John Michael Corey

David, Seeing that you considered the Canon 550D T2i for sneaking in an action shot or two in a 1080P project, have you considered testing the Panasonic Lumix GH1 as well? Thanks.

Star Wars: Episodes II & III, shot with the Sony 900's.

Well, my belief is that Star Wars would have looked even better on RED.

My 2-cents... Mark Collins... lousy attempt at trying to get this long-winded thread closed. What i find entertaining is all the "film is organic" and "film is natural" and "oh, the grain, the grain" and "35mm this" and "35mm that" etc... But, how many of the guys spouting this rhetoric have seen 65mm or 70mm film on the big screen with their own eyes? The next time you're viewing 65mm or 70mm film, please tell me where's all "the grain" - oh, the holy grain? The next time you're viewing 65mm or 70mm film, please complain about all the increased (and stunning) resolution (which looks nothing like 35mm) that just isn't "natural." It must be those damn silver halides! LOL! All this is like someone touting 16mm film as "supreme" while ignoring 35mm film entirely. What's really interesting is hearing the comments from those who have seen 65mm or 70mm film on the big screen, and have also seen the 4k RED imagery. Most compare the 4k RED imagery to 65mm or 70mm film, excepting there's zero hint of grain and the resolution may be a tad finer. I have some sharp criticisms for some of the Crossing the Line footage (which was shot in... how many days? ...which therein lies most of the problem...) Yeah, there were some shots that looked "cheap" - like when the measly explosions were going off. The resolution magnified the unrealistic/unimpressive bomb bursts to the point that each burst was laughable. I think people learned that if you're shooting in 4k, then you better have heavy pyrotechnics because cheap/wimpy explosions won't be hidden in a soft cloud of blur. Bad lighting in 4k looks way, way worse than in 35mm too. There was some close-up of something (i forget what exactly) that got dirt thrown onto it. It was a quick run & gun shot - AND IT SHOWED. For huge budget/blockbuster type movies, more money will need to be spent on lighting, pyrotechnics, effects, period wardrobe, set decorations, etc. in order to appease the audience's elevated level of scrutiny. RED may or may not equal or surpass 65mm or 70mm film in all image areas (yet), but the closest comparison to the red footage seems to be the current "gold standard" - 65mm or 70mm film. And, then you look at the various cost savings...

Maybe Jannard will leave this forum because his time & energy would be better spent elsewhere. If that becomes the case, then it would seem to be a mature decision. What would be the difference if RED were to contact 50, 100, or 200 of the world's most renown/respected cinematographers and ask them to participate in a user-manufacturer camera/lens/etc... development feedback forum? And, what if RED and the aforesaid cinematographer group agreed to have all their forum correspondence posted for anyone to read/follow? And, what if cinematography.com was asked if they'd like to host/post this "elite" discussion/developmental thread? Then, please, tell me what the difference would be? Sounds like sharing or disclosing the inner dynamics of what is usually an arcane & guarded process, rather than censorship. Personally, i'd enjoy a front row seat to that dialogue. Additionally, you (or any forum member) would still be free to start your own thread(s) on what RED should or should not do or however you feel about whatever it is that you have to say. Your voice would not be gagged. How is it that this would be censorship? Having the most discerning critics discussing the good, the bad, and the ugly openly & bluntly with a manufacturer for all to see is hardly "accommodating" them. It's actually putting the company (RED) on the spot. The experts would give honest & tough criticism/feedback on where the camera/lenses/etc... are lacking or in what area(s) they my excel, what ergonomics suggestions they have, work-flow dilemmas & solutions, etc... I don't think the site should have people making personal attacks on one another. Do you think the moderators would fail to be diligent in taking appropriate action if a company attempted to undermine the integrity of this website? As i stated previously, any other company may follow the same manufacturer-user feedback model, if they'd like to. So, it would not be a "special privilege" just for RED. But, how many camera or camera-related companies are there that openly & continually discuss their product(s) with their users in an attempt to improve their product(s)? That is one trait that makes RED "more special than other DigiCine companies or film camera manufacturers." If "connecting companies with their users" is a by-product of advancing cinematographers' tools, then so be it. It seems like that is happening. However, pot-shots, name calling, arguing for arguing's sake, spouting gobbledygook, and other non-constructive things don't seem to be "relevant issues in the subject[sic] of cinematography and film-making." Stephen Williams & Jim Jannard may like my suggestion, hate it, find it laughable, politely discard it, or simply be indifferent to it.

