RED in Post

[Stephen Williams]

That's rather revisionist. Over the last couple of years here I've been told, among other things, that it's impossible to shoot anything worthwhile with photo lenses,

 

Hi Chris,

 

You were never told "that it's impossible to shoot anything worthwhile with photo lenses" on this forum. I regularly use Nikon lenses on a motion control with a computer controlled follow focus base, the pictures have been shown world wide in the cinema & on television.

 

BTW I read that you recently bought the Red 15-50, can I deduce that photo lenses are not actually a workable solution for you today?

 

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

And you can learn all that stuff with a DVX-100

 

You can certainly learn a lot with a DVX100. But you can't get experience with managing the logistics of a shoot involving a heavy camera rig, 35mm glass (and focus pulling), film-style accessories, raw data shooting and workflow, overcranking, etc. And what you can learn about, for instance, color grading or chromakey with a DVX100 is not going to transfer completely to higher-end equipment.

 

More to the point, as I've said quite a few times before, I doubt the Red One is a first camera for many of its customers. The things that can be learned with a DVX100, most people laying out cash for a Red already know. There seems to be a persistent notion on this forum that there are large numbers of people who have never shot anything before buying the Red with dreams of instant success. This notion, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, seems to creep into (and ultimately totally derail) just about every discussion here about where Red fits into the market.

 

No, I think that's what YOU believe. I would say that an awful lot of people really do believe it only requires equipment, just like a lot of people believe buying Final Cut makes you a professional editor, buying After Effects makes you a crack visual effects artist, and buying Final Draft makes you a master screenwriter, all regardless of age, knowledge, or experience.

 

OK, yes. These people exist. We've all met them. Are they the same people laying out the cash for pro-level gear, reading and posting extensively on forums to try to learn and share new information, and going out there and doing things all the time to build their skills? Not in my experience. It's almost the exact opposite, in fact. The people who believe that being good is all about what equipment you have access to seem to spend most of their time complaining that they can't afford access to the equipment they need!

 

The rental companies allow you to practise and shoot tests with camera kit on their premises for nothing.

 

This is, of course, not at all the same thing as, for instance, taking your Red and going and shooting a short or three. The kind of evaluation you can do at a rental house and the kind that occurs on a real shoot are worlds apart.

 

You were never told "that it's impossible to shoot anything worthwhile with photo lenses" on this forum.

 

No, just that there's a vast difference in quality and that photo lenses aren't suitable for "real production", or things to that effect.

 

BTW I read that you recently bought the Red 15-50, can I deduce that photo lenses are not actually a workable solution for you today?

 

Yes, but for financial reasons, rather than technical. It would be harder to rent the camera with a Nikon mount. We thought all the slick electronic controls on Birger's EF mount would let us make a pitch that offset concerns clients might have about photo lenses, but we got tired of waiting for Birger to actually ship. We'll probably revisit the whole issue for our own lens collection when the P+S interchangeable mount system becomes available.

[Stephen Williams]

or things to that effect.

 

Hi Chris,

 

We are often mis-quoted or our posts are taken out of context, there is the a big difference. I personally have earned over $7000 this month (so far) using Nikon Lenses, in total to date well over $500,000 , just horses for courses. FWIW I was shooting with 35mm film, I actually turned down a Red project as the dates clashed.

 

After a disagreement with Jim recently, I reread most of the RED forum here. It's amazing the useful input that was made by people including Phil Rhodes, however this input was ignored for Red One but some will be incorporated in Epic! That's 20/20 vision to some & disrespect to others.

 

My best,

 

Stephen

[Patrizio De Sica]

BTW I read that you recently bought the Red 15-50, can I deduce that photo lenses are not actually a workable solution for you today?

 

Stephen

Is this Red 15-50 a new 2008 or 2018 model? ;)

 

By the way, what about this $6595 Complete (plus $2000 for a Cineform solution) ?

 

http://www.1beyond.com/products/GoFlex317H...?search=laptops

[Stephen Williams]

Is this Red 15-50 a new 2008 or 2018 model? ;)

 

By the way, what about this $6595 Complete (plus $2000 for a Cineform solution) ?

 

http://www.1beyond.com/products/GoFlex317H...?search=laptops

 

Hi,

 

A typo from a very small keyboard!

