Häakon

Your argument was that at $2,500+/day, "HD" is just as expensive to shoot as 35mm. I was pointing out that one of today's best alternatives to shooting film costs much less than the figure you quoted - and on top of that, the post costs in dealing with the "stock" you've shot pale in comparison to the budget you need to deal with film. If you are confident that a single chip DV camera is sufficient for your production needs, then it looks like you've got nothing to worry about!

A completely fleshed out RED package goes for a lot less than that as well. And at the end of the day, you're out... what, the camera rental and $80 x 3 for a couple of hard drives to back up the data? You can argue film vs. video aesthetics till the cows come home, but the cost comparison is almost laughable at this stage of the game.

Or me? ;-) Actually, Seung and I took our conversation off the boards and resolved the issue privately and amicably. He was very gentlemanly about the situation and we see each other's point of view, which is the great thing about discussion forums. I do think it's important to note that RED footage is video footage just like any other electronic camera which has preceded it - it's just evolved and matured technology. And no doubt another camera will eventually replace it (perhaps also made by the RED company) someday in the future. But for now, it is exciting to have a good, solid choice for shooting that arguably gives us many of the visual aesthetics we enjoy with film while affording us a fantastic digital workflow at the same time. This will not be the answer for everyone, but from the reception the camera has clearly gotten over the past year it is an extremely attractive choice for many. Cheers, Häakon

Indeed!

Hi, Yes, I saw what you wrote. You also said that you may possibly feel the need to "correct" your fellow shooter and I was simply pointing out that such a correction would not indeed be a correction at all. Perhaps you should re-read your original post? :-) At any rate, the bigger issue was not centered around your post but the post which preceded it; discussing the "digital cinema" nomenclature which has been applied to steer users away from the negative connotation of "video" (especially as compared to film). "Digital cinema" is a fine and dandy term, but doesn't take away from the fact that at it's core, RED is still a video camera. That was the main point I was getting at. Nothing to argue about - and I certainly don't have a need to stoop to name-calling! Have a good day! Häakon

Hi, A PD-150 is absolutely a video camera; MiniDV is simply the format on which the video data is stored. You would not be accurate to "correct" them in this manner. Best, Häakon

Hi, The definition of video: the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion. RED may be a very high quality video camera, but a video camera it is nonetheless.

You'd be completely right - if they both looked acceptable in 1080... :-)

Hi, This was not my footage, I don't know the shooter, and I have no connection to this shoot. I simply was providing the requested information about what cameras were used to shoot each frame. The shots were made publicly available on the REDUser website with some accompanying information here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4552 According to the poster, their RED went down and the RED company was quick to provide a loaner camera, but they went ahead and tried to use an HVX in the meantime to avoid too much downtime. His posted workflow for the HVX clips was, "just opened HVX clips in FCP and exported PNG. Opened in photoshop to change image size to 1280." He then did a side-by-side of the HVX footage he shot and the RED footage he re-shot later, and the results are what you see above. If you can't tell the difference between those two images on your monitor, we've got a bigger problem than the limits of the displays...

RED footage is on the left, HVX on the right.

Hi Stephen, I never said it was an issue, just that it is much slower than other digital video cameras already on the market and that they hope to improve this "boot time" significantly through firmware updates. :-) Häakon

This is inaccurate. In video standards, it's the vertical resolution that is commonly referenced and which stays constant, as the poster alluded: 1920x1080 is often termed simply "1080" 1280x720 is termed "720" In digital cinema standards, it's the horizontal resolution that is commonly referenced: 4096x2304 is termed "4K" 2048x1152 is termed "2K" It's important to note that in the video standards, it's the horizontal resolution that often differs between cameras (many "HD" sensor arrays are not truly 1920x1080, but can be 1440x1080, for example - or less). In the digital cinema standards, it's the vertical resolution that can differ - "4K" implies a horizontal resolution of 4096, while the other value can change depending on the aspect ratio of the chip. This change between how we reference standards is what can be confusing; one just needs to understand that the monikers for "4K" and "2K" are not referencing vertical resolution as the older video standards are.

Except that digital cameras don't take 90 seconds to "reload." The point is that RED is slow to start up for a digital camera, and since there are plenty of pros who shoot digitally, this is a concern for more than just the "amateur market."

He did say forum, not board. And as you have indicated yourself, the Red forum seems to have the most struggle here. On any discussion board you have the board itself which comprises individual forums, and in those forums are topics which are comprised of individual posts. It may just be a matter of symantics, but that's why the construct of language exists; to help us communicate our ideas effectively. I can agree with the poster that there have been many times where I feel this particular forum (and not the cinematography.com discussion board as a whole) has indeed "sucked." The time will come, breath easy for a moment. :-) As of this morning there were only 25 production cameras out in the world, and Jim owns 5 of them. That makes 20 cameras available in the hands of ~12-15 people. When more units are shipped and the workflow becomes more streamlined, you'll hear things. Also remember that cutting/grading/sharing 4K material is difficult to do for the global audience at this point - only a tiny percentage of the viewing auidence has any kind of 4K anything to watch it on. And you can't judge all aspects of sensor performance well by looking at a still image. Everyone seems eager to chomp at the bit now that RED is shipping, but the quantities are still so low and the camera is so fresh that it is still a bit early to be demanding comprehensive tests. I know that several are planned in the coming months, so stay tuned and you will likely get what you are looking for (or at least much closer to it).

Let's please curb the elitist attitude a bit and remember that just because someone is not shooting film it doesn't make them an "amateur." Scads of dramatic television shows (and let's be honest, even enough feature films now to warrant a mention) are being shot digitally. RED is a digital camera, not a film camera. How long does it take to replace the tape in an F-900 and resume shooting? I don't think you will last too long if it takes you 90 seconds.