suspect that 35mm will stay popular. At this point for a higher end production, 35mm can be the simpler tool.

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

Isn't that obvious just by watching the show???

 

As for the clippiness of the HD photography, that's one of my favorite aspects of the show because they are clearly junking conventions about how to light and expose for digital. It's similar to what I like about how Michael Mann uses HD in his films ("Collateral" and "Miami Vice"), not even attempting to hide its digital origins, but allowing the image to almost breakdown and expose its electronic nature. Just as we need people finding ways of making digital match the quality of film better, we also need people to explore the digital image for the ways in which it is uniquely different from film.

 

Now I understand what you actually meant when we were discussing about "how to light for digital" :) And guess what? I fully agree with you! I actually was talking about something I believe one has got to do precisely if one was to find "ways of making digital match the quality of film better", but there are times where I also am trying to "explore the digital image for the ways in which it is uniquely different from film". And, BTW, that's precisely what I'm doing right now for a (pretty low-budget) TV show, shot with Panasonic HVX200s, that is going to be aired this summer on the belgian "La Une" TV channel...

 

Bottom line is: no one should be ashamed of shooting digital (or proud of shooting on film). Those are just tools we need to take advantage of and feel comfortable with because we're gonna have to live with BOTH of them for quite a while. :)

[Guest]

Bottom line is: no one should be ashamed of shooting digital (or proud of shooting on film). Those are just tools we need to take advantage of and feel comfortable with because we're gonna have to live with BOTH of them for quite a while. :)

 

So why are the vast bulk of indie films now shot on video?

 

The makers think video is more expensive and harder to use, therefore more prestigous to say, "we shot this on video!"

 

Actually I think that especially at the low end of the budget scale filmmakers should be proud of shooting on film. It shows they generally are more resourceful and serious about what they are doing, than people working with say DV.

 

I say low end because when you're spending 100 million on a movie the cost of the film stock is the last thing you worry about. If you're making a low budget indie then the acquisition medium becomes a real issue.

 

I'm still waiting for a single thread to be started called, "How Do I Achieve The Video Look."

 

R,

[Adam Thompson]

ups, you can' t tell hdcam from hdv?

or is it the "handheld"-style they move the 900 which you are referring to? ...i think you should have a look at it in 4k, projected. your opinion might be -slighty- altered then.

 

Uh, yeah, I can tell depending on how I'm watching it, obviously, but it's still cheap looking man. I go with my gut and when I see shows like BTG or Hustle or that new one "the Riches" I quickly, instinctually, think "cheap" and think it's not high-end. I've asked non film types about what they think when a show like that comes on and they always agree, though they don't know why; "low budget" is what I always hear. Like it or not, a lot of people just simply feel that way with most video. Though its funny how the Shield doesn't feel like that and it's just little old 16mm film.

 

And handheld is far from new or innovative, so it's not that.

 

It'd be nice to see the red projected at 4K but since I'm 2000 miles away from any screening, and 4K projectors don't exist in any market I've seen yet, I guess it's not that interesting to me. What I need to see is a 35mm film-out and see the workflow first hand before I can recommend it to anyone else or myself. I did see the new Rocky movie on what I think was a 2K unit at a chain theater and it wasn't exactly impressive. When the HD part of the fight started, it really started to get weird. I felt like I was watching a huge HD TV set.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I'm still waiting for a single thread to be started called, "How Do I Achieve The Video Look."

Good one, Richard!

 

This post is actually not a specific response to your recent post, but I actually thought that was a pretty perceptive statement. I haven't commented on this board since a few weeks before NAB, when the crosstalk here was beginning to crescendo to a fever pitch. But now that many have seen the Peter Jackson footage, everything seems to be a bit more relaxed now.

 

I would like to comment on the general reaction to both Peter Jackson's short film shown at NAB2007, "Crossing the Line," and the previous "Milk Girls" RED demo footage, shown earlier this year in Los Angeles and elsewhere. This is more a commentary on style rather than anything categorically technical. Both "Milk Girls" and "Crossing the Line" are daylight exteriors with only moderate, "conventional-looking" color grading applied. I agree with some here who have commented on RED's footage as having a slightly "video-ish" patina. I think what we haven't seen yet are contrasty, chroma-rich, MTV-ish, lit interiors (sets), with more of an edgy look. Given this look, I think RED's ultra-low noise image will be even more impressive. Many, including me, associate light to moderate amounts of film grain to be an expected, even desriable part of the film aesthetic. A tight, high-acutance grain pattern can look ultra cool, yet still sharp, and full of image fidelity. But video noise, at least in my opinion, has never been a desired part of any aesthetic, except for effect. RED's noiseless electronic image may not look exactly like film, but there's nothing like starting from a clean image to grade from (where chroma noise often only gets amplified even further). As a corollary to Richard's "video look" statement above, no one ever tries to add video noise to make their film look more video-ish (except for effect).

