Jaron Berman

There are a lot of people watching this thread and very few people commenting. Nobody gets better without a good critique, so I'll follow Gus' lead, and speak towards the lighting and camerawork. Keep in mind this is my OPINION, certainly not fact. Take or leave whatever you feel, and understand that I'm responding in the spirit of critique not insult or posturing. Anyways.... Nothing about it struck me as "shot on red"...which could be good or bad. Yes, I screened it on my computer off the online feed, but still - nothing about it looked as though it originated on anything in particular....certainly not film or high-end HD, but other than that it coulda been anything. And as Gus pointed out - that makes it a big "so what." For productions of this speed and simplicity, it appears the camera is getting in the way more than it's helping the final product. There was no shallow-DOF that could not have been achieved with a smaller cam and there was no uncontrolled lighting which was saved by a wide dynamic-range camera. In fact, I'd imagine that rendering and coloring the footage took a disproportionate amount of your allotted time, meaning that shooting on a lesser (and natively-editable) camera would have allowed more time to light, block, rehearse and do the bread and butter of filmmaking. In the end, for web delivery, your audience will never care that you used a great new camera. They'll see a compromised product and not care at all. This is an example of why lower-budget productions can be hurt by shiny new technology. I say this knowing full-well that the competition is based around "4K." Regardless.... Had the camera been a lower-end offering, like the one used for the behind the scenes footage, I think you would have been more pressed to creatively block, light and shoot the film. The camera operating was interesting in the beginning, then "forced" later on. In terms of coverage and simply keeping people in the box, it worked. The director's and operator's inexperience showed in the blocking though - lots of uninteresting compositions that could have been "fixed" with simple changes in direction. If you have a doc shooter in that situation, it may behoove you to free him a little to find frames. Because the focus fall-off of the RED is so short, it appears that you guys didn't utilize any cheats. It looks like the camera was just placed, moved for the turnaround and the scene was re-shot for coverage. Had you been using an infinite-dof camera (1/3"), you probably would have taken the time to try and cheat some of the reverse shots to make them more interesting and to create space between the actors and the back wall. In the final product, you have a lot of medium shots into brightly-lit white walls. But overall, the movement of camera in the first couple of minutes was good. The operator seems to have come from TV of sorts, because the closeup was framed as a TV-closeup, instead of the usually wider film CU (being that TV is delivered on a small screen, film on a large). If you're used to seeing your footage on a macbook or a TV, and all of a sudden you're using a camera intended for theatrical projection, you have to completely re-think your coverage as it will play on the larger screen. You have "4K" of resolution to push around and ECU's aren't as mandatory as they used to be on small-screen tv. Just a tip. The lighting.....aye. I'll echo Gus in saying it was something, though I wouldn't call it flat so much as all over the place...The low-budge formula seems to be turn on a bunch of lights, put diffusion in front of them, point them near the subject, and while the scene is being shot go make business cards with the letters "D.P" under one's name. One of the BIGGEST rookie mistakes is to burst in with lights and start re-making reality. See what you get for free FIRST, then decide what needs to be shaped and what needs reinforcement. If the goal is to match the real look but make it prettier, LOOK at the real light with your eyes before ever setting the first light. Soft-light spilling everywhere may look like reality in some situations, but there were so many tells in the room that even to the untrained eye, it just looked...wrong. A perhaps underused mantra to cinematographers is - it's not the light you add it's the light you take away. I understand your limitations in G/E, but if that's the case it's even more critical to use only what you need and control it absolutely. This whole competition was an exercise, so perhaps next time you participate, impose more restrictions to yourself....see if you can limit yourself to a single movie light for each scene. Not necessarily the same light, as you'll probably need different lights for different situations, but as an exercise it'll start making you look at your frame from a photographer's standpoint instead of a camera owner's. With only a single movie light at your disposal, you'll need to work a LOT more with practicals, flags, and layers of contrast within the frame in order to build an interesting composition. I looked on vuze for other entries, and most of them fell into the same pitfalls. Bottom line is - a camera is a camera. If its the cost of entry into a coveted competition, then so be it. But a camera can only, at best, capture faithfully what is in front of it. Learn to light and block and when RED delivers on the 28K camera, you'll be in a much better position to utilize its potential. I know this all comes off as mean-spirited, but it really is not meant in that manner. We are all students, no matter how long we've been at it. Everyone sees the world differently, and I know that personally every new DP or gaffer I work with describes light in a different way...and I learn something every time not just from their work on set but also their choice of words when it comes to explaining their thought processes. And without anyone commenting you already looked back on things you would have changed..which is good. If you can look at your work from a week, month, year or decade ago without seeing things you would do differently now then you're either arrogant or dead. We all learn, we all progress. Congrats on taking on the project and good luck in future film-races or longer-form projects.

I couldn't make it past the first 40 minutes. The acting was some of the worst I've ever seen in a theatrical feature. Even Clint was obviously anticipating lines. His family was written to be so despicable that they were caricatures at best. On video I'll think about giving it another shot, but I have to say it was a HUGE letdown (a BAD student film in comparison) after his more recent projects. Awful.