 

Stephen

[Peter Moretti]

No, I think that's what YOU believe. I would say that an awful lot of people really do believe it only requires equipment, just like a lot of people believe buying Final Cut makes you a professional editor, buying After Effects makes you a crack visual effects artist, and buying Final Draft makes you a master screenwriter, all regardless of age, knowledge, or experience. ...

Thank God for those people, they're good for the economy ;).

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Chris,

 

We are often mis-quoted or our posts are taken out of context, there is the a big difference.

 

Honestly, what I see happening a fair amount of the time here is that the anti-Red faction (or maybe I should just call it the anti-do-it-yourself faction) will make arguments that don't make any sense without certain unspoken assumptions, and then claim such assumptions aren't there when they're pointed out explicitly. Virtually all of the "Red fan boys won't be able to afford a full camera package and post workflow and even if they can they won't actually be able to afford to shoot features" arguments function like this, for instance, with a set of hidden assumptions about how movies have to be made. When those assumptions are pointed out (and are obviously wrong), the argument suddenly shifts.

 

Frankly, the anti-DIY faction here hasn't got anything resembling a coherent argument. Look at this thread, which started off drifting in the direction of something like "Red DIY types won't be able to afford post for Red because a serious post workflow requires X, Y and Z", and then once some reality was injected in terms of what's actually required for Red post, immediately switched to something like "OK, but having access to gear doesn't help because you still need talent".

 

Let's think about this for a moment. The same faction that started off the thread insisting that making a movie required a laundry list of high-end gear ends up a couple of pages later arguing that gear doesn't matter and that it's the other side which believes it does. This isn't the first time we've seen this pattern. The next step, if we hold true to course, is to start calling into question personal credentials. Cue in 3...2...1...

 

Some folks here seem willing to accept any answer to the question "What does it take to make a movie?" as long as that answer isn't "a Red, a fast Mac, some like-minded people, a lot of hard work and a bit of native talent". Trouble is, that's actually a pretty decent answer these days.

[Gary McClurg]

"What does it take to make a movie?"

 

Money.... ;)

[Dan Goulder]

Honestly, what I see happening a fair amount of the time here is that the anti-Red faction (or maybe I should just call it the anti-do-it-yourself faction) will make arguments that don't make any sense without certain unspoken assumptions, and then claim such assumptions aren't there when they're pointed out explicitly.

So, I guess your mission must be to spy on this evil "anti-Red faction" and report back to headquarters.

[Chris Kenny]

So, I guess your mission must be to spy on this evil "anti-Red faction" and report back to headquarters.

 

Right on cue....

 

Actually, Internet debates are a rather longstanding hobby of mine, and I find that debating things like this helps me think through and clarify my own positions.

[Dan Goulder]

Right on cue....

 

Actually, Internet debates are a rather longstanding hobby of mine, and I find that debating things like this helps me think through and clarify my own positions.

Right on cue...

[Peter Moretti]

Money.... ;)

I've got a script for you: http://www.hollywoodbookcity.com/MovieScri...e_MV101099.html

 

:P

[Keith Walters]

Over the last couple of years here I've been told, among other things, that it's impossible to shoot anything worthwhile with photo lenses,

By who?

 

Another strawman....

 

There is nothing particularly wrong with photo lenses optically (well, obviously you get what you pay for), but the biggest problem is that they are not designed to be used the way cine camera lenses are used.

 

With still photography, you normally can take as long as you like adjusting the focus, and usually you can adjust for optimum focus by simply looking through the viewfinder. You don't usually need tape measures and such stuff unless you are shooting for billboards and the like.

 

With motion pictures, in most cases you simply don't have time for that. The focus puller has to depend on the mechanical repeatability of the focus mechanism, and mechanisms aqequate for still cameras are usually not up to the task of repeated fast focus pulls.

 

Plenty of stills lenses (mostly zooms) have indeed been converted to cine use, but often only the glass and basic focus mechanism gets used. The rest is invariably rebuilt like a standard cine lens.

[Brian Drysdale]

Honestly, what I see happening a fair amount of the time here is that the anti-Red faction (or maybe I should just call it the anti-do-it-yourself faction) will make arguments that don't make any sense without certain unspoken assumptions, and then claim such assumptions aren't there when they're pointed out explicitly. Virtually all of the "Red fan boys won't be able to afford a full camera package and post workflow and even if they can they won't actually be able to afford to shoot features" arguments function like this, for instance, with a set of hidden assumptions about how movies have to be made. When those assumptions are pointed out (and are obviously wrong), the argument suddenly shifts.