[jan von krogh]

Hi Jan,

That's really not an issue for many productions.

Hello Stephen.

ok, lets talk facts.

 

So you suppose that -money- is not a reason for A-budget?

Let me say that i really think you are leaving out (or missing) something here.

Money is, indeed, the only reason for A-budget.

 

The productions you are referring to (minute price $$$.$$$-$.$$$.$$$$) are often frequented by time, budget, workflow and quality-aware producers.

As a producer, you have to differentiate between necessary and unnecessary spending

They both are part of a budget. One part you want to get rid of. The other you don´t want to.

 

Was the same song in still fashion photography, btw.

many people thought "hey, putting up this catwalk is so expensive, nobody cares if i shoot film or digital", and were very vocal about this in 2000.

every little part of the machinery counts.

 

however, just my opinion & experience. i might be wrong. i don´t think so, but i might.

 

Until digital projection becomes the standard for cinema, the cheapest way to get a film on the silver screen will remain 35mm origination with a photochemical finish.

Stephen

different from the first statement (money isn´t an issue) - here you are wrong.

you are most welcome to book a shooting ratio 1:15 for a 2 hour drama with 4 weeks shooting on 2 lens systems & hdcam camera and 30 hours hdcam stock including 35mm filmout here for <25.000$.

i have the next 2 free slots in august, with a little luck in july, btw.

i would be interested how you calculate that on 35mm, even if you don´t do dailies and don´t telecine the 30 hours footage and plan to edit on moviola/steenbeck - online.

 

back to topic - in the mid-term (6-12 months), we want to hold that pricerange for 4k. And this is where, back to topic, red comes into the calculation.

[Stephen Williams]

however, just my opinion & experience. i might be wrong. i don´t think so, but i might.

different from the first statement (money isn´t an issue) - here you are wrong.

you are most welcome to book a shooting ratio 1:15 for a 2 hour drama with 4 weeks shooting on 2 lens systems & hdcam camera and 30 hours hdcam stock including 35mm filmout here for <25.000$.

i have the next 2 free slots in august, with a little luck in july, btw.

i would be interested how you calculate that on 35mm, even if you don´t do dailies and don´t telecine the 30 hours footage and plan to edit on moviola/steenbeck - online.

 

Hi Jan,

 

With all due respect, at that price I would run a mile.

 

Stephen

[Mark Williams]

you are most welcome to book a shooting ratio 1:15 for a 2 hour drama with 4 weeks shooting on 2 lens systems & hdcam camera and 30 hours hdcam stock including 35mm filmout here for <25.000$.

i have the next 2 free slots in august, with a little luck in july, btw.

i would be interested how you calculate that on 35mm, even if you don´t do dailies and don´t telecine the 30 hours footage and plan to edit on moviola/steenbeck - online.

 

back to topic - in the mid-term (6-12 months), we want to hold that pricerange for 4k. And this is where, back to topic, red comes into the calculation.

 

That equates to £12500 here WOW that sounds really really good. Out of interest would you ship the equipment to the to the UK for rental? AND just how much would it cost to do similar with an equivilent 35mm package ?

[Brian Drysdale]

Hi Jan,

 

With all due respect, at that price I would run a mile.

 

Stephen

 

Yes, sounds way too low... the HDCAM camera rental alone would be nearly that much, especially a F900.

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, sounds way too low... the HDCAM camera rental alone would be nearly that much, especially a F900.

 

Hi Brian,

 

He only has 750's, told me in a previous thread that they are just as good as a 900. I asked if he was using Digital Praxis gamma curves when comparing the cameras, & got no answer!

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

Hi Brian,

 

He only has 750's, told me in a previous thread that they are just as good as a 900. I asked if he was using Digital Praxis gamma curves when comparing the cameras, & got no answer!

 

Stephen

 

OK. I assumed it was the 750s, even so it would take a big chunk of his figure.

 

Yes, you've got a lot more options with the F900 in creating gamma curves.

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

So why are the vast bulk of indie films now shot on video?

 

(...)

 

Actually I think that especially at the low end of the budget scale filmmakers should be proud of shooting on film. It shows they generally are more resourceful and serious about what they are doing, than people working with say DV.