Actually that's not true. I dislike speaking for someone else, but at the SOC screening in LA when asked about not shooting the whole movie in IMAX, Wally Pfister replied (and I'll paraphrase), "we didn't know the film would do so well. If we could show these box office numbers to the producers they may have allowed us to shoot entirely in IMAX. The extra $10 million doesn't seem like so much now." The message being, the usage of 35mm for the majority of the film was a budgetary decision. Granted there are other hurdles with IMAX, but according to his answers in the Q&A that followed the screening, IMAX was a "bonus" as opposed to a primary acquisition format because of budget. Matt, hope you're well! I haven't been back to REDUSER since that online fiasco. Not sure if they are still posting under my name? Happy holidays by the way!

Yes, back to the subject at hand - what exactly was underbid? This drummed-up RED vs. the world competition is a bit ridiculous and if the original poster's situation is real then it just proves that the competition exists only in redusers' heads. These members like to do thought experiments about RED being better than Genesis or F900 or Arri loaded with such and such stock...etc..., thinking that companies like Panavision will roll over and die once they realize RED's "superiority". But as mentioned hundreds of times before here and elsewhere, RED is a tool and a choice among many. And Panavision isn't a dealer - you can't walk in and buy a Genesis, nor would you want to. The idea of Panavision and all brick and mortar camera houses is to provide a COMPLETE service. They rent cameras and production support, and most don't force a self-described "DIT" on you when you do rent from them. They require insurance because they have no personal or emotional attachment to their equipment. And that is a VERY important thing. Panavision has a HUGE inventory and they could care less which of their products you rent. They aim to develop long-term relationships, sometimes giving massive discounts to earn your business and trust. And if something goes wrong - something breaks or a camera goes down, they have the support to get you a tech on set, help over the phone, or an entirely new camera package at the drop of a hat. This is what you get with a camera house. It's ironic that RED owner-operators are now getting upset that camera houses are cutting into "their" business. When this whole RED "revolution" started, the idea was to stick it to the big guys, to democratize filmmaking, to sidestep rental houses and studios. The fallacy was that RED was different, that it would hold value better than varicams or F900's..RED was a movement not a product.... But in the end now that camera production has caught up, it turns out RED is just another camera. It's got a lot of great qualities, but it is a camera like many others. For those RED owners who have solid business models based on their own production, Panavision's rates won't matter a bit. It's once again all about service now that things have normalized. If Panavision et. al. can offer a better service, they win. If you offer a better service, you win.

Well one thing you have working in your favor is that most ops generally try to keep heads the same size in the frame during simple walk & talks unless the DP specifically asks for a change in shot length during the dialog. That means the op will keep you the same distance throughout the meat of the walk and talk. When the op walks the shot ahead of time, walk alongside him or her as the shot is designed so you can get a feeling for the beats and the natural flow. Look for real-world marks you can use as references while walking. When you get to rehearsals you should have a pretty good idea of trouble spots where the op may have to dance around objects and possibly allow the actors closer in the process. Watch for these kinds of things in body language so you can anticipate these changes in shot length. And good ops can deliver exactly the same shot over and over, aside from changes the DP or director calls out between takes. Be honest with the operator between takes too. If you need another, he or she should have the pull to ask for it. But most operators will walk the shot without the rig a number of times, walk with the rig, and do rehearsals with actors or stand-ins before ever rolling a take so you should have plenty of opportunities to make mental marks and rehearse the shot yourself. One unfortunate drawback of steadicam is that the operator cannot usually provide you with positive focus feedback during the shot. There is a lot else to concentrate on and also the monitors on most rigs are not (and don't need to be) HD. If the operator is comfortable with it, you may ask to fly the little RED lcd. It's very light and can give you a confirmation of focus when you absolutely need it. This monitor is very easy to velcro to the CF-card slot cover. This may seem dumb to even mention, but ask ahead of time what WIRELESS focus system you'll be using and make sure you know how to set it up quickly and make adjustments to it when transitioning between steadicam and traditional operating. Most steadicam ops come with their own focus systems but don't be shocked if they have no idea how to use it. ASK BEFOREHAND, and if necessary go to a rental house and learn that system. There's a theory among indi filmmakers that steadicam is basically only good for running shots outdoors with wide-angle lenses. Perhaps this will be your shot. But steadicam is used in a lot more finessed ways, so get ready for lenses longer than 50mm and subtle moves that don't include running. The usual (but not the only) position for a steadicam focus puller is 90 degrees to either side of the film plane and a few feet away. That way you can be out of the way for quick direction changes while still having a good view of the distance between the camera and actor. But don't get too comfortable on either side, because as you'll find out in your rehearsals, you'll probably have to dance around to stay out of the way and see. You'll definitely earn your pay pulling for steadicam. But the best advice I could give as a steadicam op is to call the guy/gal and introduce yourself beforehand. Figure out how involved you need to be with setup and breakdown of the camera as it relates to steadicam configurations. Remember this is his or her personal investment. He or she will probably know all the ins and outs of the rig, the focus system, and where he or she wants you during, between and after the shots. The RED is very unforgiving to missed focus, so it won't be easy. But if you pay attention during rehearsals and walk-throughs you should be in pretty good shape. Good luck, it'll be fun!