 

Frankly, the anti-DIY faction here hasn't got anything resembling a coherent argument. Look at this thread, which started off drifting in the direction of something like "Red DIY types won't be able to afford post for Red because a serious post workflow requires X, Y and Z", and then once some reality was injected in terms of what's actually required for Red post, immediately switched to something like "OK, but having access to gear doesn't help because you still need talent".

 

Let's think about this for a moment. The same faction that started off the thread insisting that making a movie required a laundry list of high-end gear ends up a couple of pages later arguing that gear doesn't matter and that it's the other side which believes it does. This isn't the first time we've seen this pattern. The next step, if we hold true to course, is to start calling into question personal credentials. Cue in 3...2...1...

 

Some folks here seem willing to accept any answer to the question "What does it take to make a movie?" as long as that answer isn't "a Red, a fast Mac, some like-minded people, a lot of hard work and a bit of native talent". Trouble is, that's actually a pretty decent answer these days.

 

 

I think if you check forums around here other than just the RED one, you'll find loads of people doing DIY with camera kit somewhat older than the RED. Some of them are even trying to shoot sync dialogue with a Bolex, which is a hell of lot tougher than doing the same thing with a RED.

 

Good modern gear only makes life easier, it doesn't make the movie.

[Stephen Williams]

I think if you check forums around here other than just the RED one, you'll find loads of people doing DIY with camera kit somewhat older than the RED. Some of them are even trying to shoot sync dialogue with a Bolex, which is a hell of lot tougher than doing the same thing with a RED.

 

Good modern gear only makes life easier, it doesn't make the movie.

 

Hi,

 

Indeed Mr Boddington film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194423/ has been released in the cinema, of course it does not count to many RedUsers as he shot on 35mm financed it out of his own pocket. He was even banned by Jarred within 30 minutes of joining another forum.

 

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

I think if you check forums around here other than just the RED one, you'll find loads of people doing DIY with camera kit somewhat older than the RED. Some of them are even trying to shoot sync dialogue with a Bolex, which is a hell of lot tougher than doing the same thing with a RED.

 

Good modern gear only makes life easier, it doesn't make the movie.

 

Yes, of course. That's my point. That's precisely why it's so frustrating that the "Red owners won't be able to use their $17.5K camera bodies without another $100K in gear" and the "The cost of the camera and the workflow doesn't matter anyway because making a movie is so expensive" arguments are so persistent in this forum. At virtually every turn, some folks in this forum seem determined to see barriers standing in the way of Red users -- even when, as soon the discussion isn't Red-related, they seem to know better.

[Gary McClurg]

At virtually every turn, some folks in this forum seem determined to see barriers standing in the way of Red users -- even when, as soon the discussion isn't Red-related, they seem to know better.

 

No I think there is a belief that is so...

 

I can remember at the 2007 NAB... some kid working at a booth... says did I see the Red... "oh my gosh... Peter Jackson shot with it,"

 

He was shocked when I said it doesn't matter to me if Peter Jackson shot with the camera... I could care less... I'd rather see what Chris Kenny shoots with it."

 

Of course I didn't use your name... if I ever run into him again I will...

 

But back to your statement... our does it really matter... its been said over and over... some one created a marketing pitch that turn some people off.. while it created a buzz among some others who thought that the big guys were all afraid of these little guys cause they could own a Red...

 

And some of us are interested in becoming a some what one man shop... or maybe four or five man shop... and I'm closer to the little guy... ... I've seen some great stuff from some guys who have shot stuff with the dvx and it was great... and I've seen stuff that shouldn't even be posted on the net... no lighting... bad sound... bad script... bad acting... etc...

 

I think the problem comes down to the guys who shoot the bad stuff think by owning the Red they'll be able to go out there and do big time stuff... the only guys who should go out there and do big time stuff are the guys who did the great stuff... and in the end.. it doesn't matter which camera they use... its the skills and the determination to make a movie is what sets them apart...

