RED - Epic and Scarlet

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, I was sad to see that whole episode with Brook.

 

I think Jim doesn't realize that he's sort of a bull in the china shop at that forum. His words carry enough weight there to crush people, but I don't think he fully realizes that. It's like an elephant stepping on an ant. To the elephant, it seems like no big deal. But to the ant, it's a VERY big deal. I'm not saying Jim was wrong or right in Brook's case, I'm just speaking generally.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

What episode with Brook? I've been out of town... :huh:

[Max Jacoby]

I am still waiting for you to come out from under the desk Jannard sent you scurrying under when he offered to bet you six or seven figures on this digital vs film debate.

Big words from the man who himself didn't want to put more than 20 dollars on the same bet...

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm not sure what you mean there. If there's no competition, why are productions shooting with the D20, D21, genesis, phantom, newest cinealta, and dalsa? I like to think that just because every other company doesn't announce what they're working on 2 years in advance, that many of them are still working on cameras that can compete.

 

That's true to date the F900, Genesis, and D20 all have more feature credits than Red One.

[Tenolian Bell]

The bet was (to simplify it) that more major Hollywood features will be shooting digitally rather than on film by the end of 2010/beginning 2011. You still think I am wrong?

 

The problem with making predictions like this is that it is based on so many complex factors. You are primarily looking at the camera. Their is the camera the post path and presentation.

 

The first problem with acceptance of digital systems start with the camera. Many still feel that digital does not yet supplant film. But I think the biggest problem with digital cinema is that there are too many codecs and formats. Everyone has their own proprietary codecs and formats. It locks you into a vendors system but it also divides digital cinema over all.

 

The problem spreads into post-production. A post house has to support every potential codec. Understand how to carry that format file and look through the post process and into presentation. These competing formats create complexity and expense to support them all. This division undermines the adoption of digital cinema. If their were an open source or at least a commonly used digital cinema codec that all cameras supported it would become much easier and cheaper for all post production equipment, software, and facilities to support.

 

Their are still far more film projectors around the world than digital projectors. Digital projection is still a work in progress. The Arclight Cinema in Los Angeles began to install digital projection just before the summer movies launched. The projectors were problematic and the theater lost several screening of Iron Man because of these problems.

 

These are complexities that you do not have to deal with in film production. They will need to be resolved for digital to replace film.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

That's true to date the F900, Genesis, and D20 all have more feature credits than Red One.

Apples to oranges. Did you compare the release date of any one of those excellent cameras to RED ONE?

 

No less important, did you compare both price list? I mean, competition vs. RED. Well, at least so far... I'm sorry, Jim. But I couldn't resist! :)

[Tenolian Bell]

I can agree Red is offering some interesting and new ideas to the market. Because Red does not have a legacy in the video market to protect they can afford to think differently from how cameras have been made in the past.

 

But I think its extremely presumptuous to predict the impact Red will have over all. Part of the reason is that it will prompt Sony and Panasonic to compete and protect their dominant positions. Red fans are naive to think that these other companies will do nothing to compete with Red. Sony will introduce new cameras, Panasonic will introduce new cameras, Arriflex will improve their cameras, Panavision will improve their cameras, Kodak will continue to improve film. Its not as though Red is improving and everyone else is standing still.

 

Its also presumptuous to predict that the industry will suddenly drop all of the tools it has been using for decades. Simply because Red is something new. Industries don't move fast to change, change is very slow. Film is a multi-billion dollar industry and will not risk its fortunes on something unproven and untested. Which ever digital system rise to compete with film, it will likely have to prove to be better than film in most ways.

[Tenolian Bell]

Apples to oranges. Did you compare the release date of any one of those excellent cameras to RED ONE?

 

No less important, did you compare both price list? I mean, competition vs. RED. Well, at least so far... I'm sorry, Jim. But I couldn't resist! :)

 

Outside of the fact that they have been around longer. These cameras did not receive the hype that Red has had. but they have been used on more movies.