Jim Jannard & Stephen Williams, I feel exasperated reading many of the replies. I'd like to see a focused discussion group of actual RED-users (whether owners, reservation holders, renters and/or borrowers) whose sole purpose is the evolution of the RED camera as a cinematography tool. Just the nuts & bolts. How about starting a single thread or "sticky" that is specifically dedicated to RED feedback/improvements/suggestions that is open for anyone to read, but only for those approved by the moderator? In no way am i advocating censorship. Sure, some may be left out initially, but they will eventually find their way into the fold. And, initially, some may very well be included who don't belong. I, for one, as it stands right now, realize that i do not belong in such a thread. It'd be a shame to have Jim Jannard & RED leave this forum after having attempted time & time again to establish constructive discussions on what & how to improve the RED camera as a cinematography tool. Stephen, please streamline the dialogue between manufacturer & users. Please weed out all the potshots, deconstructiveness, & gobbledygook. In no way am i advocating a change for the overall board. Hobbyists, indie's, and amateurs benefit enormously from being able to participate within this board. It'd also be constructive to have similar such exclusive threads for other manufacturers that are conducting camera development as well. Users are scattered all over the globe, and are constantly on the move. It'd be nice to have a place (this site) where all can come together and give field reports and suggestions 24-7 while on the job or out at play. That seems to be the most streamlined approach for manufacturers to make better tools for cinematographers to use & enjoy. Seems like a win-win situation to me. Let's stop spinning our wheels & smoking our tires, and instead, let's get this race under way.

I understand that RED is busy delivering "basic" RED ONE cameras right now, but i'm not going to underestimate their productivity, imagination, or resolve. Who knows? Maybe one of the email "gifts" will be cpu instructions that enable the current imaging-chip set to be recalibrated for different extremes: highlights & toe. RED did say there would be surprises... The RED ONE will go through many evolutions before there's a RED TWO, which i'm guessing will be an 8k or greater camera. Just my guess.

In an article on the American Cinematographer website (http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/Apr...odiac/page1.php), Harris Savides, ASC had this to say after using the VIPER to film Zodiac, Does anyone know if Jim Jannard & RED have plans to manufacture different RED camera bodies with specialized imaging-chip sets?

I don't know what happened with my original post with all that blank space. I'd edit it out if i could... Great info, Maarten! Please post your thoughts (and any imagery, if possible) after your visit with VIPER. I'm definitely impressed with much of the footage VIPER captured in Zodiac. Thanks.

Does anyone know if VIPER will be updating its camera so that it may become a 4k+ camera?

How has VIPER compared to 35mm film in independent testing? In what image quality areas has VIPER equaled 35mm film? In what image quality areas has VIPER surpassed 35mm film? And, in what image quality areas has VIPER fallen short of 35mm film? Does RED promise to bridge any gaps/issues that may exist between VIPER and 35mm film? Are there potential image quality areas/issues that remain a stiff challenge for RED? Is it ever likely that traditional film cameras will be able to capture low light shots and distant night time skyline shots and such with the clarity of digital cameras? Is some new breakthrough in celluloid needed in order to capture such low light shots?