 

I say low end because when you're spending 100 million on a movie the cost of the film stock is the last thing you worry about. If you're making a low budget indie then the acquisition medium becomes a real issue.

 

I agree that shooting on film generally tends to show the filmmakers are "more resourceful" and that can generally be considered as a good point. However, I think this is mostly the case with DV/HDV formats because they are obviously cheaper than film. Things are different, in my opinion, when one chooses to shoot on HDCAM-SR: why should he be ashamed of shooting digital and not film? Is he not "resourceful" enough to afford something that isn't significantly cheaper than film (esp. when you include all the costs involved with such a high-end medium)?

 

On the other hand, don't you think what matters the most, in the end, is the content and NOT the format it was shot with? For instance, I just saw "Jesus Camp" yesterday evening and, in my opinion, this was shot on Panasonic DVX100 (IMDB only says it was shot on DV). Yet, I didn't see anyone in the public getting upset because this was shot on a "cheap DV format"...

 

I think the bottom line is: if your story-cast-crew is good enough, chances are producers will finance your project and you might afford to shoot it on film because, no question there, film IS the GOLD STANDARD of picture production right now and for the foreseeable future (yet, Red might get you close enough to that "gold standard" for many indies to choose to spend money on something else than film). But, on the other hand, shooting digital allows you to do certain things (and "looks") that are simply NOT possible to do with film: for instance, I don't think "Jesus Camp" would have been possible if it wasn't for the small (non "obstrusive") size of its DV cameras. So if you truly have the choice and yet, you deliberately choose to shoot digital, why should you be ashamed of your choice? If you don't have the choice, chances are indeed that your project isn't gonna be interesting, but that is a "general rule" and like all "rules" it has its own exceptions... so again, why should you be ashamed of that? On the other hand, I've seen many "indie movies", shot... on film, that were boring like hell and didn't recover half their cost because no one went to see them, not even most of the critics... So, tell me why exactly should their director be "proud of having it shot on film"? In my opinion, the "medium you're shooting on is no reason to be ashamed or proud of". If I was a director, there is one thing that would make me proud of my movie: that is if (at least some) people were moved by it. And, in my opinion, that doesn't relate whatsoever to the medium it was shot with.

 

I'm still waiting for a single thread to be started called, "How Do I Achieve The Video Look."

 

Good one :) But it would be like vinyl records to try to emulate the digital CD sound. What would be the point of film to try "to achieve the video look"? Again, film is the "gold standard", no question there. The thing is: people are used to watch film. They are used to its look, to its qualities and shortcomings (like grain, or even... shallow DOP or 24p). They even fell in love with all those aspects, even, and that is sometimes hard to understand for an engineer like me, they even fell in love with... the shortcomings of film. When video (and digital video) appeared, people complained they couldn't find all the film properties in the video format. So, engineers worked hard to improve video, to make it look more and more like film. Eventually, we might even get to a point where most professionals will say: digital video is now "good enough for me", because it is more convenient, cheaper, and it provides better colors, more resolution, more dynamic and less noise... We aren't yet at that point, and that's a fact! But I can't believe what happened in the "music" and "audio" industry is never going to happen in the "movie" and "pictures" industry. Does that mean film is gonna disapear? Nope: vinyl is still here with us and will always be, in my opinion, because there shall always be a (niche) market for it!

Edited April 28, 2007 by Emmanuel Decarpentrie

[Mark Williams]

I think most film makers aspire to using film only using video to learn, or because they can't afford real film, or have the patience to wait for it to be processed. I think most film makers would agree you can't beat real film. Video is the second choice because of cost. If only film were cheaper more accesible then I think there would be a real resurgence.

[Guest]

"So, tell me why exactly should their director be "proud of having it shot on film"?"

 

I was speaking in generalities, as you agreed...........

 

"I agree that shooting on film generally tends to show the filmmakers are "more resourceful" and that can generally be considered as a good point."

 

Yes HDCAM-SR would put the filmmaker in a different category than DV, of course.

 

But again, in GENERAL, people shooting on film are more serious and better trained. And therefore will GENERALLY produce a better end product than the video crowd.

 

I think this will apply to Red users as well. The opportunity to do endless takes simply won't discipline the filmmaker, nor will it motivate the filmmaker to spend a lot of time "fussing" over every detail of the shot. In GENERAL.

 

I'm sure there will be a brilliant opus shot on Red when it finally comes out, and every one will point to it and say "see!". But I'm talking here about statistical probability and not "out liers" as the statisticians call them.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

While the initial decision to shoot a lower-quality digital format may be financially inspired, when you get lemons, you make lemonade. Either you make it the best-looking digital image you can, or you use any negative attributes as stylistic elements and turn them into positive attributes (or at least, neutral ones...)

