Films shot on the RED?

[David Mullen ASC]

So RED could actually be a vessel for dispassionate and/or untalented filmakers to hide behind?

 

Well, I said passionate, not dispassionate...

 

No, I don't think there is any higher number of untalented people using RED to hide behind, I was more talking about people who use technology as either a scapegoat to heap their frustrations on or religious icon to pin their hopes and dreams on. It's just that the price point of RED has encouraged some people to engage in class warfare, that's all -- on both sides, I have to admit. Just that the RED has come to represent the dispossessed, the underclass, and the underdogs, of filmmaking... and there are always more of them.

 

Not to say that there isn't some truth behind their hostility and frustrations, but ultimately they will have to get beyond the notion of technology as the doorway or roadblock to artistic and professional success.

 

Your question was "why RED?" in particular seems to be some sort of rallying cry for the struggling filmmaker -- truth is that that tone has always been there on DV forums, and people in the past have pinned their hopes on the XL2, the DVX100, the HVX200, etc. or used them as focal points to discuss their frustration with the elite world of expensive film formats and other technologies -- only now it has become more amplified, since RED is clearly a major step forward from the world of prosumer gear.

 

I'm sure a certain percentage will break off and get a Canon 5D Mk.II or something similar and call RED ONE owners a bunch of elitists using expensive cameras...

 

It's partly a matter of perspective -- the RED ONE seems like a nice, fairly small camera to me, more like a Super-16 camera in size, but for people who mainly use consumer handycams, the thing must seem like a beast. For someone like me used to a Panaflex, it seems smaller and lighter.

 

I can recall discussions several years ago by people claiming that the upcoming prosumer HDV cameras would obsolete 35mm filmmaking. The number of people who look at film technology as some sort of giant that must be killed, because it somehow is getting in the way of them being taken seriously or becoming successful, never ceases to amaze and annoy me. Just recently someone on RedUser was claiming that prosumer HDV was just as high in quality as 35mm, that anyone could see it with their own eyes, and professional DP's weren't willing to be honest and just admit that. How do you even argue with someone like that, who can't even see that there IS a quality diffference? Who isn't being honest with themselves?

 

On the other hand, let's also be honest -- the resolution of these latest cameras like the Genesis, RED, F35, D21, isn't that far off from typical 35mm photography. Maybe not as good as the best 35mm cinematography out there, but for most stuff you see these days, the new digital cameras are certainly competitive in the area of sharpness. Of course, that's partly due to most 35mm post work being completed at 2K these days. But I would argue that a lot of 35mm photography is more in the 3K range of resolution and much of it would not hit the 4K mark. (Now there is still an argument for scanning 35mm at resolutions higher than the film can resolve, to avoid aliasing and stairstepping.)

[Nicholas Shields]

Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC recent chose to use RED to shoot Three Stories About Joan.

[Keith Walters]

I can recall discussions several years ago by people claiming that the upcoming prosumer HDV cameras would obsolete 35mm filmmaking. The number of people who look at film technology as some sort of giant that must be killed, because it somehow is getting in the way of them being taken seriously or becoming successful, never ceases to amaze and annoy me. Just recently someone on RedUser was claiming that prosumer HDV was just as high in quality as 35mm, that anyone could see it with their own eyes, and professional DP's weren't willing to be honest and just admit that. How do you even argue with someone like that, who can't even see that there IS a quality diffference? Who isn't being honest with themselves?

I witnessed a particularly distressing episode of this sort of thing about 9 years ago when the argument was whether the (approximately) 1440 x 800 resolution Star Wars Episode II was shot on was really "indistinguishable from 35mm film". The Sony rep was making ludicrously inflammatory statements, and in my opinion he got no more than he richly deserved.

 

However, while a broken white cane and smashed dark glasses can easily be replaced, there absolutely no justification for kicking his seeing-eye dog, even if it was trained to urinate on the Panaflex. That's the sort of thing that mob vigilante-ism always leads to unfortunately. Next thing they will be throwing shoes...

 

Everybody knows those Golden Labradors are very highly strung, and it will probably never recover from the trauma. I don't know why they don't use German Shepherds here like they do in other countries.

[Neil Duffy]

I think David has some excellent points about RED. I think it is an effective tool for shooting most cinematography. It is not all there yet. But it is very promising. And it clearly has taken us in a new direction and has taken digital video out of the prosumer market.