Just got it on Bluray, and it's really a sight to be seen. I noticed that the cinematographer, Mihai Malaimare Jr., is a member of this forum. It would be great to hear from him about his approach to the film, as it was above all an astoundingly beautiful look throughout. I won't comment on the film as a film so much as an artistic piece, in which I think Mr. Malaimare achieved incredible things visually. I hate to bring equipment into the discussion, but I think it's also an important reminder that the camera itself is only a small part of the end product. It seems that in the "RED" age, the F900 has been dismissed as an ancient and "bad" camera... one look at the GORGEOUS bluray copy of this film is certainly proof (at least to my eyes) that there are a number of factors that add to a coherent visual style, namely great talent. Hopefully (again) we can get Mr. Malaimare to comment, because I think it could benefit a number of us to hear how he approached this film and worked with a legendary director trying to work small and light.

With this camera as all others, TEST! With this camera more than ANY other, TEST EVERY SITUATION! The problem is that not all RED's are alike, even with the same build. When our production shut down due to RED codec errors, we spoke to a number of other shows using RED in similar situations with the same buid.... and some had the same problems, some didn't. There is no telling whether or not the camera you get will work or not, regardless of firmware, so TEST TEST TEST, every possible lighting situation you can. Our camera failed outdoors, which is now really the only situation I hear of these things failing still. With contrasty lighting, movement, and detailed backgrounds (brick, etc...), build 15 and 16.? both shut down on us, spitting out codec errors until the situation got more front-lit and less contrasty. I'm definitely not anti-RED, as it may sound...I'm certainly a LOT more hesitant to use the camera based on the last experience with it... but I URGE you to test every possible situation you can before heading into the field with the camera. It's not finished, so don't assume it will work until you test. Good luck, hopefully it works flawlessly for you because the images it's capable of producing are quite nice.

First-off, RED 1 does not have a 35mm adapter built-in. The whole concept of the RED 1 was to make a camera that did not need an adapter, a camera who's chip is the same size as s35 film. All a "35mm adapter" does is create a virtual film-plane that the lens images onto. This film plane is usually about the same size as s35 film... then your camera with a small chip photographs that "virtual" image, giving the same field of view and depth of field characteristics as the lens would on a native s35 camera. The excitement about RED 1 has a lot to do with the fact that there's no adapter in the optical path to degrade picture quality. When it comes to Scarlet, that camera appears to be designed for a different purpose entirely. The whole idea appears to be a small and light camera with RED's workflow. Adding an adapter to Scarlett would make it large and unwieldy, and probably about the same size if not larger than RED 1. Plus it would degrade the optical quality and make reliability even more of an issue than on current RED cameras. Now nobody can speak to RED's plan or goals... they change constantly. But I would assume it's a safe bet that they have no plans to produce a "35mm adapter" ever for any camera, especially scarlet. They already produce a product (soon 2) that fulfill the "35mm look". Scarlett looks to be a small pocketable camera, not a replacement for their s35mm offerings. Sure, you could bolt an adapter to it - and I'm sure a lot of people will - but even now before it's released, there are better alternatives to that end goal. And an adapter would certainly kill the biggest selling point of RED - image quality. Right now, RED's image quality is excellent, even if the cameras are riddled with bugs and design flaws. Putting an adapter on the market would certainly hurt their publicity more that it would help. The man-hours spent on making such an adapter would definitely be better spent on finishing the products they have already released or announced.

Ah the pilot. It's a beautiful rig, and in some ways the sled is more sorted than the flyer. The Pilot allows you to vary your pan-inertia like a big rig, which can be VERY useful. If you're doing a shot with whip-pans, it's nice to able able to tune for it, just as it's nice to be able to tune for a shot with slow movement and very delicate pans. It's likely that the next generation Flyer will incorporate some of the features of the Pilot. As for the arm, it's exactly a scaled-down version on the Flyer arm, which is basically a scaled-down version of the G-series arms. The term Steadicam uses for the style of their arms since the Master-series is "isoelastic." That means the arm will behave ideally under any load, and use minimal force to raise, lower, and hold it in space. Until that design, all "3A" arm designs could be considered "centered" arms - they try and fly basically level and deviation up or down takes effort. The "3A" exception to this is the PRO arm, which takes about 1/2lb pressure at any point but center. Centered isn't a bad thing, it's just a different design. (The G-series arms can actually tune their isoelasticity either way - towards the Master/Ultra feel or towards the 3A/PRO feel). I learned on a Flyer, and loved the feel of it, so stepping into the G-series was natural and easy. Some people love the feel of the centered arm, so stepping up to a PRO arm is the natural choice. But back on topic - the Flyer / Pilot arms feel very isoelastic, and are both top-of-the-line in that weight and price range. By far. Feel a pilot or flyer arm, feel a G-series arm, feel a Pro arm. They all feel right. Try just about any other arm and you'll be in for a shock. The one other misnomer I forgot to mention is the idea of weight and machismo. Again, weight range seems to be the big selling point of so many rigs and the bragging rights of many beginning ops. "What's the heaviest camera you can fly," or "how many one-leg squats can you do with ____ on your rig?" Not really that important. If you're learning, a high-quality light rig will teach you good habit a lot faster than a heavy rig will. Steadicam is based entirely on inertia - P=MV. Inertia = Mass * Velocity. Decrease mass or velocity and you decrease stability. Starting off with a light rig means that as your body learns to control the rig, your inputs are more critical and delicate. If and when you step to a bigger rig, the weight may be a bit shocking at first, BUT your control will be extremely precise. It's a lot easier to get used to more weight once you have good posture and habits than it is to relearn your skills on the occasion that you have to fly a light camera. Most ops have a weight that feels right, a comfort zone...but working both above and below this range is healthy to avoid that panic when things feel different. And working at much lighter setups is always good practice for delicacy.