On paper, are the RED and VIPER equals as far as the amount of raw information (pixels or whatever) they are supposed to be able to capture? For the VIPER in Zodiac, it seems to me like much of the footage blends well together. Very little seems to stick out as having a decidedly video look. For me (a layman), in Collateral there are many more shots that are "jarring" in that they look like VIDEO shots spliced in alongside film shots. For all i know, the "video" shots in Collateral are the F900 shots and the "film" shots are the VIPER shots... In Akeelah and the Bee, the lone HD Digital shot of the sunset stuck out like a sore thumb. It did not blend well with the footage before it or after it. To me (a layman) the shot looked like video. It broke the spell the movie was weaving - it was distracting. So far in Zodiac, the movie has been pretty cohesive. The added clarity in the skyline shots and in the night time shots in Zodiac don't scream VIDEO to me (a layman) just because they are clearer than what i've seen in movies before. They are absorbing - they suck me more into the movie; they cast a deeper spell on me. It wasn't until the 43-minute mark that a shot broke my spell because of its VIDEO-ISHNESS.

I feel like i'm in a doctor's office looking at an x-ray. I probably will spot a broken bone, maybe even a hairline fracture, but i likely may not be able to discern all the other nuances the x-ray has to offer. Especially if the x-ray were taken to scrutinize soft tissues. I'm seeking professional knowledge. I want to learn. I want to understand better. Max, when you say, "...the skintones looked very unnatural..." do you mean: in all the interior office scenes, the night scenes, the day time scenes, or always? Could it be from make-up? From lighting? From the colorist and/or color timing? I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Or, is there something inherently different about the way digital captures/replicates color? As far as the image sharpness, it would definitely matter what size screen you were viewing the movie on, right? On my old 19" square TV Zodiac looks pretty good... but, theater screen sizes vary widely. I imagine a huge blow-up may reveal the "not very sharp" image you describe. Is the maximum resolution of the VIPER less than what is capable of being extracted from 35mm film? If the answer is yes, then that may explain the softness of the image on the big screen.

I'm confused... Does the RED camera promise "better" image quality than the VIPER? If not, then is all the hoopla surrounding RED mostly because of it's price point? I have to say i'm profoundly impressed by the imagery the VIPER produced in much of Zodiac. Currently, i'm watching it on DVD (at the 50-minute mark - and, yes, i already saw the movie in the theater). So, far there's only been one segment that struck me as VIDEO: 43:05 to 43:20 - the first shot being the most evident. It's at this 43-minute mark that i jumped up to check the filming specs on IMDb.com. Judging by the all the other Zodiac footage i've seen to this point, it seems to me that if that one particular segment was approached differently, then it probably could have been accomplished and felt congruous with the surrounding material/shots (i.e., not have screamed of VIDEO). I say this ignorantly, and as a layman, because much of the imagery in Zodiac appears to be film not video (to the untrained eye). Yes, yes, yes, I am somewhat aware of film cameras' limitations such as low light shooting and night time clarity for the skyline/background/distant lighting. And, I understand that to professionals/experts the Zodiac footage stands out like a sore thumb, simply because they/you know that traditional film cameras are incapable of such shots. But, for all a layman (such as myself) or movie audience knows, the night time clarity in such a film as Zodiac may be the result of better lenses, new lighting techniques, or improved "traditional" camera technology of some sort. To the audience, night time clarity in and of itself does not reek of "video." If a traditional film camera were to have some "technological breakthrough" where the same clarity as digital became possible in these type of shooting situations (and they were to use those cameras to film Zodiac instead of VIPER), then would one really be able to tell the difference while sitting in a movie theater watching? I feel like the daytime shots and interior shots in Zodiac have not appeared to be VIDEO. Am i crazy? I know some people are tone deaf, well, am i "image blind?"

Picked the numbers randomly out of the air. Trying to make the point that for film to compete with HD in the future, the film negative would have to be substantially increased in size. However, that would make traditional cameras even more cumbersome and (considering the costs for developing and scanning the footage), realistically, obsolete. For instance, what if in 10 years movie theatres digitally project films at 8K? And in 60fps?! Yeah, now consider the larger size filmstock cost, the almost tripling in required film, and the increased developing & scanning costs, let alone the costs to purchase cameras designed to use the larger negative filmstock... Hello, digital! Audiences may then look down on 35mm features, because the image quality (movie-going experience) would be less than what has become "expected." Hope that makes some kind of sense. Michael Nash, I did see Northfork which i believe the still is from. However, i butchered the joke about 3 shipwrecked men. Something like a priest, a thief, and a lawyer. I can't recall...

