Ralph Oshiro

This thread has gotten really weird. Whenever I've shot HDCAM for NBC, it's always been in 1080i60 (kinda has to be doesn't it?). But the FRAME RATE may be at either 24 or 30, depending on what is requested (the show will tell you exactly want they want--and if they don't, ASK!). The newer F900R is a bit lighter than the F900/3, and almost a stop faster than the F900/3 as well. You may be asked to shoot in "4:3 protect." Meaning, shoot in 16:9, but "protect" a 4:3 composition so that they can use the 4:3 cutout version if they need to. I always ask, "Do I need to worry about '4:3 protect' or can I just compose everything for 16:9?" Some shows letterbox all 16:9-acquired footage for "effect" and in that case, you don't need to worry about protecting for 4:3. But always ask, to make sure. Other than that, it's all kinda the same deal as shooting in SD.

Can't wait to hear those stories as well! My apologies to the forum for contributing to steering this thread waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off-topic!

Hey Stephen! Yup, I know those guys exist! I was just talking to a still guy that makes $20K/day--I thought that was a lot. What was he shooting, 8x10?

Not the same. You could buy a Mamiya 6x7 camera and get the benefit of the larger format for less money. Tiny 1/3"-imagers just weren't doing it for me--I chose the cheapest 2/3" 24p solution available at the time. Like I said, no one really rents DSR450s, and SDX900s rented for $550/day at the time. Right, but who was paying for your editor and VTR rental? I bought the DSR450 to make short films that I edit myself on a desktop NLE without needing to rent an expensive VTR. True, the SDX900 has double the datarate, and higher chroma subsampling than DVCAM. But I dare the casual observer to tell the difference between well-lit, well-shot footage from a DSR450, and similar footage from an SDX900, without blowing up individual frames in Photoshop. And even if they could, in my opinion, it's not a $10K plus $20K VTR kinda difference. My DSR450 was $12K (after $3,000 Sony cash rebate), out the door, with case, bricks, charger, and glass. Many others have spent about as much (including accessories) on their Panasonic HVX200/JVC HD250/Canon H1 packages.

While I'm sure all of still guys' anecdotes here are true, the reality is that out of the last hundred or so still shoots I've been on (I shoot a lot of BTS stuff), I only recall seeing one or two photographers shooting film (medium format). The bulk of these shoots were of celebrities for national magazine covers, and some major-artist record label stuff.

Well, I guess I'm not "most people" then. Plus, one of the reasons I bought the DSR450 was because no one rents those damned things! All you can rent in this town (Hollywood) at that time, in that class of camera, were SDX900s. They were then about $550/day to rent, and then I'd still need a stupid $20,000 deck to ingest the footage into my NLE. With the DSR450, I can ingest using any cheap DV camcorder via Firewire into my NLE. The 2/3" image from my DSR450 is virtually noise-free and very pretty. I prefer my DSR450's SD image over any 1/3" HD/HDV camera's image I've seen.

That producer is the kind most of us would stay very far away from. You know the type . . . you can spot 'em a mile away. Answer: NEVER. Plus, an inexperienced RED owner would never get anywhere near the crew list of a high-end musicvideo, commercial, or feature shoot. People in those circles are pretty goddamned picky about who they hire as their DPs. They may, however, hire an inexperienced RED owner as a digital asset manager (clapper/loader kinda guy), which is a totally legitimate place to start.

Kudos Jim and RED team! That's awesome news! By the way . . . LOVE the tagline!

Not sure what your point was. You could only expose that film once!

Hey, I just visited your website and watched one of your trailers. What did you shoot your shorts with?

Okay. Truce. Let's try this again tomorrow. Gotta try and get some sleep now!

Uhhh, yeah, I would. In fact, I JUST bought a DSR450 a year ago because I didn't believe RED would actually deliver! And I didn't buy the DSR450 to make money--I bought it to make short "films." Besides, I don't give a crap about my ROI on my RED. You see, some of us are on completely different paths. This is not a, "Let me 'invest' in an F900 so I can get more high-end clients" decision. This is a, "I already have a day job in production shooting other people's stuff, so lemme buy the best filmmaker's camera that $17.5K can buy so I can shoot my own stuff" kinda decision.

Whatever, Mark! You get his point anyway, right? Why do you persist in BODDINGTON-IZING every single post? Yes, 35mm film looks great! Your opinions have been stated, "film is better." Okay! You win! It does! Why do you even keep posting in the RED forum if you have no interest in RED? Actually, I think Richard no longer even merits his "BOTTINGTON" moniker anyway! Maybe I should just call these posts "WILLIAMS'" from now on?

Perhaps the key difference among us is, there are filmmakers who want to shoot their own projects, and there are those (who have no interest in owning a camera) who have no such aspiriations, and are perfectly fulfilled by applying their craft on other's projects. Or, perhaps, some of you do want to shoot your own projects, but only if green-lit at a much higher budget than you would personally care to invest (and you would choose to shoot 35mm anyway, in that case). So I think there's a lot of crosstalk on this board that results from assuming that we all have the same sort of goals. We don't. How many film DPs are there here that have shot a personal short film in the last 12 months? How many film DPs here want to? How many don't?

