Hank den Drijver

Sensitivity: around 500 ASA. You can set it between 100 - 2000 ASA, but that only affects the meta data and the viewfinder. The data will stay the same. Don't use it. Just light for 500 ASA or use ND. S/N ratio: better than 66 db. To be improved soon with a new daughterboard, so Red claims. Gamma curves/LUT/detail level/knee point/white clip/color matrix: all done in Red Alert, a software app. You just record RAW image files and metadata. Just make sure you've lit for 500 ASA and focus is correct and you're good to go. A lot of shooters cannot handle Red Alert very well, it turns out. Hence some footage on Reduser. I've just witnessed a film vs red comparison in which the Red footage was converted to DPX and had lost all highlights in the Red Alert process. I was able to play with the original R3D (raw) files later and recovered a huge amount of highlight. Harm was already done though... This app should have a dumb-modus: export for final grading. It has just too many sliders and people get stuck in them. Especially when you don't really know what you're doing.

Phil, Max and Carl are bitter. That's their problem. I would be too probably if I was proven so wrong publically.

I'm so glad I've been protected from the Red propaganda by Carl Brighton and the likes, or I would have believed the hype too. And god forbid what would have happened. I might even have got the idea to actually take a reservation myself! Now I do know better... Thanks, Carl. You make this world a better place.

On Reduser.net there is a FAQ. Check http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487 Good luck!

Here's some experience. Mind you: (and my friend Max Jacoby will confirm this) this was posted on Reduser.net by J.J. so it is probably untrue. Or at least unwanted advertisement of his Red camera. On the other hand: it is within the subject of this thread. "We're shooting RED side by side film. We scanned the film 4k and took both into the Baselight, compared them and then did a filmout of both. When we screened side by side, we literally could not tell the difference. In fact, most people picked the RED footage as film because of a greater dynamic range in the highlights than in the 5218. It's not enough to say it is the best digital image out there. The fact is, finally, we can intercut digital with film. It looked remarkably better than the filmed images. I thought I would never be able to say that" Jon Farhat, VFX Supervisor, "Wanted".

Why the sudden serious face, Max? You used to crack me up! OK, I understand, someone needs to protect the cinematographic community from Red propaganda, or the innocent people will start to believe this camera actually IS something good. And we cannot have that, can we? It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it...

Ugly? I had the sheer angel-like face of Max Jacoby in mind when I made up my remark.

"Film is dead. And by the way, so is video.... The word is getting out that RED is the future, but for us it is right now. After holding these bad boys in our hands and putting the cameras through the full neveldine/taylor acid test our faith in the mad scientists at RED labs is unlimited. We're committed to RED for every project we've got in the pipeline." I know, I know, they've been payed too. But isn't it great to see what money can buy these days? Hank den Drijver

I think that the F900s predecessor is very different from the Red, in terms of....well... everything. The only thing they have in common is a V-lock battery.

I think you are right, Daniel. Forums are there to discuss stuff. Appearantly the Red camera is interesting enough to talk about. We could talk about ways to use it, instead of talking about what outperforms the other. Why not. I am very curious about how other people shoot digital. When I talk to other D.P.'s about it, I feel like they all have invented their own way of things, which is very interesting. I, for instance, tend to let nothing overexpose, or maybe a very tiny spot of reflection. And I try to downsize the sharpening in the camera, and up the gamma, so that I will record quite a low-contrast flat image. In post I can easily make it harder without getting too many artifacts. So in general I am used not trying to achieve anything close to the final look while shooting, but to capture as much of the light to tape as I can. In theory this could mean I will get into the limits of quantization, but in practice I haven't come across it yet. How do others approach this?

Haha, funny, Keith. The first-time filmmaker and poster of this dumbass topic you're referring to is actually Jim Jannard. OK, back to the subject, Red vs Film. I still haven't heard a lot against the Red camera except 1.7 stops lesser dynamic range. And I came up with that one. Things like 'I don't like it' or 'it looks video-ish to me' I cannot count as a real argument, for it is a too personal preference. Unproven workflow is of course a nonsense argument against the camera, we wouldn't be driving cars and flying planes if all was turned down for unproven workflow. We're just talking about the camera as a tool, and the presumption that it will work like Red says it will. If you don't believe it will in the first place then don't bother replying. I would like to hear real arguments about the technical side of the comparison.

How can you have an opinion of something you haven't seen yet? Oh and btw, I also think Lucas got it wrong. It looked awful. Lucas didn't shoot with a Red though, he used a Sony F900. Something totally different.

I think your a bit ill-informed, Andy. Check http://www.red.com/news/view/79 . They could be lying of course.

Why do you think it will take 2 or 3 years?

Now then, Andy. No need to get all upset. Let's talk about the Red camera some more. And its pros and cons in comparison to 35mm film.