Jan, I'm confused. Where do you get the $3,500 figure? Final Cut Studio (which includes FCP) sells for $1,300 on Apple's website.\ Thank you. Richard Boddington, maybe shooting RED will be like shooting with hypothetical 105mm or 140mm filmstock. The 105mm or 140mm negative would have much more detail, but it would still retain the film look, wouldn't it? Or, would it??? Would the new standard for what is deemed as "film" then be 105mm or 140mm filmstock? I believe that is sort of the point that RED enthusiasts are making about image quality. Film-making is being taken to a whole new level. RED maybe the first stab into that realm. Video-ishness is what i believe film-lovers rightfully loathe. If i am not mistaken, the technology exists (or will shortly be perfected) to render digital images (with identical gamma curves and such) as to make them indistinguishable to the human eye (the audience) as to those shot on film. All this flim vs. HD arguing reminds me of the story of the lone shipwrecked priest. The supremely devout priest prays to God to send him a sign telling him what to do. A week passes, and God has yet to speak to the priest. Soon, a ship comes by and asks the priest if he needs help. The priest says, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." The priest repeats his prayers every night. Another week passes and a second ship comes by, and the thinning priest again refuses saying, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." A third ship offers help, but the emaciated priest whispers, "No, no, no. My fate is in God's hands." The priest soon dies. Upon entering the gates of Heaven, the priest increduously asks God, "Why didn't you give me a sign?" God quickly replies, "What do you mean? I sent you three God-damned ships!" Here's a question i've been wondering: Even if filmstock were free, would developing & scanning costs just be too high to overcome to justify shooting on film? ...because you could buy an HD camera and editing computer and still save enormously in time, money, and hassles. Thanks.

I purchased an Apple 23" display. I can get an "eye TV USB dongle" that gives television on a MAC. It's possible to bring the 23" display to view footage while on location, if power is available (no generator). Maybe if shooting inside somewhere. Otherwise, i'll just have to wait until i return to home base. I'm looking into something called a Matrox MXO that supposedly removes all interlacing artifacts on an Apple display. Obviously sounds useful for editing. The Matrox can also enable you to view your footage exactly as it will appear on an ordinary television... As for having one monitor to be used even for color correction... Well, that seems to be a pipe dream. For now, at least. Someday... How many independent filmmakers have all the fancy gadgets and equipment anyway?! So, i'll just keep a keen eye out for hot spots and underexposed areas, and i'll be alright. Color correction is the last thing i'm worried about after researching the topic. Guys on the DVXuser.com forum's HVX200 section have been helpful...

This device may or may not be available yet. http://www.spec-comm.com/cineporter.php In the Q & A it says you can offload to an external USB OTG drive or a computer.

I was hoping someone could give me a definitive & economical/practical solution to this common dilemma. I just can't learn everything at once. I've got about 75 books on film that i've been mowing through on all phases and topics related to film. It just happens that my current monitor is on the fritz and quite near kaput. I'm currently using a PC, but have been saving/budgeting for a new Apple Mac Pro editing set-up for when the Tiger OS comes out... But, I need a monitor now and want to make a purchase that will be wise in retrospect. Last thing i want to do is buy what i don't need and then have to go spend more money later on buying what i really do need. I'd love to be able to buy a 42" or 43" Pioneer/Elite (not sure if the Elite has enough resolution, but man does it look fantastic!) or Apple 30" Cinema (quality, reliability, warranty) and use it for multiple purposes since these displays are so thin, light, mountable, & "portable": 1. Home theatre 2. Computer monitor 3. Color correction monitor 4. How cool would it be to view field footage on a 30" or 43" HD display - it'd certainly give you a better idea of what you captured than some tiny field monitor. At least dreaming here at home typing this, it would be much more useful to me. I have a feeling most may feel #4 is impractical. Hey, try it once... maybe i'm right! Anyway, why buy 3 or 4 different items when you can save a ton of money that could be better used elsewhere? Ideally, this would be my goal. It's seems like common sense to me. I thumbed through my book on color correcting, even though i'm reading 2 other books concurrently. Talk about reclibrating, talk about color correcting room set-up (ambient lighting affecting viewed color), learning the funky controls on a production monitor, wondering why computer monitors aren't set up at least with compatible color ranges, and why there isn't a computer monitor that can do the production monitor functions. How big of a screen do you really need for color correcting anyway? Do you really just need a tiny screen because the process is "simple?" What does one actually need to have to produce "flawless" color correction work? What hardware is nice but not necessary? What hardware is overkill/superfluous? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