Edited July 17, 2008 by Gary McClurg

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, of course. That's my point. That's precisely why it's so frustrating that the "Red owners won't be able to use their $17.5K camera bodies without another $100K in gear" and the "The cost of the camera and the workflow doesn't matter anyway because making a movie is so expensive" arguments are so persistent in this forum. At virtually every turn, some folks in this forum seem determined to see barriers standing in the way of Red users -- even when, as soon the discussion isn't Red-related, they seem to know better.

 

I think the main point is that the RED is just like another camera and it won't bring any more to the table than any other camera. Like all cameras it has advantages and disadvantages, however, the elements that attract an audience to a film have very little to do with the camera itself. I suspect the reaction of some people is more towards the attitudes of some RED users rather than a camera and how it'll be used on productions. Part of this could to be due to the nature of the internet and how people use it.

 

Looking at some threads on REDUser I can see why many companies don't involve possible customers in the product development using forums - I'm thinking in particular of the Birger thread. Bart Simpson in the back of the car comes to mind, forgetting that they won't get the production mount any quicker... it takes as long it takes.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Brian Drysdale

[John Sprung]

I think the problem comes down to the guys who shoot the bad stuff think by owning the Red they'll be able to go out there and do big time stuff... the only guys who should go out there and do big time stuff are the guys who did the great stuff...

Yeah, it makes the haystack grow at a faster rate than the needle supply.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Chris Kenny]

I think the main point is that the RED is just like another camera and it won't bring any more to the table than any other camera.

 

Well, it does for some people. The Red One is a very different animal from most cameras in its price range, because it's not an ENG camera. Compare it down the line with, say, Panasonic's HPX2000, which might seem like a natural upgrade path for someone looking for a pro counterpart to the prosumer HVX200 (a popular camera for indie filmmaking). The Red One shoots higher frame rates, captures raw sensor data, uses less (and better) compression, has a 35mm-format sensor (shallow DoF, compatibility with cine lenses) and, of course, captures far more resolution. For ENG work, a couple of those are mostly irrelevant, and the rest are active liabilities. For anything that works like narrative feature production, though, these differences make the Red One far and away the better camera.

 

If you mean the Red isn't all that exciting if you're used to shooting on the F23 or D21, to some extent this is true. But I think this actually reveals another point of contention between the do-it-yourself crowd and some folks on this forum. Some folks on this forum do most of their work on high-priced equipment rented with other people's money, and don't really believe there are viable business models for owning equipment unless you're a large rental house, so they don't care about the price of equipment. As a result of this, these folks can't really understand why anyone would get all that excited about Red. Sometimes they end up attributing the excitement to beliefs few people buying the Red One actually hold. (Like "This camera is all I need to make great movies!")

 

Like all cameras it has advantages and disadvantages, however, the elements that attract an audience to a film have very little to do with the camera itself.

 

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree too much with that. But at the same time, I don't see people regularly advocating that movies which can afford 35mm should be shot on 16mm instead because the audience won't care that much. And it's worth remembering that the Red One isn't actually all that much more expensive than what we could call the rough digital equivalent of 16mm (the 2/3" pro HD video cameras), and is in fact cheaper than many of them.

 

Another thing to consider is that the people who create images care what they look like even if the audience doesn't (unless they're in it entirely for the money, in which case they're probably in the wrong business). If I invested months of my life in shooting a feature and the image I ended up with was a 4:2:2 heavily DCT-compressed possibly non-full-raster less-than 2 megapixel image, I'd always have a few regrets that the quality wasn't higher. If I'd shot on Red, I wouldn't. Now, maybe other people's thresholds are in different places, and they'd have no regrets with MiniDV, or they would have regrets with anything less than IMAX. But I think 35's long reign as the standard format for "real movies" has calibrated many other people's thresholds to around the same level as mine. So, another reason people get excited about the camera is that it's the first reasonably affordable camera that crosses many potential buyers' personal quality thresholds.

 

It's also worth pointing out again, I think, that both RedUser and the Red forum here are explicitly forums about a camera, so the fact that they're full of discussions about camera tech specs rather than locations or actors or scripts doesn't mean the people who post in them don't think locations or actors or scripts are important.

[Stephen Williams]

Some folks on this forum do most of their work on high-priced equipment rented with other people's money, and don't really believe there are viable business models for owning equipment unless you're a large rental house, so they don't care about the price of equipment. As a result of this, these folks can't really understand why anyone would get all that excited about Red. Sometimes they end up attributing the excitement to beliefs few people buying the Red One actually hold. (Like "This camera is all I need to make great movies!")

