Evan Winter

DSLR photography is a great comparison and I don't mind the look at all. In fact, I enjoy what's I'm coming to see as the Red aesthetic. I'm actually trying to get my hands on one to shoot the video I'm doing on the 19th. Any Red takers?? :) Evan W.

Well it looks like Blockbuster is losing the fight to Netflix and after closing 526 stores and losing $35 million this past quarter the end may be in sight (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9809950-7.html). I can't help but wonder how this'll affect the Indie film scene. Blockbuster was no doubt the largest single purchaser in North America of straight-to-video indies and if it closes shop Netflix may not pick up the slack. To be honest, I was never really that concerned about the whole downloading thing. I saw it mostly as the next evolutionary/technological step with regards to media. However, I expected a smoother transition and it's unsettling to see music label after music label go under and then watch Blockbuster lose customer after customer to a combination of downloading and online rental services (the latter isn't necessarily bad). A simple and immediate concern for me is this - if Blockbuster closes and the mom and pop rental shops do too then what happens when I have a burning desire to watch Citizen Kane on a cold wintery Saturday night? Are my only two solutions to add it to my Netflix list and wait a couple days or hop onto The Pirate Bay and download the movie? Traditional media (Music, TV, Films), as one big industry, are in a very weird place and I think two things are certain: 1.) It'll get worse before it gets better and 2.) In the days (years) ahead there will be massive opportunities for smart people to capitalize on the inevitable restructuring that will occur and those smart people will soon be added to the illustrious Forbes list. Evan W.

Well this got crazy fast. Or as Lehnert might say, 'The rapidity of mental degeneration located locally is without parallel or peer'. Evan W.

I'm not going to lie, misery does love company, and as bad as it may sound it's nice to know that I'm not the only one experiencing the fallout. At the same time, of course, I hope it works out beautifully for us all! :) It's really eye-opening to consider that the Swedish industry is operating on $1k budgets and it's good to know there are still some warriors out there fighting against the low budgets and doing everything they can to keep the 'coolness' in videos (Cheers to you Kevin Z.) Lastly, you may be right Walter; music videos may fade away but I really hope not. They are a fun and creative place to be and it would be very sad to see such an artistic filmmaking field vanish... Evan W.

Does anyone else work in Music Videos? I'm asking because over the past 3 - 5 months it seems that budgets have been falling faster than ever. It's an increasingly rare conference call that starts off with the label announcing we have $50k to spend and not a penny more (and I thought those days were tight). Now almost every call is about squeezing everything into a budget that is at most $40k and more likely between the $10k - 30k range.... :blink: I always tell myself that it's about the idea; the video concept. I always tell myself that as long as I have enough money to cover the bare costs of shooting on film then it's okay but damn if it's not getting rough out there. I guess this is the downside of being the film aspect of the music industry (an industry that's going down in flames). It's clear to everyone that can be bothered to look that the old label system of rights ownership and distribution is beyond broken. The mega-labels can't make money when their copyrights mean nothing in an age of torrents. And controlling the means of physical distribution in music today is almost as worthless. Without a doubt the music industry is in turmoil and as an offshoot of the industry we music video makers are right in the middle of all the chaos. It's a strange time for us and almost every day I wonder what the future of music videos will be. Afer all, music isn't going anywhere. In fact, more people 'consume' music today than ever before (they just don't buy CDs is all). So, if more people listen to the stuff will more people 'watch' the stuff too? A music video is a commercial for a single. A single is a commercial for an album. There are pundits declaring the death of the album - it doesn't have a place in our on-demand torrent culture they say. If that's the case then videos are left as only an artistic commercial for a single and nothing more. I wonder if that's enough to keep them alive (especially since the most likely future for singles are as loss leaders - creating fans that attend concerts and buy band merch). But even as I wonder I don't think we'll see videos disappear entirely. However, they may no longer be a creative sandbox for future filmmakers. The money just isn't there to keep talent working anymore... On the other hand, this may be the best thing to happen to the video industry. It may revitalize it and help develop a renaissance in the artform that takes it back to its early days when the promo was all about brilliant ideas, wondrous stories, and fantastic visuals. It can't be denied that videos have gotten very very stale these past 10 years and it'll be truly interesting to see what the next 10 bring. As a final thought and warning - anyone planning to make a go of music videos should know that we're quickly going the way of the indie short film. That is to say, they'll become pure labors of love with little to no chance at remuneration. So, if the final goal is to make films (and for most of us it is), then cut straight to the chase and start shooting shorts - at least you'll be shooting narrative, working with actors, and dealing with dialog. Evan W.