 

However, I think some of the competitors might come from the still photography world - and their response to the 5D Mark II. And I think FF35 is probably where all this digital cinema is heading. Just my thoughts. ;)

[Tom Lowe]

David, you also have to keep in mind that you are an established, successful, working DP and not a struggling Director/Producer/Indie type who is trying to put together their first feature for like $160,000 USD, or whatever. In that case, the benefits of being able to shoot on a high-quality, professional camera like Red One vs something like the HVX200 are substantial in terms of image quality and having an acceptable finished product (on the off chance that it's any good!). Of course 99% of indie films are crummy, but that is true of any artform. But a novelist, for example, has a more "even" playing field than a filmmaker. Sheets of blank paper or a PC are within everyone's reach. Camera gear, crew and a cast to make a film might not be.

 

If you were a struggling director/producer/dp, you would want to use Red vs HVX200 or the high cost of film (relative to a $160K feature budget).. who wouldn't? Point being, that it's easy to put yourself in such a person's shoes and see why they love Jannard and Red so much. This is technology that, frankly, we all know Canon or Sony could have put out there years ago at a reasonable price, but for whatever reason did not. That's where a lot of this "screw Sony...down with the establishment!" mentality comes from. Even now with the 5D2 release, Canon has chosen to disable 24p... which only enforces these conspiracy notions about how the big camera companies are holding back technology from the "little guy."

 

But I also understand your more detached, practical and essentially neutral view on these matters. It's good for a lot of the koolaid drinkers at Reduser to hear you put things into perspective.

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly better picture quality is a nice thing. On the other hand, I shot two features with $160,000 budgets, one was in Super-16 and the other in 35mm, so at that budget level, 35mm quality is not necessarily impossible without a RED camera.

 

If you definitely need a film print, finishing a RED project all the way through the D.I. stages to a film out could potentially cost you over $60,000... whereas you could shoot 35mm, assuming a low shooting ratio, cut the negative, and strike a print for around the same costs.

 

Anyway, I've never been of the belief that if you have "x" amount of money for a one-off feature project, the first thing you should be doing is buying a lot of equipment. Take that money and make a deal to rent or borrow someone else's RED camera package (or 35mm or whatever). I shot one $200,000 feature with an F900 package that cost us $10,000 total for the month.

 

I disagree with the notion that to make a high quality movie for $100,000 or so, the first thing you need to do is drop $30,000 or so on a RED ONE and accessories (and that may not even include lenses...) when you could probably rent a RED ONE package for a month for a third of that cost.

 

Now that calculation may be different if this was some endless shoot over months and months, or you had some sort of business plan to make multiple projects over the years. But most indie features are one-time affairs.

 

But if you really had $160,000 and wanted to drive into the Sierras for two months and shoot a nature epic, I'd seriously consider renting a cheap Arri-35BL and getting a decent set of lenses (maybe even anamorphic), spend the money to shoot 35mm (maybe short ends) and a tiny crew. That's sort of how David Gordon Green made that 35mm anamorphic movie "George Washington". There was a lovely 35mm b&w period movie made partly in the Sierras for very little money called "Color of a Brisk and Leaping Day".

 

And even F900 or Varicam photography can look pretty decent -- look at Coppola's last movie "Youth without Youth", shot on the F900. And there have been some nice-looking Super-16 features -- for example, Mike Leigh's "Vera Drake".

 

There have always been options for the indie filmmaker, just now there are more and better options. That's a good thing, but it wasn't like there is this big dividing line in the years of indie filmmaking that should be marked BR and AR -- "Before Red" and "After Red".

[Tom Lowe]

David, on the 160K budget thing I think the idea (at least as I was mentioning it) would be that either you already own the Red One and have been renting it out or DPing or using it on commercial or music video shoots, or you could borrow one from a friend, etc. People have them lying around their houses. It's a fairly affordable camera, as opposed to an F23, for example. I certainly agree that on a small budget dropping 30- or 40K on gear would be unwise. I also agree that F900 and similar cameras are plenty capable of shooting great pictures.

 

Speaking of 2/3 cameras and the Sierras, I would love to pack a Scarlet on the John Muir trail in 2010 with a carbon-fiber tripod, a light fluid head, solar charger, etc. To me, that's measurable progress when you can pack a 2/3 RAW high fps camera into a small pack and take it out into the woods. :)

 

Understand, too, that people who have come up into motion pictures from strictly a digital background may view film as foreign, archaic and unwieldy, though they may have a great appreciation for its beauty on screen and admiration for those who really know how to use it. The whole process is very different with film vs digital. You are unlikely to convert people who have come up using digital to use film, unless they suddenly become very successful and money is no longer an object. Can you imagine taking an 18 year old who has learned shooting stills on a Canon 5D and suddenly tell him that he has to shoot film and turn his shots in at the lab and scan the negatives, etc, before he can actually view the results?! He would scratch his head, and say no thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

Speaking of 2/3 cameras and the Sierras, I would love to pack a Scarlet on the John Muir trail in 2010 with a carbon-fiber tripod, a light fluid head, solar charger, etc. To me, that's measurable progress when you can pack a 2/3 RAW high fps camera into a small pack and take it out into the woods. :)

 

Sounds interesting to me, you'd just have to figure out how to charge batteries and download your data...