 

Hi,

 

In the last 29 years I have spent an awful lot of money on equipmet, I would be far richer today if I had never bought any equipment. I make my money as a DOP, I am happy to let others rent equipment. At the moment Red owners are getting a great rental rate, that will change with 4000 cameras in the market, then bodys will rent for $1-200 a day.

 

Stephen

[Adrian Sierkowski]

We all know the real money is in lenses and lights! Firmware Ambiguous! ;)

 

Honestly, I was astounded when I saw a red rate at $1000/day (a few months ago).

 

Guess I misses that boat. . . alas.

[Brian Drysdale]

Well, it does for some people. The Red One is a very different animal from most cameras in its price range, because it's not an ENG camera. Compare it down the line with, say, Panasonic's HPX2000, which might seem like a natural upgrade path for someone looking for a pro counterpart to the prosumer HVX200 (a popular camera for indie filmmaking). The Red One shoots higher frame rates, captures raw sensor data, uses less (and better) compression, has a 35mm-format sensor (shallow DoF, compatibility with cine lenses) and, of course, captures far more resolution. For ENG work, a couple of those are mostly irrelevant, and the rest are active liabilities. For anything that works like narrative feature production, though, these differences make the Red One far and away the better camera.

 

If you mean the Red isn't all that exciting if you're used to shooting on the F23 or D21, to some extent this is true. But I think this actually reveals another point of contention between the do-it-yourself crowd and some folks on this forum. Some folks on this forum do most of their work on high-priced equipment rented with other people's money, and don't really believe there are viable business models for owning equipment unless you're a large rental house, so they don't care about the price of equipment. As a result of this, these folks can't really understand why anyone would get all that excited about Red. Sometimes they end up attributing the excitement to beliefs few people buying the Red One actually hold. (Like "This camera is all I need to make great movies!")

 

 

 

OK, I don't think anyone would disagree too much with that. But at the same time, I don't see people regularly advocating that movies which can afford 35mm should be shot on 16mm instead because the audience won't care that much. And it's worth remembering that the Red One isn't actually all that much more expensive than what we could call the rough digital equivalent of 16mm (the 2/3" pro HD video cameras), and is in fact cheaper than many of them.

 

 

Indie film making is a broad church, it covers everything from Mini DV to 35mm. On a reasonable number of indie productions the most expensive item on set is the talent standing in front of the camera, not the camera (never minding the crew who could be on a "deal"). The most important part forgotten in this techie talk are the business skills of the producer (obtaining funding, sales and distribution) these are unfortunately overlooked in the believe that one new technical development will bring success.

 

Renting the camera kit is common on drama productions, although owning is common with the people working in other sectors like the broadcast, corporate markets. A single operator could rent for less when making their personal project, without tieing up capital that could be invested on screen. Buying only really makes sense if the earnings pay for the kit, or if you're doing it as a hobby.

 

Although, I suppose you do get the same effect with owning a car, even though there's a good chance for many people it would be cheaper over the year to go by taxi and rent a car for longer journeys. People still like owning their own car.

 

A number of films that could afford 35mm have been shot on Super 16 and even the odd one on MiniDV. It depends on your story and how you wish to tell it.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Brian Drysdale

[Rob Lindsay]

I just finished shooting a dramtic short with the Red, build 16. The director, who is an experienced editor, wants to cut the offline on his Vegas 7 system, which he knows well. Online could end up in Scratch or another system.

 

Are there any suggestions for this workflow? Final cut will be about 12 minutes long, with output for digital projection and the web in 16x9.

 

Thanks!

[Chris Kenny]

Hi,

 

In the last 29 years I have spent an awful lot of money on equipmet, I would be far richer today if I had never bought any equipment. I make my money as a DOP, I am happy to let others rent equipment.

 

If your primary career goal is to be a freelance DoP working on other people's projects, then yes, buying equipment is probably a mistake. But this is not my impression of what most of Red's customers are trying to do.

 

At the moment Red owners are getting a great rental rate, that will change with 4000 cameras in the market, then bodys will rent for $1-200 a day.

 

That's nuts. Will rental prices drop? Probably. But not that far. Why would the Red One rent for less than the HVX200 or EX1?