Just a little reminder to all of us (myself totally included) about the dangers of being too certain. In other words, healthy skepticism, doubt, and an open-mind are truly valuable things in this world. The film v digital debate can often bring out the worst in all of us but remember never say never: A List of the top 30 Failed Technology Predictions: http://listverse.com/history/top-30-failed...gy-predictions/ Evan W.

Hello Adam, The best way for me to discern whether the Red camera is worth it for me to use is for me to see the quality of the image in the end state that I would be using it. I'm saying that, in my opinion, the footage I saw playing back from a D-Beta tape onto a telecine quality monitor looked every bit as good as 35mm film (when playing back under the same conditions). In fact, it looked better than what I typically expect from S35mm film under these circumstances. Also, remember that the vast majority of filmed footage we see is seen as D-Beta playback (TV shows, Music Videos, Commercials, Documentaries, basically anything that airs on Television). So, I think this is a very valid test for image quality vs. film. Again, most shot film ends up on D-Beta. Could you tell me the conditions under which you viewed and analyzed Red footage? Did you have a chance to view Red footage playing back from a D-Beta on a properly calibrated monitor? How do you feel it stacks up against film shown in the same way? How was the footage you saw shot? Was it DP'ed by an individual whose work you typically respect but somehow felt the Red let them down? Was the footage colored by a professional colorist who normally works on commercials/movies? I don't feel that Red footage brought into a home system and viewed on a computer monitor is a fair way to judge and I don't want to assume that's how you viewed the footage. If you let me know the setup perhaps I'll have a better understanding of whether it's simply a difference of opinion or something else. Evan W.

Touche David M. :) And to Alessandro - great questions! I'll try and answer as many as I can. 1. The music video was all interior. Some shots off sticks (performance) and a lot of handheld (thin narrative elements and some performance). The band was a rock-punk band and the look was contrasty with deep blacks although highlights seemed fairly controlled (no heavy blown out highlights). I'm not sure what was used as far as lighting units I could guess but wouldn't want to lead anyone astray with incorrect assumptions. 2. The Super 35mm/Red comparison footage was from a commercial shoot that took place indoors (regular east coast suburban house with large windows). Large units were being pumped through the windows (10/18ks) and the interior look was meant to feel naturalistic with skintones hovering around the middle gray mark. Additionally, the window were mostly blown out but it looked comfortably and smoothly blown out not that video blown out look (this was the same on both S35mm and Red). The colorist claimed that the whites were held better on the Red footage than on the filmed footage. As a counterargument (albeit weak because it's no longer a same shoot direct comparison situation) my friend at Riot! explained to me that the first batch of Red footage that the Red company brought in to them for testing looking like S16mm film and had relatively poor latitude. He said no one was satisfied with this initial test and that Red came in with more footage at a later date that everyone felt more comfortable with (this was prior to the shipping of Red cameras). 3. I'm not sure how the Red footage was workflowed down to D-Beta in the S35mm/Red comparison although my friend at Riot! suggested that a more efficient way of working with Red (given current technology limitations) was to take the 4K and downconvert straight to D-beta and then do a D-beta tape to tape color. My friend is a colorist and given what he had seen he felt that going from a 4k color and then downconverting to d-beta was likely to create problems. He argued that coloring on 4k would prompt a stretching of the image that would not hold on the downconvert (it would be very tempting to push the 4k 'neg' around to levels that would clip and mush when the pristine 4k image was dumped down to d-beta). He thinks that going 4k to d-beta and doing a tape to tape will likely produce a better end result (at this time). 4. I'm not sure how the commercial comparison test was lit (how flatly or contrasty) and I agree that the way it was lit could definitely affect with acquisition format looks better. My colorist friend, when I told him I'd try to shoot my next project on Red and bring it to him to color, said that to achieve the best result I should try and shoot the image as flatly as possible. Of course it's okay to mold the lighting and have highlights/shadows etc but I should make sure that my black and my highlights are well within range. He contended that if I shot and lit this way he could create the contrast, push and pull the color, and do what he needed to do while keeping the image pristine. His concern was that if the image was pushed in acquisition that he wouldn't have the ability to bring anything back in the highlights or reveal anything in the blacks. Caveat: he hasn't personally colored any Red footage yet and he's talking based on the Red footage he's seen come out of his shop and based, I'm sure, on his overall experiences with any video as an acquisition format. 5. All the Red footage I saw did look like it was shot on a tighter shutter than 180 degrees. My friend in Toronto shot two of the spots (a commercial and the music video) with tighter shutters and this was evident. However, the comparison commercial (S35mm/Red) was shot 180 and the Red still has that slight tighter than 180 look....I'd love to do tests with the shutter and see what that's all about. Evan W.