[Tom Lowe]

Sounds interesting to me, you'd just have to figure out how to charge batteries and download your data...

 

Probably just lithium ion batteries with solar chargers (on top of the backpack all day? :lol:) and a couple spares. Probably bring lots of CF cards and a couple of Nexto or Hyperdrive devices.

 

One thing that I find pretty amazing is the record time on the 5D2 with its new "smart" batteries. It can shoot 1080p for hours and hours and hours without dying, and the battery is no larger than a walnut. The other day I shot something like 4000 timelapse frames (with mirror lockup) with one battery, and barely put a dent in the battery! Hopefully Red will catch up in terms of bootup time, battery efficiency, etc.

[David Mullen ASC]

Probably just lithium ion batteries with solar chargers (on top of the backpack all day? :lol:) and a couple spares. Probably bring lots of CF cards and a couple of Nexto or Hyperdrive devices.

 

One thing that I find pretty amazing is the record time on the 5D2 with its new "smart" batteries. It can shoot 1080p for hours and hours and hours without dying, and the battery is no larger than a walnut. The other day I shot something like 4000 timelapse frames (with mirror lockup) with one battery, and barely put a dent in the battery! Hopefully Red will catch up in terms of bootup time, battery efficiency, etc.

 

Would a solar charger recharge a couple of depleted camera batteries within a day? Depending on how much you were shooting, you may have three or four dead batteries to charge every day. That means carrying six or eight batteries total with you, which is heavy. And how many CF cards can you afford? Are Nexto and Hyperdrive devices battery-powered? If so, will you have to charge those as well?

[Tom Lowe]

Would a solar charger recharge a couple of depleted camera batteries within a day? Depending on how much you were shooting, you may have three or four dead batteries to charge every day. That means carrying six or eight batteries total with you, which is heavy. And how many CF cards can you afford? Are Nexto and Hyperdrive devices battery-powered? If so, will you have to charge those as well?

 

Haha, I didn't say it was going to be EASY! :lol:

 

I might need to take the trail at a slower pace, and spend some extra time lounging around those gorgeous alpine lakes while my solar chargers work away!

[Brad Grimmett]

Unlike Reduser, posts can't be edited by anyone other than the person who wrote them

Actually, that's not entirely true. Posts CAN be edited by the moderators in that particular forum. The difference is that we don't edit posts except in extreme circumstances (of which I think there have been none).

I just wanted to make it clear that people can't just post anything they want here and not have it deleted if it needs to be.

[Brad Grimmett]

Would a solar charger recharge a couple of depleted camera batteries within a day?

I think I remember seeing a backpack that had built in solar panels on it. That backpack would be perfect for that kind of project. I guess at that point you'd just have to hope you had plenty of sun!

[Matthew Buick]

Well, I said passionate, not dispassionate...

 

No, I don't think there is any higher number of untalented people using RED to hide behind, I was more talking about people who use technology as either a scapegoat to heap their frustrations on or religious icon to pin their hopes and dreams on. It's just that the price point of RED has encouraged some people to engage in class warfare, that's all -- on both sides, I have to admit. Just that the RED has come to represent the dispossessed, the underclass, and the underdogs, of filmmaking... and there are always more of them.

 

Not to say that there isn't some truth behind their hostility and frustrations, but ultimately they will have to get beyond the notion of technology as the doorway or roadblock to artistic and professional success.

 

Your question was "why RED?" in particular seems to be some sort of rallying cry for the struggling filmmaker -- truth is that that tone has always been there on DV forums, and people in the past have pinned their hopes on the XL2, the DVX100, the HVX200, etc. or used them as focal points to discuss their frustration with the elite world of expensive film formats and other technologies -- only now it has become more amplified, since RED is clearly a major step forward from the world of prosumer gear.

 

I'm sure a certain percentage will break off and get a Canon 5D Mk.II or something similar and call RED ONE owners a bunch of elitists using expensive cameras...

 

It's partly a matter of perspective -- the RED ONE seems like a nice, fairly small camera to me, more like a Super-16 camera in size, but for people who mainly use consumer handycams, the thing must seem like a beast. For someone like me used to a Panaflex, it seems smaller and lighter.