There's a lot of great info out there about the various systems, capabilities, prices, features, etc. But I'll save you a bit of research and just lay out the (mostly) stock response. Before investing in ANY piece of gear, make sure you know exactly WHY you want it, if you need to own it, how much you'll use it, how much it will cost you in the long run, and where you're going to get it, insure it, and use it. Whew! As of late (last few years), it seems that inexpensive stabilizers have literally exploded onto the market. First there was the lone kid on the block - CP/Steadicam, then Pro, then all the rest. Not to say the original is best, BUT it is important to understand where these things came from at the highest level before deciding you need to buy a low-level knockoff. At least know what technology you're looking at and what its lineage is. Steadicam, now owned by Tiffen, is the baby of Garrett Brown. Garrett invented the Steadicam, and continues to be the major innovator in the body-worn stabilizer field, along with Jerry Holway, Peter Abraham and the rest of the Tiffen collaborators. PRO, XCS, and MKV all do a lot of really great things, but they owe it to Garrett, Jerry, and with the Flyer - Peter. Aside from Steadicam's Master, Ultra, G-50/G-70 offerings, all stabilizer arms are loosely based on the "3A" design. It is an old design by technical standards, and the patent has run out - which allows these many knockoff brands to produce what are essentially replicas, without legal trouble. Some are more successful than others - PRO's arm is loosely based on 3A theory, but is absolutely INCREDIBLE! A few other brands produce excellent 3A designs - Baer-Bel, RIG engineering, etc. Most companies produce poor copies that LOOK like nice 3A arms. I'm making a bit of fuss over arm lineage because it's essentially one of the two most important technical features of a rig. The gimbal and arm are why people pay big bucks for stabilizers. Compromise either and the whole magic of steadicam vanishes. Sure you could fight a poorer rig, but that defeats the purpose. The whole idea of steadicam is to remove the desire and ability to overcontrol a camera. That means overcontrol by natural impulses - the movement of the body as you walk or run, as well as forced impulses like steering the shot in space or axially. The more you can isolate the camera from your body's movement, the smoother and more precise you can be with the shot. And at it's very highest level, steadicam can be a VERY precise instrument. Less force input means more precision; so the less drag the gimbal adds, and the less vibration and movement the arm allows, the more control you have over the camera. And that's the whole idea. Now back to the broad, philosophical questions. Why do you need a stabilizer? Make sure you understand when it is and is not appropriate. Gratuitous steadicam has become de-riguer. In many situations it can take more time than it saves... and in some situations it's just completely inappropriate. Take for example the slowly creeping side-track in 35mph winds. Wrong tool. (can be done, but it's essentially torture). I saw a great clip that Garret showed from his lecture. A difficult ER shot that the operator simply could not get. They threw the camera on the dolly with a gear head, and between the op and dolly grip, performed an absolutely beautiful sequence that at first glance you would swear could ONLY be done with a steadicam. Even when it feels like the only tool, in the majority of situations it's not. The steadicam operator and equipment are almost always replaceable. Now, on to the next broad idea. At this point, you're still convinced that steadicam is the only way to go. Fair enough, it's a beautiful and elegant solution in many circumstances and can certainly add production value when done right. BUT the kicker is - it takes an unhealthy amount of practice to do steadicam at a poor level. To do it at a master level takes YEARS of working and practicing daily, with harsh and unwaivering critique. If its for your own projects, jump in head-first and have fun. Don't expect much and you'll be pleased. If you're shooting for money, for someone who actually understands what steadicam SHOULD look like, you could be in for a shock and sudden end to your steadicam career. Just the harsh reality, and it is harsh. How much to spend? The sky's the limit, and it never ends. If its for your own personal projects, then you make the budget. If you're going to sell your services, start working on your credit. You can definitely find rigs pretty cheaply, but once you add all the necessary accessories, you'll find that you've tripled (or more) your budget. My rig cost me about $35,000 used. The accessories cost a couple times that. And unfortunately, there are no real "cheap" solutions for acc's that work reliably enough to rent along with your services. Remote follow focus and wireless video are the absolute minimum. After that, it depends on what genre you're looking to get into as to