This is a little unrelated. :) But I have to ask, Emile why can't you get your head around why Superman Returns would be edited on Adobe Premiere Pro? I know, I'm just being troublesome :) but a part of me really is curious because I cut on Premiere Pro and while it may be easier because of industry compatibility to work on FCP a cut is a cut and a dissolve is a dissolve (moreover, on Superman Returns the post-flow will cater to the primary editor's needs so compatibility shouldn't be a problem). It's so strange, the reactions I get, whenever someone finds out that I do my post work on a PC. They always act like I just told them I majored in Klingon in college. Of course I recognize that Apple have great UIs and working with their software/hardware is usually a pleasure. Indeed, if I had to do it all again I may have gone Apple. However, once I'm actually in Premiere Pro and I'm doing a cut it's just as easy, functional, and 'artistic' as making an equivalent cut in FCP. What's more, 90% of the online efx I've seen are performed on After Effects; an Adobe product that speaks and plays far more easily (through Adobe Bridge) with Premiere Pro than with FCP. Evan W.

I talked to Riot! They can handle the footage one of two ways. 1.) Their Data management dept. will take the RAW footage and transfer it to D-Beta for a future tape to tape. 2.) They bring in the footage on their new Resolve non-linear color correct system at 4K and they do a 4K color transfer (yep, it's as expensive as it sounds). My friend at Riot! suggested that going to D-Beta and doing a tape to tape might be the smarter route (for now) since coloring at 4K and then downconverting to D-Beta might lead to unforseen problems, artifacts, etc. since while in 4K we would be tempted to push the 'neg' around much more than could be held in D-Beta. Evan W.

Are there any Transfer houses currently transferring Red's RAW footage to D-Beta? I'm wondering if this could solve a lot of workflow issues. I've heard that Riot! in Santa Monica might be doing it. I plan to give them a call tomorrow to see what the story is. My thinking is that if I can get Red footage transferred and colored to D-Beta then from that point on I can work with the footage just as I always do. Evan W.