 

One thing to remember always about shooting with film is that there is no single universal look or style -- it can be sharp, soft, grainy, fine-grained, dirty, clean, saturated, desaturated, widescreen, square-screen, etc. So to demand that digital cinematography not be given the same freedom of expression is a limited viewpoint.

 

Of course, the flipside to this is that there is a general quality-level and look to the average feature film, so stylistic departures will fall under greater scrutiny because they stand-out from the pack, and hopefully you can justify that departure from the norm other than simply saying "we didn't have enough money."

[Adam Thompson]

On the other hand, don't you think what matters the most, in the end, is the content and NOT the format it was shot with? For instance, I just saw "Jesus Camp" yesterday evening and, in my opinion, this was shot on Panasonic DVX100 (IMDB only says it was shot on DV). Yet, I didn't see anyone in the public getting upset because this was shot on a "cheap DV format"...

 

Jesus Camp was a low budget doc. show. It's only about subject matter and is perfectly acceptable to most people looking like a cheaply produced reality show. Strange that you'd pick that as a reference.

 

Maybe Lubezki should have just used a DVX to shoot Children of Men, I mean, who'd care since it was shot doc. style, right?

 

By the way, if anyone wants to see a very nice little doc, shot on reg. 16mm, rent or order a DVD copy of "Off the Charts". Done cheaply but has a visual depth and texture that video could not have captured, in my opinion. The transfer was prob. straight to dbeta too. Subject matter is first class entertainment.

[Ralph Oshiro]

David Mullen:

As one of the more respected members of this board, I was wondering, if your busy schedule will permit a chance for you to demo a RED camera for yourself in the near future? One of the sub-1000 reservation holders at REDUSER has offered to allow me to demo his RED when he receives it, and I plan to invite another DP friend of mine (a skeptic, by the way) to the party as well, later this summer.

[jan von krogh]

i think it makes sense to be detailed about the offer.

 

yes, it is a very good price for a very good cinematic and/or top-notch HD/SD TV production level.

this is why we invested back then in 2002/2003.

 

first of all, the package.

 

our standard gear usually consists out of:

Sony HDW 750 25P Camera

Sony HDVFC 30 Color viewfinder

Sony HKDW 702 Downconverter

Sony HKDW 705 Slowshutter

Sony BCM 150 Quadquickcharger

Sony BP-IL 75 LiIon Akku (4 units)

Sony ECM 88 Stereo Elektretmikro

Sony VCT Tripodadapter

Sony Transport hardcase

Portabrace HDW750CVF

 

Angenieux 7.8 (7.8-206mm) AIF HD F2.2, x2 extender

Angenieux 5.3 (5.3-53mm) AIF HD F2, x2 extender

Crosziel 4.5 / 3 Mattebox

15/19mm Support System

 

sony or maxell tapes, 40'.

 

options which we do have in house and add depending on the feature/doc and for $$/$$$.

9' and 14' and 20' Sony BVM (the 14/20 are class 1, the 9' is just a lcd, so don't use it for color)

tektronix vector/wave unit or hamlet 19' based computer based measurement.

follow focus etc, a variety of tripods (sachtler, manfrotto & vinten).

zeiss primeset

coliometer.

and important for feature & vfx, 2 uncompressed 10bit discrecorders.

 

thats the package we usually rent out for feature and docs >=15.000 euro for 30 days of shooting, if available.

included in the package can be furthermore timecode dups with digibeta, betasp and/or dvcam, dvd with or without tc-burnin

so we can (mostly) choose who we work with, and after 17 years of production & rental its usually the same clients.

when a script, director, dop or idea is interesting, we participate as co, exec or even as producers, if whished for/necessary.

 

the filmout is done typically at 2k.

as there are preferences (stock, type of filmrecorder, location etc) we do have 3 partners who do the filmout.

with the necessary uncompressed or even native online we usually charge >=15.000 euros here at well.

when the movie is rather niche or doesn´t have/find a distributor for filmrelease, we recommend to go digital cinema for >100 screens.

this shaves of another ~5K from the budget.

 

when both is booked (shooting & filmout) we offer a package deal for =<25.000$

 

fallback 750 camera can be booked, but costs additionally.

 

when DI or grading is ordered as well (now that is something which you can´t offer with fixed pricing) we apply extremly good prices for customers who can go standby and booked the shooting & filmout (usually 3-6 weeks until we have a 2-4 week slot free in the suites). area of 300-1000 euro, mainly depending on the booked colorist, instead of 1200-2000.