what other accs you'll need next. Now, down to rigs. You really really absolutely get what you pay for. A $2000 rig will not perform like a $10,000 rig like a $100,000 rig. The physics are roughly the same, yes, but the precision of every single part exponentially affects the precision of the rig. It's NOT a linear progression where twice the price gets you twice the rig. They all have more-or-less the same parts, but spending more generally does get you a much better product. The big exception to the rule here is the Steadicam Flyer series. It really is far better than the price would suggest. It's about 2-3 times the price you mentioned, BUT it utilizes the most modern arm design, and the physical quality of the machining and overall rig is outstanding at any price. The upper weight-limit of a rig shouldn't be your main criteria when selecting a rig. Yes, it's very important, but when comparing the FS and the Flyer LE (both have the same 20lb limit), there is absolutely no comparison. The Flyer is a well-sorted current generation professional rig. The FS is a knockoff of a knockoff of a 30 year old design. If you're looking at that 20lb limit in order to fly a RED, don't forget accessories! Follow focus, drives, downconverters and cables all weigh something! And you don't want to end your career by saying "sorry, you can't shoot to the drive because I can't fly it." There are certain things you can (sticky topic) refuse to fly, but if its a basic item and you've already agreed to come in and do the project, it's very bad for your reputation to say no to the director or DP. Even a 20-30 yr. old used rig will perform at a whole nother level from any of these knockoffs, so keep an eye on the used market too. So, with all that said, here's the most important question. Why do you want to do this? It sounds rude and forward, but seriously - if you haven't asked, you HAVE to ask before you spend any money. There are many reasons to get into this, but make sure you're 100% behind whatever that reason is. If it's a 1-time deal, it's DEFINITELY not worth it - you can probably find a very high-level op to come and do the shots at a rate that makes you comfortable Or perhaps (PERHAPS) even free if the project or shot is interesting or challenging enough. If its a case of gear-lust, there are other things to buy way before a stabilizer, items that will yield far better returns on your investment. Low-level stabilizers in rental will likely never make back their cost. High-end rigs are poor rental investments too, as most ops own their rigs, and rent only in case of emergency. If its an owner-op situation, make sure to budget about a year JUST for practice before ever taking money. And if there's any uncertainty as to the reason behind a stabilizer purchase.... no, before ANY stabilizer purchase, consider taking a workshop. I say consider, but it should be a requirement. You'll save yourself years of frustration and a possibly HUGE amount of money if before investing, before learning poor habits, you take some classes. It is without a doubt, unanimously, the most important investment in the field of stabilizers! Ask ANY successful op. Even if halfway through the course you decide not to buy a rig or get into it, at least you'll have far more knowledge of what the rig can and cannot do - and you'll be a more informed opinion when you need to hire someone to do a shot. Or, you'll fall in love with it, sell all your worldly possessions, make tape lines all over your house and practice every day until you're comfortable taking money for your services. No matter what way you go, a workshop should be above the top of your list of priorities and investments. That was a very long-winded response, BUT hopefully something in there is useful. It may sound like I'm trying to dissuade you from getting into steadicam, but just the opposite. I see far too many guys blowing their savings on gear they don't understand or need, due to misinformation. Know what you want and why you want it, and if it all makes sense, dive in head first and don't look back. $2800 is a relatively small amount of money for a stabilizer, but it can feel like a lot - just make sure you know what you're getting into. Straight talk is a good thing with so many companies and people telling you "you NEED this" or that your quality will suck until "you buy our gear," or this is "better and cheaper than the one used in _____movie!" It's too easy to get sucked into marketing claims. Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me or (probably) any of the other steadicam ops on this board. Steadicamforum.com is also a great resource with tons of searchable info. It deals very little with the mechanics of low-end rigs though, so if that's your main concern steadiforum may be a better place to ask around. As for the business, politics, and technicalities of operating, however, steadicamforum can be a valuable networking and informational resource. Good luck, hope to see another unstoppable knight of the green screen.