Hola, Tim/Bugs: no harm no foul - your input is valuable and I'm thankful for it. Michael N: I think your description may be more apt than mine - it is more smeary than juttery (it's the same kind of feel in the show 'Dexter' whenever one character chases another character or the camera moves quickly through space, etc). Wendell G: I'll try and get more info out of my friend but his workflow is somewhat proprietary (he goes all the way from Raw footage -> Color/Transfer -> Proxies for editing -> Online work and efx -> Delivery) and he may be loathe to go into too much detail. From what he told me though the big issue was dealing with 4K files. Computers just aren't powerful enough to do this effectively/efficiently yet I guess. I asked why he didn't just shoot windowed 2K since he delivers all his work (TV shows, Commercials, Music Videos) on D-Beta. He said that windowed 2K would have the depth of field of 16mm and that the images were so pristine at 4K that he didn't want to lose any of that. Especially since he is in the process of trying to convince commercial agencies in the area that Red is a viable alternative to 35mm. Bugs: Is it worth the 30K (I have a feeling it'd be closer to 50K to get truly suited up) to own the Red? I think that if you want to get into the rental business or if you're a ridiculously busy director/shooter then maybe. Personally, I'm a renter. I wouldn't want to drop 50 or 30 or even 20k now only to see Red or Sony or Panavision come out with a camera that's 2x as good in 5 years. Whereas, by renting one can always use the very best. Again, it all depends on your business model but given what I do renting is the way to go. At the end of the day I wanted to report back to the forum on what I had seen because I was so impressed. I've been following the Red saga on this forum and in the last month or two over on the Reduser.net forum as well. I've seen almost all the Red footage that can be found online and while some stuff looked good other stuff looked quite bad. Yesterday I got a chance to view Red footage created for a professional purpose under the perfect conditions (for D-Beta delivery) shot by a DP I respect and I got a chance to view this work side by side with 35mm film (shot at the same shoot under the same conditions). The Red footage looked better and I'm certain that if any of you were in that room with me most, if not all, would agree. This doesn't necessarily mean much for theatrical presentation but it means a lot for Television (incl. D-Beta, HD, HD-DVD) delivery. Now, there are only two big questions left in my mind - 1. How much does the image fall apart when there is a lot of motion (camera motion & onscreen motion)?, 2. How do I implement an efficient and cost effective workflow so that I can get from shooting on Red to D-Beta delivery? Question: What are the roadblocks preventing transfer houses from taking Red 4k, coloring it and dumping down to D-Beta? Cause once the stuff is colored and on D-Beta it's the same old workflow. Evan W.

Hey again, When I said indistinguishable from film I meant the meta-film characteristics - depth of field, latitude, etc. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said, "The Red footage looked like pristine Vision 2 50D or low-speed 65mm film". After all, I specifically stated that I was comparing the Red footage against Vision 2 500T. So saying it looked indistinguishable from film is really just my way of saying, "most viewers and a lot of us in the industry would be unable to tell that the footage was not film" (at least until a really quick pan, some running handheld, or a fight scene that is). I think this is a fair comparison. Film is the gold standard and so what else am I to compare the look to??? Additionally, I'm not declaring film dead or any such nonsense. What I am saying is that I would prefer to shoot on the Red camera for music videos because the image I will get will look better, in my eyes, than an image obtained on Super 35mm film once the project has been mastered to Digibeta. I'm not saying that Red looks better than Super 35mm film when projected (analog or digital) because I don't know; I haven't seen it. I have seen a mastered Red music video on a industry spec monitor in a color suite. I've seen about 100 music videos, shot on film, this way and I'm saying that the footage from Red looks better than footage from film under these very specific conditions. and to Bugs: no one sold me anything - I went and checked it out for myself and made up my own mind. and to Tim C.: don't bother looking for Red footage online you won't really get a sense of the quality. I'd suggest going into a transfer session or an online house and looking at the footage the way it's meant to be seen. Or even just get a digibeta of a red project and throw that up on a monitor. Once you've had a chance to do that let me know what you think. Remember, I wasn't a 'believer' until I saw it for myself (check my post history). Evan W.