 

the studio is equipped with 2 1080p online systems, one native 1080p hdcam system, sonys flagship hdcam vtr (we won´t introduce sr however it seems) and 4 class 1 monitors.

 

so, this is our basic digital offering since 2003 - and we have done >100 masters since then. ranging from fulfeature over series over documentary over arts over installation.

the equipment is well maintained.

 

with this setup we usually do 3-4 productions features/docs a year, 2-4 specials (installations, event etc) and 5-10 commercials/corporate. thats typically 6-8 months.

in the remaining time (usually we are in post/negotiations etc then) we offer these packages - and that is exactly why we wanted to add digital.

 

so, lets go to 750/900.

when we bought the 750 we choosed it over the 900/2 back then.

would we be US-basing, we 100% had picked the 900.

we, however, are doing almost anything at 25p as in the Eu thats the most hasslefree framerate and you can easily can go 24p from 25p.

the 750 had an uncompressed hd-sdi out (900/2 hadn´t back then) which we needed for VFX/complex grading.

the 750 was lighter, what was important for steady & run'n'gun/drunken cam style - and our steadyguy instisted.

the 750 had a slowshutter (900/3 hasn´t) which we wanted for #1 creative options and #2 shooting in -extremly- dark situations

the 750 had a colorviewfinder (came out later for the 900/3, sony is bizarre sometimes)

the 750 hadn´t a fan and was almost noiseless (the 900/3 can be pretty loud sometimes)

the 750 had the the whole interfaces we needed, incl. downconverter options without having to attach 2 or 3 devices.

the 750 comsumed less energy (~-30%)

the 750 has a picturecacheboard (timelapse etc) which also was important for shooting stock.

this is why we choose the 750 instead of the 900/2/3. price btw, was slightly lower on the 900 than for the fully geared 750 including color vf.

 

meanwhile, the new 900/r (which is the 750 expanded) is the better camera. the 900/2/3 has better framerates and wasn´t the camera for us.

i was intrigued to the 900 as it came out. but as it was to loud, to heavy, hadn´t uncompressed out, had many creative option (slow/timelapse) missing, needed 2-3 additional devices, hadn´t a colorciewfinder etc - so i resisted.

 

to the bitdepth. hdcam is 8 bit.

not 10 or 12 or even 14.

the 900/R better bitdepth is -important- if you intend to grade incamera (->battlestar galactica)

when one (as we do) grades in the post, that isn´t important. hdcam is 8 bit to repeat it once more. 8 bit.

 

the 900/R today is better, but don´t let yourself be fooled by 12/10bit on a 8bit system.

 

back to the topic.

yes, we often rent out the camera & give the filmout deal in foreign countries.

so far we have had cuba, mauritius, south africa, kenia, egypt, turkey, spain, france... 16 countries if i am counting right.

but not us & japan, as they are ntsc and you´ll be better of with 24, 23.98 to be precise, fps . the 750 version in us/japan isn´t 25, btw, therefore succesfully blocking use for cinema.

 

with red we want to have a similar pricerange. much higher in the first 6-12months to earn on the buzz, lower than hdcam in 2008/9.

finally a good use for our 35mm optics again! our arri IIb (not BL, argh) is rarely in use anymore, but man, the lenses (angenieux zooms, cooke prime, both -6 years old).

 

p.s.

as i am talking money here, should that post be moved to classified?

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, I'd love a chance to play with one, design some simple tests. Maybe take it over to a place like Clairmont Cameras so I can shoot side-by-side with an Arri-435 and the same lens on both cameras, of the same subject. Trick would be to find a way of looking at both camera's footages on a big screen, in the same format using the same projector.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Sure, I'd love a chance to play with one, design some simple tests. Maybe take it over to a place like Clairmont Cameras so I can shoot side-by-side with an Arri-435 and the same lens on both cameras, of the same subject. Trick would be to find a way of looking at both camera's footages on a big screen, in the same format using the same projector.

Well, I'm sure I speak for many here, that we would all look forward to your honest evaluation of RED's performance. I know that both RED and some early reservation-holders are anxious to know what you think. I'm sure the opportunity will present itself very soon (I thought it already had, actually), and I very much look forward to your review and commentary.

[David Mullen ASC]

That's flattering but I'm no technical genius like Dave Stump or Graeme Nattress -- my evaluations would be fairly general even if I shot a test. I'm more interested in the basics of how the darn image looks in real-world situations. I probably won't be the guy who could design a test that would find the breaking point in various categories.