Your best bet at this time is the new WEVI box distributed by IDX. Uncompressed wireless HD with <1 frame delay. The cleanest signal you're able to send under $40,000. Note that it does not do any kind of down or cross conversion, so depending on how your monitor is setup, you still may need a downconverter to see your framing on the sled. If that's the case, you may be best off getting the AJA or Evertz box, using the modulus and then IF they can't stand the quality, offering to fly the cable. It SUCKS to fly a cable, but with a lightweight jumper from the cam to your vest, you can at least be a bit more flexible and feel the pressure less. Because it's only for monitoring and not recording, you can get away with some pretty thin cable and barrels, etc... Every so often you may find that the signal drops out, but that's dependent on how many barrels you have, how long the jumper is, etc... HD is a weird world - all of a sudden DP's who've lived with B&W video taps are demanding 1080p video assist at all times, even on steadicam. The problem I have is when it needlessly complicates or compromises the shot - flying a cable during a particularly complex or nuanced move, just so they have the HD signal as opposed to the SD signal. By the final days of this past HD shoot, the DP became comfortable enough with the camera to let me fly the shot using the modulus, as long as he got his last-looks with the cable and waveform. You may try offering that?

To steer things back slightly - RED in post. I don't completely agree that RED buyers and users have all things sorted and figured. Yes, there are some extremely experienced and well educated buyers and users. There are also vast numbers of people who've seen results and jumped in without the slightest clue. Check ebay and reduser's classifieds. But their post process sums up the entire "red" ideology. It's pretty open-ended. You CAN do it on a micro-budget with very little in the way of equipment and come out with an outstanding product. You can do this yourself. The question is how much time and energy do you want to devote to this process? That's the same question with ALL production. You can do just about anything yourself given enough time and knowledge. Granted, it's not always safe, economical or smart to, but saying you can't write, direct, edit, finish and distribute a film alone is a fallacy. You can now, you always could regardless of format. The conflict now seems to be that there is a misunderstanding based on RED's rabid marketing and consequent following. It's the latest incarnation of the Robert Rodriguez syndrome, but now the price is higher. More people than ever believe themselves to be auteurs and experts in every aspect of filmmaking. Sure, some certainly are gifted, but just as before - the vast majority of people who take the lone-wolf route will fail. Many of us can do a number of things well, but when you work with a talented team of producers in pre-pro, a fantastic crew on set, and talented editors and colorists in post, even the most cocksure filmmaker should at least recognize that surrounding talent. And if you can't recognize their talents, then at LEAST recognize that with specialization, each team member can devote his or her full concentration on one task or group of tasks. In the "war" (borrowing RED allusions) that is filmmaking, concentration and singularity of purpose can be the difference between a vision realized and an unreleased drive of footage. The big three variables in post are speed, quality and money. Given unlimited time on a laptop without any output card or grading monitor, you could possibly stumble upon a nice looking grade. Given that the software has no proper scopes, it's unlikely. The difference between this approach and a real post-house workflow comes down to standards. If you're willing to grade on a laptop LCD in the wrong color space with a limited gamut and no measurements of any kind, then by all means go for it. The reason most larger projects pay for talented colorists is because they are unwilling to sacrifice the whole picture's look to save a buck in the color correct. If you're willing to render at 40-60x realtime, then by all means spend months converting your feature on your laptop. Most projects can't afford that kind of time. If you can afford to buy an edit system, the training to use it, and a number of projects to practice on before touching your critical project than by all means cut and color away! Sure I can run around apple color pretty well and grade my reel, but when it comes time to grade a feature who's going to be better at it, me with a few hours of experience or the guy/gal who's career it is to grade all day, every day? If nothing else, he/she has a few time-saving tricks and habits which will save a LOT of money over the hobbyist. Same as DP's. Many directors know a whole lot about camera and lighting, but on set their attention is often divided between departments and cast. Who will consistently make better lighting decisions and camera decisions, the guy/gal who does it every day and shoots many projects a year (for many people and learns from each), or the director who occasionally dabbles in the camera arts once a year? The point is not that it can't be done, just that like everything in the film world, specialization CAN be beneficial. I've personally found that a lot of people who knock specialization either can't see the difference between hobby and truly skilled craft, or don't understand the old adage "time is money." When it's someone else's money....

Optically, besides the iris I believe that all 16mm superspeeds are the same. The MKI's have 6-bladed irises that close down as hexagons, which is quite nice. But they didn't come stock with focus gears and from what I can tell they don't have matching front diameters and the focus throw is considerably shorter than on the MKII's or III's. The MKII's and III's actually have more blades - 8 I believe, but they close down in a triangular pattern. So you get built-in gears, better focus scales and matched fronts in exchange for a nasty triangular iris. Bastards! It looks like we're getting SS MKII's and the canon 10.6-180mm zoom - a hard piece to get a hold of, I guess there's a lot of demand and it's new enough that most of the 16 houses don't carry it. Very nice mechanics though, it felt like 360degrees throw for focus, and very solidly built. When I do finally get a day to look at everything side-by-side on the projector, I'll see how it compares to the zeiss, older canons, and the primes. Any idea where to find Optars in LA?

Slightly different, but on my 1DmkII, the shutter is guaranteed 200,000 cycles. If you get more (which I did), lucky you. Sent in to Canon Professional Services, $228 to replace the shutter, clean everything and ship it back. Sucks to have one go down, but now I essentially have a new camera. $225 every 200,000 cycles...it's your world, you do the math and see if it's worth it.

Adam and Chris - I appreciate the responses. I was aware of the nasty triangular iris, which only goes away wfo....and it's a little disheartening to hear that the lens sucks wfo or has those nasty highlights when stopped down. I keep reminding myself that there were probably a great number of well shot films done on these lenses before anyone had seen Ultra's or S4's...the problem is being spoiled now by knowing how good it can actually get and not having the budget to go for it. I'll have to check the mechanics of that particular Canon, but it appeared to be a pretty long throw...I wasn't really looking at that, but thanks Adam for bringing it up (I should be at least a LITTLE considerate of the AC). As it stands, we have the superspeed set and the new Canon 10.6-180 zoom, which is an update of the older 11-165. The 8-64 as I understand is the older version of the 6.6-66 Canon, also an option for us. So if the superspeeds suck so much wfo, and have a triangular iris stopped down into the 2's, would we be better off just getting the 2 newer Canon's? They have "circular" iris patterns (not sure how many blades) and are most likely pretty sharp at 2.4.... I guess we'll have to find a lens projector and all these lenses to actually see.... any feelings are invited though, I'd love to hear more opinions and "if I were in your shoes" kind of comments. Thanks all.