 

Price of the camera only matters when the cost of the recording media consumes the majority of the budget. On a film where $250,000 is the average salary for the actors, the cost of the camera doesn't really matter at all.

[Tom Lowe]

Big words from the man who himself didn't want to put more than 20 dollars on the same bet...

 

I thought I offered Stephen and you $100 USD each on that bet?

 

Anyway, Stephen was over at reduser mocking my wager, then Jim stepped in and sent Stephen diving head-first into the hedges for cover. hehehe. :lol:

 

Stephen's a great sport though. It all ended up for the best with Jannard making a healthy donation to a good cause.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Outside of the fact that they have been around longer. These cameras did not receive the hype that Red has had. but they have been used on more movies.

Well, point taken. It's true, but I stand. Especially on the last part of your sentence. Despite they have been around much longer than the 'baby' RED ONE. The hype has been too much important for all of us (customers).

 

Price of the camera only matters when the cost of the recording media consumes the majority of the budget. On a film where $250,000 is the average salary for the actors, the cost of the camera doesn't really matter at all.

There are a lot of variables which I won't discuss here. *

 

* Can you easily shoot during several months? (I said months, but I could say years at will) Without many worries concerning your budget for paying the rental house?

[Emanuel A Guedes]

* Can you easily shoot during several months? (I said months, but I could say years at will) Without many worries concerning your budget for paying the rental house?

Without mentioning other markets, other advantages and so on... but that's another story.

[Tenolian Bell]

There are a lot of variables which I won't discuss here. *

 

* Can you easily shoot during several months? (I said months, but I could say years at will) Without many worries concerning your budget for paying the rental house?

 

 

Yes obviously there are advantages with the business model used by Red. I'm not at all arguing against that fact.

 

My point is that those advantages don't automatically supersede the advantages of all other cameras. Red is not all pro with no con.

[Max Jacoby]

I thought I offered Stephen and you $100 USD each on that bet?

It certainly wasn't 100 Dollars Tom! At most it was 50, but I seem to recall you never went over 20, which considering the dollar's value at the moment is a not really worth it in my eyes.

[Brian Drysdale]

Can you easily shoot during several months? (I said months, but I could say years at will) Without many worries concerning your budget for paying the rental house?

 

I suspect that if you're actually paying people on a production is a consideration together with the number of shooting days involved. You still have to put the capital upfront to purchase a camera and if you shoot less than a certain number of days that could be cheaper than purchasing.

 

In the days of "credit crunch" etc., renting could be the more practical solution for a cash poor filmmaker.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

I suspect that if you're actually paying people on a production is a consideration together with the number of shooting days involved. You still have to put the capital upfront to purchase a camera and if you shoot less than a certain number of days that could be cheaper than purchasing.

 

In the days of "credit crunch" etc., renting could be the more practical solution for a cash poor filmmaker.

I understand your POV, it does make sense.

 

However, I'm referring a purchase for more than a production comprehending several ones, a few crews, even different media and projects for distinct uses and purposes, etc. Horses for courses, remember? :-) True arthouse stuff. That's why I once said about, only RED could bring us a solution for our needs.

 

RED ONE (will SCARLET be?) has been the swiss army knife for 'poor' artmakers. No other camera can offer the same on this price range.

 

I'm happy with the RED ONE. I'm just not so happy with the Epic idea. I will probably buy (not every RED ONE owners for sure will do, though and this is not good for anyone) but counteracted by an opposite practice against my business, against our (truly indie) moviemaking.

[Stephen Williams]

It certainly wasn't 100 Dollars Tom! At most it was 50, but I seem to recall you never went over 20, which considering the dollar's value at the moment is a not really worth it in my eyes.

 

Hi Max,

 

I think Tom will remember $20 is he looses, & $100 if he wins.

 

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

I understand your POV, it does make sense.

 

However, I'm referring a purchase for more than a production comprehending several ones, a few crews, even different media and projects for distinct uses and purposes, etc. Horses for courses, remember? :-) True arthouse stuff. That's why I once said about, only RED could bring us a solution for our needs.