I'm a novice and am learning about HD filming & editing as they pertain to features. I'm trying to figure out the most cost effective route for viewing/editing the images recorded with the HVX200. My preference is: the bigger the display, the better. I feel that production monitors are tiny and way overpriced and not very "relevant" due to their small screen size. I say "relevant" because if you're viewing/editing something for film, i don't see how an itsy bitsy screen is going to help you better see how your image is going to be projected onto a big movie screen. Maybe they are good for viewing TV footage with their standard/generic flat lighting, but i don't see the utility/practicality in a little production monitor for features. I'm considering using a home TV/monitor like Pioneer or their Elite line because of their 3:3 pulldown, great image quality, & their generous screen size per dollar - as compared to "production monitors." Or, a 30" Apple monitor. The catch seems to be that the color range that the HVX200 (and really any HD camera) records in is different than the ranges displayed by plasmas or home computer monitors. Is there a simple program or "adjustment" tool/technique that can be used so that what you see is really what you're going to get when using a plasma TV or Apple monitor? It confuses me because i've always heard that all the "creative people" use Apples, not PC's for doing computer graphics and such. Well, when the "creative people" are editing and color correcting and such, are they using their Apples? Are they hunched over a tiny little CRT production monitor during editing/color correcting/SFX? I seriously doubt it. I need enlightenment, please!

Thanks for the link on the HVX underwater case! I'm looking forward to your underwater footage. Thanks again.

I'm new to the HVX as well as cinematography. What does the water-tight housing for the HVX cost? Is it "low impact" ? By this i mean is it only suited for calm waters, or would the housing be appropriate for, say, filming surfers racing across waves; could it withstand the pounding of waves? Got a pic of the HVX in the enclosure? Thanks for posting the images. It's exciting to see what the HVX is capable of. Flares are great! I'm looking forward to the footage you'll be posting. Thanks again.

Cool tip. I'll experiment with safe marker settings/flexibility and see how accurately the marked viewfinder compares to actual footage. I think the results will be much more accurate if the footage is: 1.) played at a size smaller than (completely displayed within) whatever monitor i happen to be using - because different monitors vary on what may be "natively" cropped left/right and top/bottom. In other words, do not use any monitor screen edges as accepted footage borders. 2.) And, very importantly, the larger the monitor used, the more accurately one can judge the discrepancy between viewfinder markings (or taped borders) and actual footage. If the safe markers just aren't a big enough crutch for me when shooting, then i'll stick with good clear/magic tape. Thanks again for the tip.

Thanks for the easy solution to my dilemma. I'm definitely going to use magic or transparent tape so that i can better frame my shots in the newly plotted 2.35 box. Some seasoned DP's may not need to see a buffer zone to help in framing their footage, but i recognize that i will... My interest with the camera is in developing/honing directing skills, while getting acquainted enough with camerawork to be able to someday work with (and hopefully communicate seemlessly with) a naturally gifted DP. Since researching numerous facets of the whole film/movie process, it's become readily apparent that it truly takes a collaboration of many different & uniquely skilled/talented/dedicated individuals working synergistically to create the desired end result. As a budding director, i hope that i have the vision, decisiveness, communication skills, and delegatory wisdom to succeed. Thanks again.

Thanks for the reply. After googling frame chart... If i understand correctly, one would tape the frame chart to a wall, push in slowly and precisely dial in the desired frame ratio (2.35 for me), and then tape (or mask off) the viewfinder lens accordingly. Right? Thanks again.