While I've operated quite a bit of super 16, I've never DP's or been in any way responsible for putting together the camera package, specifically the lenses. Currently, I'm helping a DP friend of mine put together an SR3 kit for an upcoming feature, and have been doing quite a bit of legwork in terms of quoting out prices around town while he's scouting locations down south. He shoots almost exclusively in 35, so we're about equal in (lack of) knowledge when it comes to super16 lenses. The obvious staple lenses are the Zeiss superspeeds. I've used them quite a bit as an op, but have never done any proper testing on charts or scenes specifically to compare against other lenses. At the "arri night" a while back I did get a chance to see the unveiling of the rest of the Zeiss Ultra 16 line, and the tests they displayed comparing the Supers to the new Ultras. Yes, the ultras wipe the floor with the old superspeeds when shooting the corners of a resolution chart, but here's the beginning of my question: Off a chart and shooting wide-open, how great is this difference going to be in real life? If the production doesn't have the budget for Ultra16's or even a kit of SK4/S4's, what's the next best option? I've also heard very good things about the new Canon Zooms, but there is even less information floating about them than the Arris, and essentially no comparisons against other zooms or primes. Specifically, the 10.6-180mm Canon zoom. How does this lens stack-up against the old superspeed in sharpness and contrast when shot at similar stop? The design is about 20-30 years newer, so I'm guessing that the Canon will be pretty good, but I have never used it or seen footage from it (that I know of specifically), so I'm looking to hear opinions from those who have used and looked at footage shot with it. Details: The film is going through a 2K di, so color matching is less critical. But, getting a clean and sharp picture is still important as the footage will be filmed-out to 35 (a separate budget, for those who would suggest dumping the DI money into Ultra16 lenses and finishing photochemically). Obviously there are myriad choices of lenses for effect and mood, but the DP is basically looking for a nice clean film capture on s16. So down to the nitt-gritty... if you were shooting a production on super16, and didn't have the budget for Ultra16's/Ultraprimes, what would you choose? Thanks, I appreciate all responses.

Ram is right - para doesn't come stock with capability to go that big, but the material can do it if you have one of the modified versions. Also, the actual opening mechanism is different (Bron had to stop selling the exact replica in the US at least...not sure about the world). On the briese, the umbrella support is external, to allow the light tube to move in and out for focusing. The modified para must move the light itself in and out, and has internal spokes so it's not quite as clean of a beam.... but it's close - a parabolic reflector is a parabolic reflector to a certain extent. Mobility-wise, I think it's less the expense than it is how fragile they are - I knew a photog that owned a few and wouldn't use them outdoors. Its too easy to do small damage to them that's difficult to repair. Much cheaper to use an elinchrom octo without diffuser, and if anything bad happens you're out a LOT less cash. I checked the price back then because we were renting the para enough to look into just buying something... and then the reality check of the price! YA Briese/para are great lights, very unique look if it fits (music video=perfect) Yeah, the rig will fly 435 no sweat - but I have a 3-wk gig on a bl4 that's gonna hurt. I'm in the process of upgrading my arm just to have more breathing room. Anyways, good to know you're well. I'm interested to see what you end up using and how.... and obviously see the photos. Take care Matt!

Matt, hope you're well man! The only place in NY that rents them is Pier 59 studios, and they must be used on-site. The Bron Para is a replica of the briese system (close enough that they were sued), and much more available. Bron is part of the Broncolor / Kobold family, and I just saw at NAB that Kobold now has a modified Para that allows you to use either 4 x Bron 200w HMI's or 4 x 1K tungstens or 1x Joker *any wattage joker. The only real concern with this kind of light is wind - it's a huge sail and gets really ungainly outdoors. In the studio, it's magic. The beauty of the briese focus or bron para is that you're getting a very large specular source> The aurasofts are great too, but not the same effect. Basically the equivalent of a white beauty-dish in still photography. Alternatively, there are the plume jumbrellas which give a different but excellent effect of somewhat like natural sunlight - a hot spot of specular light with a "sky" of fill. Obviously this effect can be created in other ways, but it's a nice tool just the same for its simplicity. Oh, and if you're curious, I did ask on price at one point. Briese lights are VERY hard to get in the US, and cost roughly $12,000 (when I asked) for a 2.5K focus 220??? I could be off, but that's the number I remember... and it took me a few days of calling various numbers to get a quote.

Well, for once I agree with Phil. The RED marketing system can be a bit scary. I always post under my real name, as we do here because there should be nothing to hide. My opinions come from my experience and perspective, and should be treated as such. So here's my story. A couple days ago, I questioned the cells within RED's batteries, guessing that they were chinese cells like all the other batteries at the same price point... and was quickly disputed by a RED team member. An hour later, my account stopped working. Today, as a test, I registered a new name and made a couple of posts. Not only did the account stop working almost immediately, someone changed my picture, profile information and also my posts! Apparently questioning anything related to RED's quality is a sin punishable by identity theft and censorship. If you're curious, I've never been enamored by their attention to detail in the mechanics of their parts. I like the idea of RED and personally hope that the camera succeeds if only because it'll be another great tool. Apparently I'm not religious enough about RED for their taste. While we may not all agree with all other users here, thanks to the moderators, the discussion remains open and spirited. Information gets exchanged. Thank you for the honesty. Having my posts literally rewritten by moderators is not only completely amoral but terrifying.