 

I can recall discussions several years ago by people claiming that the upcoming prosumer HDV cameras would obsolete 35mm filmmaking. The number of people who look at film technology as some sort of giant that must be killed, because it somehow is getting in the way of them being taken seriously or becoming successful, never ceases to amaze and annoy me. Just recently someone on RedUser was claiming that prosumer HDV was just as high in quality as 35mm, that anyone could see it with their own eyes, and professional DP's weren't willing to be honest and just admit that. How do you even argue with someone like that, who can't even see that there IS a quality diffference? Who isn't being honest with themselves?

 

On the other hand, let's also be honest -- the resolution of these latest cameras like the Genesis, RED, F35, D21, isn't that far off from typical 35mm photography. Maybe not as good as the best 35mm cinematography out there, but for most stuff you see these days, the new digital cameras are certainly competitive in the area of sharpness. Of course, that's partly due to most 35mm post work being completed at 2K these days. But I would argue that a lot of 35mm photography is more in the 3K range of resolution and much of it would not hit the 4K mark. (Now there is still an argument for scanning 35mm at resolutions higher than the film can resolve, to avoid aliasing and stairstepping.)

 

 

Sorry David. I shouldn't type in an intellectual thread just before hitting the sack. But I certainly stand by my idea of rapidly advancing technology breeding dispassionate feeling.

 

The RED does seem a great camera. You used it to great effect in Manure. The marketing style behind RED just seems to scream "gimmick" though. Just my opinion.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Matthew Buick

[K Borowski]

Probably just lithium ion batteries with solar chargers (on top of the backpack all day? :lol:) and a couple spares. Probably bring lots of CF cards and a couple of Nexto or Hyperdrive devices.

 

One thing that I find pretty amazing is the record time on the 5D2 with its new "smart" batteries. It can shoot 1080p for hours and hours and hours without dying, and the battery is no larger than a walnut. The other day I shot something like 4000 timelapse frames (with mirror lockup) with one battery, and barely put a dent in the battery! Hopefully Red will catch up in terms of bootup time, battery efficiency, etc.

 

I am not going to get drawn into this debate any more than to say, it is easier to bring your own *power plants* with you than to use a film camera? :rolleyes:

 

Also, there are many still photographers that never shoot film anymore. . . except when they are in remote locations.

 

With timelapse, you can get away with using practically any camera. I could probably rig up an IMAX setup using a thousand feet of film, a still camera, and fit that all into a backpack, with only a battery for a light meter.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

The RED does seem a great camera. You used it to great effect in Manure. The marketing style behind RED just seems to scream "gimmick" though. Just my opinion.

The marketing style can annoy a certain kind of people. But we should all be aware, it has been important for the practice of economies of scale that we, the customers need. In order to make it as most affordable as possible.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Emanuel A Guedes

[David Mullen ASC]

The marketing style can annoy a certain kind of people. But we should all be aware, it has been important for the practice of economies of scale that we, the customers need. In order to make it as most affordable as possible.

 

Yes, that's a good point actually -- RED to some extent has to market themselves differently than an ARRI, more like the Panasonic prosumer marketing plan that plays into people's dreams of becoming moviemakers.

 

It's a two-edged sword though because RED also wants to be taken seriously in the professional world that has traditionally used different marketing tactics. It puts two consumer groups together that don't necessarily want to be put together.

 

For all this talk about at RedUser about how RED is going to destroy ARRI and Sony, these people forget that some people with deep pockets like paying top dollar just to feel that they are getting a high-end piece of professional gear -- there is a snob appeal to the whole system, beyond the actual benefits of buying well-made, solid, precision equipment with a long corporate history/tradition behind it. On the other hand, with today's failing economy, those deep pockets have holes in them and RED may benefit from the belt-tightening.

[Guest will griffith]

How have you avoided this "problem"? Can you post some examples?

 

 

REC 709

[Chris Gloag]

Couldn't you post it outside as link? Or in a downrez sample? Not sure about you all, but to me this pic just harasses any common display. Any mod?

[Guest will griffith]

Couldn't you post it outside as link? Or in a downrez sample? Not sure about you all, but to me this pic just harasses any common display. Any mod?

 

Sorry. Here you go...

 

Red Image

[Chris Gloag]

Sorry. Here you go...

 

Red Image

No problem. Now it's just wait for a mod.

[Scott Fritzshall]

If you were a struggling director/producer/dp, you would want to use Red vs HVX200 or the high cost of film (relative to a $160K feature budget).. who wouldn't? Point being, that it's easy to put yourself in such a person's shoes and see why they love Jannard and Red so much.