*sigh*, I may have to eat some crow. I wasn't truly convinced by all the Red hype and was taking a 'wait and see' approach. Well, I waited and now I've seen. I'm currently in Toronto and I just visited a friend of mine at his online house in the city. He's a commercial DP who shoots the odd music video on the side. He recently purchased the Red camera and I begged and pleaded to be shown some footage. I went over to his online facility today and he showed me a commerical, music video, and some test footage. We watched the footage on Digibeta playing back to industry spec monitors. I was floored. He showed me footage of the commercial first - they shot Super 35mm (Kodak Vision 2 500T) beside the Red footage (shooting at 320 ASA in 4K) and had both transferred at one of the top color houses in the city. The Red footage looked sharper, cleaner, and held the highlights a bit better. Most impressively, both my friend and the colorist felt that the Red footage had greater latitude than the filmed footage. My impression of the footage I saw (on Digibeta) was that, IMHO, Red looked better than Super 35mm footage aesthetically. My primary concern, because I work in music videos is how good the work looks when delivered. The work I do is always delivered on Digibeta (this is what MTV, BET, FUSE, MuchMusic, etc play). So, this little experiment was meant to show which format was superior given the end goal of a Digibeta Master. The red footage looked better - like I said earlier, it felt like a sharper image (especially noticeable on wides) and it felt virtually indistinguishable from actual film. My one caveat, based on what I saw, was that rapid motion had that slight juttery feel that tends to come with video (think of the chase scenes in Apocalypto). When I asked my friend what the 'bad' was he told me that the workflow was currently the biggest roadblock. Like I said, he owns an online house and does probably the most business in Toronto in music videos. He has resources out the wazoo but was still having to upgrade this and that or change around something or the other to make the Red footage flow smoothly in and out his doors. In summary, given what I saw in that office today and knowing that music videos must be delivered as Digibeta masters, I would prefer to shoot music videos on the Red over Super 35mm film. Evan W.

Good luck and let us know how it goes. Do you have a mininum amount you're willing to sell for? :) Evan W.

Just came across this list today. Very interesting to watch and it's amazing to see just what could be accomplished in 1896 and the early years of filmmaking: http://listverse.com/history/top-10-incred...ly-film-firsts/ Evan W.

So I went to bed last night and had the most pleasant dream - I was shooting a feature film in OmniMax 70mm. But in the dream the camera system has been optimized so it wasn't much bigger than an Arri 535 and the lenses were cumbersome but no more so than Anamorphic primes. The best part was sitting in the theatre at the Arclight watching the 70mm print projected on the screen. The images were beyond rich...oh how film would live for another 200 years if only this wasn't a dream. :) Evan W.

Definitely true. I intended that the notations in brackets, starting with super 16mm, indicate that my comparisons were not quite fair. I mentioned all non 1.33 formats so that if someone felt like doing the extra math it would be simpler to figure out. For instance: If 35mm = 100% and Modern Anamorphic = 116% Then Super 35 @ 2.39 = 73% Ouch! No wonder image purists tend to deride Super 35 framed down to 2.39. Super 35 @ 2.39 uses 37% less neg than Modern Anamorphic. That's a larger difference in image quality than exists between regular 35mm and Super 35mm. Not to mention that Super 35mm @ 2.39, if I recall correctly, has to go through either a D.I or additional Optical process to be projected properly. Evan W.

Thank you both for the reply. Andy, thanks for the invite. I would definitely show up if I could. Right now I'm in Toronto prepping for small reshoots on a music video (the first time I've ever had the opportunity to do reshoots on a video that's already been cut - which is interesting and kinda cool since I can see exactly what I need to get to make the promo stronger). I'd love to stop by when I'm back in town though. Which will hopefully be in about a week (especially since it's becoming sweater and jacket whether up North and I didn't pack appropriately). ;) Also, thanks for the reply David. It does seem like investing money in a set of lenses just to gain 8% of the neg might be a bit of a waste. Now I'm curious about how much extra neg we gain going from 35mm to Super 35mm (percentage wise). A quick and not very scientific search returns numbers like 32% extra usable neg for Super 35mm over regular 35mm. If that's the case then it really emphasizes your point that making a new set of 'Super' Anamorphic lenses wouldn't make much sense if the gain was only 8%. Did a little extra research and I think the following numbers are all correct: If Academy 35mm is taken as 100% then the other formats (at their respective 'full gates') are: if Academy 35mm = 100% then 16 mm = 22% Super 16mm = 26% (of course this is 26% at 1.67 so it's not quite fair) Modern Anamorphic = 116% (at 2.39) Super 35mm = 132% Super Dimension 70 (65mm origination) = 342% (at 2.3) Omnimax 70mm = 1051% (at 1.33) Again, thanks for the help everyone. I love this forum! :) Evan

Hi everyone, I'm hoping someone can help me out. It seems that most Anamorphic lenses shoot full frame (but not over the sound area of the film). Thus they 'waste' a bit of the neg that Super 35mm takes advantage of. Of course, if shooting 2.35/2.39, Anamorphic is superior because when the image is unsqueezed more neg is used than if Super 35mm is matted down to 2.35. So, my question is: How come no one has made Super Anamorphic lenses (lenses that have less of a squeeze factor - and so less optical aberrations and make use of the sound portion of the neg)? Wouldn't Super Anamorphic lenses be the ultimate lenses for widescreen and allow for the most pristine images possible for widescreen? Thanks for the time and help, Evan W.