Certainly in the film world, few would need or want to own a 35mm motion picture camera--this just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The traditional owner/operator model of doing ENG/EFP work, however, is more applicable here. But I imagine most customers' objective for owning RED is different. That said, I've never owned a broadcast video camera package to hire out as an owner/operator. It's far too much trouble, and too much worry. Sure, you make double your rate with a package, but you basically have to have available to your clients all of the resources of a traditional rental house: a runner to replace things that go down in the field, a rendundant unit for every key component of your package (camera, audio, etc.) to replace a broken one out on a job at a moment's notice, etc. But I think many RED owners are like me. They plan on making their own short- and feature-length films. And owning the camera using this production model makes a lot of sense. Owning your own acquisition tools enables a lot of things. You can shoot tons of beauty shots, magic hour shots, e.g., "stock shots," that you can later use in your short- or feature-length personal films. These kinds of shots often either rarely occur, occur without notice, or occur unpredictably. Those of you who live in L.A. know how rare clouds are here. After an unexpected rain shower, someone who owns their own acquisition tools, can just go out and grab all their "cloud" and "cloud with L.A. skyline" shots they need, and then bank the shot, for use later. By the time you could book a rental, drive to pick it up, then drive to your location, the shot would be over.

Yes, I believe that's generally it. I agree with your assessment.

I agree, skepticism is a good thing. I wish that there were a "flame free zone" at REDUSER where posts such as yours could be published without any knee-jerk, RED-devotee reaction. I guess cinemtography.com is the best surrogate for that. I find the marketing complaint a bit surprising, but it's such a common complaint among many here, that there must be something driving it. Even David Mullen remarked about RED's marketing tactics. I think the enthusiasm, at least in my case, was incited by the company's founder being so close to its customers. The amount of customer interaction Jim and his team has engaged is unprecedented in this industry, at least in my experience. We, the customers, are able to talk to the actual engineer designing some component of RED, and actually suggest desired feature sets. Jim actively sought design feedback in this forum and others, very early in the development of RED. This is the kind of market-driven company that college-level marketing classes write cases about. I've never had that kind opportunity with, say, the F900 product manager or an F900 design engineer. Because to a company like Sony, I'm a very small fish. It's RED's connection to its customers, at every level of management, that I think, helped to create such a "fanatical user base."

Apology accepted. My apologies as well. But isn't this argument getting just a WEE bit tired? Okay, here we go . . . 1. RED (or any digital motion picture acquisition) is only one of several alternatives to 35mm film. 2. Choosing a digital acquisition method offers an alternative to the costs associated with 35mm stock and processing. 3. Up until now, the defacto standard for high-end digital indie production was typically a Varicam or an F900. 4. RED offers much-improved resolution over the Varicam, and improved color space over the F900. 5. RED offers depth-of-field characteristics beyond F900-class, 2/3" imager-based cameras. 6. RED is more affordable to own than a Varicam or F900. To me, RED is an F900-killer. That's my argument.

Oh, just forget the whole fu**ing thing already. I'm so sick of this argument I don't give a flying fu** anymore. Okay? Film's better. You happy now? You win. Yay you! Someone just put this thread out of its misery and kill it now.

Well, you've got to admit, Richard, that in the beginning, it was some pretty rough territory over here for us RED supporters. Once the unwarranted personal attacks stopped, and the accusations that all RED supporters are just a bunch of inexperienced, wide-eyed dilitantes subsided, it's gotten better. But it always seems to be a game of one-upsmanship here. It's very combative, and, for lack of a better phrase, it always seems to end up being a very big dick-measuring contest. I'm certainly guilty of some of it myself. But, I've gotten to know some you early skeptics, and yes, actually have gotten to like you. You, Carl, the others, I know that all of you are heavily invested in your respective crafts and that you all have strong opinions about it. But many of you were man enough to say, "Yup, it looks pretty good. They actually did it. I was wrong." Of course, most of you add the corrollary, "But film is still better," which is admittedly true in some respects, and certainly your perogative to say so.

Yes, I see, Richard. We're all guilty of it here to some extent. But, I must say Richard, your posts become very positive towards RED since NAB. Kudos to you, and all the rest here who seemed to have lightened up a bit in recent weeks. Yes, I hang out there quite a lot. Since many of the RED team members both post and moderate there, there's a lot of quality information to be gleaned from the site. The RED vs. film debates there are just as silly, just in the opposite direction as you point out. Yes, they are. But then again, what would you expect at a RED-oriented site? I do think more dissent should be both expressed and tolerated there, however. Dissenting, critical opinions (not mindless "film is better" rants, mind you) of RED can only make the product better, and its customers more savvy. I wish more members here would state some of their concerns there. David Mullen has recently been posting more there, and his posts are always a breath of fresh air.

Every RED thread in this entire forum eventually winds down into becoming a huge BODDINGTON. It's kinda like when men and women get to talking . . . the conversation always seems to boil down to sex. I wouldn't mind at all if Stephen and Tim decided to just shut the whole goddamned thing down.

Yeah, that new Sony 4:2:2 2/3" HD camera sounds like the s--t if you're able to wait. But then again, the F330 is so affordable, you could buy that (or even the also very affordable Panasonic HPX500 P2 camera) while you're waiting for the 2/3" Sony camera to come out. Oh, I found my notes from NAB . . . the Panasonic guy said that Fox bought over 400 Panasonic HPX2000 P2 cameras for all of their news operations. Well, there goes my theory on XDCAM becoming the next "Betacam!"

Get some aspirin. Handholding an F900 is hell on your shoulder.

To clarify, I was referring to Sony F900R and Sony F900/3 HDCAM cameras in that part of the post (I misread the initial post in this thread), and the Panasonic HDX900 in the latter. If I were a shooter looking for daily hire work with the networks, I would wait to see which way ABC and NBC decides, then buy the camera/format in the majority of the four networks. If I heard correctly, I think Fox just committed to P2? Can't remember if I have that right or not. If you don't care about TV network stuff, then I would choose the Panasonic HDX900 over the F350.