Why would you "love" Jim Jannard for making a product? I've got an iPod and I think it's pretty neat, but I don't "love" Steve Jobs for making it. The way you're saying it, and the way a lot of people behave, makes it seem like there's this huge emotional attachment to it, and I think that's where a lot of the fanboy attitude comes from. To make an analogy from my side of the business, I love using Nuke for compositing, but when I find out that another company is moving to it from Shake, I don't go around gloating on forums saying "ha HA Shake dinosaurs, another pillar in your foundation has crumbled as even more people are discovering how hyperbolically wonderful Nuke is, and what beautiful, gorgeous, high-resolution, Hollywood-quality images you can make with it!" It's great to see the technology advancing, and it's wonderful to see people doing great things with it, but I honestly don't care that much because I don't have this emotional attachment, and because I don't want to make myself a part of anyone's marketing plan.

[Tom Lowe]

Why would you "love" Jim Jannard for making a product? I've got an iPod and I think it's pretty neat, but I don't "love" Steve Jobs for making it. The way you're saying it, and the way a lot of people behave, makes it seem like there's this huge emotional attachment to it, and I think that's where a lot of the fanboy attitude comes from. To make an analogy from my side of the business, I love using Nuke for compositing, but when I find out that another company is moving to it from Shake, I don't go around gloating on forums saying "ha HA Shake dinosaurs, another pillar in your foundation has crumbled as even more people are discovering how hyperbolically wonderful Nuke is, and what beautiful, gorgeous, high-resolution, Hollywood-quality images you can make with it!" It's great to see the technology advancing, and it's wonderful to see people doing great things with it, but I honestly don't care that much because I don't have this emotional attachment, and because I don't want to make myself a part of anyone's marketing plan.

 

Scott, I think a lot of this has to do with the way Sony, Canon, etc, have been holding back and parceling out technology. You don't have that in the software field, because some new upstart could come along and clean all the big guys out if they messed around and held back too much.

 

No one can seriously believe that a random sunglasses billionaire could come along and offer a 35mm 4K RAW camera for under 30 grand, but Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc, could not. Those companies chose to hold back and parcel out their technology, and left their "pro" cameras available only to those with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend and super-pricey post facilities. Could Sony have made their EX3 a 2K RAW 35mm PL-mount camera for $15,000? Sure they could have! But they chose not to. And this pisses off the little guy. Look at what Canon is doing right now with their 5D2. They crippled all the iris and ISO controls, and disabled 24p, in a move almost seemingly designed to piss off indie filmmakers! :angry: Anyway, that is why Jim is seen as a sort of Robin Hood-like figure.

 

You asked, and I explained. :lol:

[Scott Fritzshall]

For years, companies like Sony and Panasonic got your money by taking the high-end features from their expensive cameras and giving it to the little guy, saying "now you can use this too." That's pretty much exactly what RED is doing, except that they did it all at once, and got you to think that you're fighting the power in the process. It's just a different approach to getting your money, and I've always felt like it's pretty silly to have such an attachment to people trying to sell you stuff. Granted, I've always felt that it was kind of shitty for everyone to hold back their higher-end stuff when they could easily implement the features on cheaper equipment, but I've also never felt like I was entitled to in the first place, so it wasn't a big deal.

 

I dunno, I've never been "pissed off" to not be able to have access to the highest-end technology. You do the best you can with what you have, and you work your way up. I've always felt that starting at the bottom gives you a real appreciation for the good stuff when you're able to move up to it. I never felt like I was being oppressed by not being able to shoot on 35mm; I did my best and didn't convince myself that it was the technology keeping me back.

 

Indie filmmakers always seem to believe that it's someone else's fault that they're not being recognized. If only Sony would give me 24p, I'd be able to make my dream movie! Now that they're getting all of the "film-like" features they've been fetishizing for the past decade, I wonder who they'll blame?

[Tom Lowe]

yeah, I mean, you're preaching to the choir about the fact 90% of filmmakers suck. no argument there. i also agree that many filmmakers use equipment as an excuse. musicians and writers do the same thing, in their own ways. i'm not going to argue that, and i don't think cameras make people better filmmakers. that's a dead horse that has been beaten 20 miles below the earth's surface.

 

i'm just saying that many indie people view a move like Canon disabling 24p in the 5D2 as pure BS. it ticks people off! the camera can shoot 30p, so Canon is CLEARLY going out of their way to disable a tool that might useful to indie filmmakers. i'm just trying to explain what drives average Joe's to appreciate Jannard's approach. to me, it's no mystery at all why people really like what he is doing.