In a behind the scenes look at the shooting of Kelly Clarkson's latest video 'Don't Waste Your Time' the f/x experienced director is being asked a question about lighting by his DP (matching what is being shot to a reference photo) and responds, "You can light it however you want to and I'll fix it.".... Ouch (watch the AD [i think] laugh nervously at the comment). I'm hoping the Dir was just making a joke for the camera but no matter what the intention of the comment I can't help but feel that it's a joke that comes at the expense of the DP's abilities and craft. I guess we all do or say silly things every now and again but in this day and age every mistake is captured somewhere. :( The B.T.S video on youtube (the moment in question comes up at 3:45): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDwfknE382Y and the finished music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYtJMo2VhYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYtJMo2VhY

Hi Lance, With regards to your analogy, "Same for the guy who invented the indoor electric coffee pot. I hate boiling coffee in a cast iron pot over an open fire in the rain. Even if it does seem more organic," I'd imagine that the main reason indoor electric coffee pots were invented (like most inventions) was for convenience's sake. But what if iron pot boiled coffee really does have a better taste? For the average person, the end result of slightly better taste still wouldn't be enough of a reason to deal with the antiquated methodology. But for an artist the end result is everything. It should not and would not matter to a true artist if the methodology was antiquated or less convenient as long as the result is better art that more accurately expresses the artist's intent (or at the very least the other options, if chosen, should not damage that intent). This is why the film vs. video debate is so heated, so interesting, and so difficult to decide; it's because we're talking about artists, their art, and their methods of creating that art. Indeed, if anyone is guilty of "close minded irrational thought" it is the man who is perturbed by debate and discussion and not those who attempt, through such discussion, to arrive at some greater conclusion. Evan W.

Hey Richard, Sarcasm? As in, Red does acquire digitally so to suggest that the resulting footage looks video'ish is akin to being surprised that people speaking another language don't sound like they are speaking English. Is that the idea? If yes then... lol. Now that I've lol'ed, allow me to clarify - some of the footage looks like low quality video on the level of adequately shot mini-dv or HDV as opposed to what one would expect from a camera with Red-like specs. Some of the stuff also looks pretty nice though and I've definitely seen some Red footage (from other projects) that has impressed me. Evan W.

Here is a link to a music video that was shot on the Red camera: http://www.hd4.tv/red/Sep1_8K_1k.html (this was initially posted on Reduser.net) First off, well done and congrats to the production team for getting 'er done. I must admit though that I'm not thrilled with the footage. Here the Red stuff feels very video, we suffer from some undexposure meant to indicate the sexiness of a dimly lit club, and for many of the shots it seems like everything is in focus from 2 inches in front of the lens to the wall 30 feet away... :( Just wanted to throw the vid up here so people who hadn't seen lots of Red stuff (and especially Red stuff put towards creative use, as opposed to test use). Evan W.

Hi David, Quick question - I always thought that the rule of thumb with flicker was that if you see it through the eyepiece or on a tap then it may not be on film; since the 'frames' we see in the eyepiece/tap are not being recorded on film. Again, this very loose rule of thumb is only helpful as a guide (depending on shutter angle, film speed, etc) when one has no other way of determining if there is flicker... but, a trick I've heard but never used suggests that when shooting TVs without phase/shutter control devices that one should shift the camera's shutter/film-speed until the roll bars on the TV screen are the most evident in the eyepiece/tap. This, in theory, will minimize or even remove the roll bars from the footage that is actually being shot. Any thoughts on this? Urban legend? :)