 

RED ONE (will SCARLET be?) has been the swiss army knife for 'poor' artmakers. No other camera can offer the same on this price range.

 

I'm happy with the RED ONE. I'm just not so happy with the Epic idea. I will probably buy (not every RED ONE owners for sure will do, though and this is not good for anyone) but counteracted by an opposite practice against my business, against our (truly indie) moviemaking.

 

 

Hi,

 

Personally I think the cheap Scarlet is far more revolounary than Red One or Epic, I will buy a Scarlet & still shoot the big jobs on 35mm, much as I do today.

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

I understand your POV, it does make sense.

 

However, I'm referring a purchase for more than a production comprehending several ones, a few crews, even different media and projects for distinct uses and purposes, etc. Horses for courses, remember? :-) True arthouse stuff. That's why I once said about, only RED could bring us a solution for our needs.

 

RED ONE (will SCARLET be?) has been the swiss army knife for 'poor' artmakers. No other camera can offer the same on this price range.

 

I'm happy with the RED ONE. I'm just not so happy with the Epic idea. I will probably buy (not every RED ONE owners for sure will do, though and this is not good for anyone) but counteracted by an opposite practice against my business, against our (truly indie) moviemaking.

 

The RED One has been used for art house productions, just as HDCAM has been - they seem to be currently costing around the same in budget terms. RED ONE is being used on commercial £1m (and higher) productions and for television, so perhaps its impact is more in those market sectors than for people who have been shooting their own self financed films on Mini DV.

 

As Stephen mentions, the Scarlet will have more impact for up and coming and "poor" film makers than the RED ONE. The price also leaves you some cash over for your lights and perhaps a dolly compared to buying a ONE.

 

The EPIC is for a different market sector, buying one is a business decision and a personal choice. For the price quoted, it's still good value if comparing to other cameras, bearing in mind that these other, more expensive, cameras do have advantages of their own.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Brian Drysdale

[Thomas James]

I know but is 35mm film really going to cut the mustard for big productions when Red Epic 645 offers 70mm quality ?

[Stephen Williams]

I know but is 35mm film really going to cut the mustard for big productions when Red Epic 645 offers 70mm quality ?

 

Hi,

 

Red does not look at all like film, it looks like RED, if you want a film look just shoot film, it's really very simple. Just to make it clear I have used a RED One very sucessfully on a production, there is very little wrong with the pictures it produces, they just don't look like film.

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Max,

 

I think Tom will remember $20 is he looses, & $100 if he wins.

 

Stephen

 

Hehe. :lol:

 

So, I see you're getting onboard with Scarlet, huh? FF35?

[Stephen Williams]

Hehe. :lol:

 

So, I see you're getting onboard with Scarlet, huh? FF35?

 

Hi Tom,

 

Probably the 2/3" one with a fixed lens, I will probably cut the lens off & void my warranty but what the heck. What I want to do is put the chip in an old Aaton ltr7, then I have an optical finder. I wonder if I will be allowed to order one in my own name, if not I can use Max's friend again. ;)

 

Stephen

[Tenolian Bell]

I know but is 35mm film really going to cut the mustard for big productions when Red Epic 645 offers 70mm quality ?

 

 

I think one disservice Red is doing in its education, is not really explaining the finer points of what all this means in a larger context. You guys are getting too carried away with big resolution numbers. Its easy to look at a number and say this number is larger than this number so by default that makes it better. But there is a lot more going on than simply those two numbers.

[Max Jacoby]

I wonder if I will be allowed to order one in my own name, if not I can use Max's friend again. ;)

I think that can be arranged again Stephen ;)

[Max Jacoby]

I think one disservice Red is doing in its education, is not really explaining the finer points of what all this means in a larger context. You guys are getting too carried away with big resolution numbers. Its easy to look at a number and say this number is larger than this number so by default that makes it better. But there is a lot more going on than simply those two numbers.

Quire right. There is so much more to an image than just sharpness. If resolution was all that mattered then we'd all be shooting digital by now.