It is funny how this thread has turned into a debate about marketing. The initial post was pretty obviously (even in title) meant to stir anger against a camera. I think it says a lot that so much frustration is leveled at RED's marketing campaign. Had RED simply come up with a camera and released it on the market next month, after their landmark "image quality build," I'm guessing that the majority of hatred/frustration/negativity aimed at them would instead be excitement. Had they never promised so much, or assembled such a loyal following of wide-eyed newbies, many of us would have looked objectively at the product as just that - a product. Unfortunately, the viral marketing turned it into the "Jesus" camera, savior of all productions and giver of opportunities to those with no experience. It would be silly to ignore the fact that so much of this backlash has absolutely nothing to do with the camera, so much as the buyers who saw a lack of RED as the only thing that ever held them back from super stardom. There was a post on REDUSER yesterday about "should I buy RED or go to film school." It's a pretty good indicator of who's buying the camera, and it's the same phenomenon that happened when people began buying the DVX or HVX and started calling themselves "DP's" mere days later. RED has delivered all the rhetoric, and slowly the community is finding out that there are essentially two routes you can take with the camera. You can go cheap, use all RED's stuff, and find yourself sorely disappointed by the workflow and fit and finish compared to the hype. Or, you can spend top dollar and use it in a traditional film workflow and use high-end grading systems, accessories, etc... and have a great experience more comparable in cost to similar cameras. The big problem is believing the hype that the "low road" will actually be as easy and smooth as the "high road." It's not, it won't be. But again - you have options. RED may not really be revolutionary in any way besides the price. It may not be "truly" 4k, but very few people would argue about the resolution that IS being produced. The physical accessories are beyond awful, but there are companies (Element Technica) who make really good accessories for this camera. Post is a bumpy road, but again - if you're willing to spend the cash and treat it like a high-end camera, it can be done quite well. Getting so worked-up about a camera is essentially agreeing with the lowest common denominator of the RED community that its the camera and not talent makes the end product. In the end, RED is a product, a camera, which has its positive aspects and drawbacks like any other tool. I think it's fair to react to USERS when they make ridiculous claims, but the camera is an inanimate object. If it works for you, great! If not, then luckily we have a lot of other options.

flaring the lens shouldn't be hard with just about any light, but if you're going for a visible beam effect, Mole has beam projectors... or the Joker 400 with beamer attachment, shooting thru a Source 4 Leko. Added bonus of this setup is that you have a LOT of light with little current draw, and you have beam shaping built-in. If you want even more control over the beam, for just a few bucks you can add a variable iris for the light.

NRG has some dimming fixtures you may be able to hack, otherwise try dedolight. They make 12 and 24v fixtures that you can easily plug into 12 or 24v belts or block batteries (respectively). Or for the ghetto version, http://www.westinghouselighting.com/pdf/pd...LampHolders.pdf get a g6.35 ceramic lamp holder and wire it to a 3 or 4 pin xlr. Suspend the fixture inside you china ball, and use the appropriate bulb 24v-150w or 12v-100w. Should be cheap and omni-directional.

Thank you for posting links to the footage, good to see side-by-side outputs. One quick nitpick - there's not gate, so check for DUST ON THE SENSOR!!! The absolute first thing I saw, before even looking at the beauty of the footage was that one of the cameras had dust EVERYWHERE! Yes, it was just a test, and yes, the olpf is now in a different spot, but it's one of those things... something new to look out for, something very distracting if missed. But besides that, the images were nice, though from the side-by-side raw vs. graded, it appeared like a lot of highlight info was lost to get the skintones to expose correctly. Was that a creative decision, an accidental mis-rating of the camera's sensitivity, or the state of the camera at the time of the tests? or just the compression to get it online? I know that new builds are coming out by the minute, but I am very curious because I hadn't seen this in other, more controlled footage I've been looking at.

yes and no - it's already doing some kind of processing to show the picture it does. I'm guessing they'll either change the variables or allow the user to change them, requiring the same processing but applying different final "grading" to the image. As for the delayed pretty picture... it's a good idea, but I know from experience that a lot of people can't deal with the delay. I have a wevi system that I was using to transmit a picture from my steadicam rig - absolutely amazing clarity, but it had a sizable delay..maybe 10 frames. I got a behringer audio box to delay the comtek feed as well, so everything lined up, but still - the majority of places I worked preferred my analogue video trans with it's breakup and no delay to the perfect picture with delay (because within earshot, the "echo" from the live audio to the delayed audio was distracting). As it stands, doing a wireless feed from the RED will be tricky, as the AJA box has a slight delay as well. If only they'd integrated a downconverter...or come up with an inexpensive, compact transmitter for HDSDI.

And that's the problem - it's not really video and its not film. It's something either in between or something else entirely. There is no optical viewfinder, so you must rely on some kind of electronic finder. Right now people are still trying to figure out how to expose this camera - again, it's not film and it's not video. You can't use a waveform off the SDI output because it would be completely wrong, and you can't use a light meter the same way you would film, because the camera responds differently. So the fact remains, the camera has the capability to show a more accurate picture on it's monitoring outputs, and possibly custom LUTs. Right now, sure you could just consider it a video tap, but we don't have to settle for that kind of quality. I'm just saying - I can and do work off of taps for steadicam, but if I were given the option of a picture that actually reflects the final image, I can't see a reason not to take it, or at least have it as an option. And as for mounting, in the most simple sense it can already be mounted to just about anything - dolly, crane, steadicam, sticks, cable rigs, etc... Not necessarily the fastest integration into those uses right this second, but it can certainly be done securely. In its most elemental form, RED is basically a video box camera with a bunch of threaded holes all over it. But again - third parties are coming up with more traditional pieces to make it quicker and more comfortable. It CAN be done today, but it will all be getting easier as time goes on.