Brian Drysdale

I can't see any advantage sales wise in RED having their B4 adapter option covering the full 35mm area. The larger market demand would be to be able to use 2/3" HD lenses for documentaries plus TV dramas. With all the full 35mm DOF marketing, it's easy to forget that windowing is a feature on the RED, so you can use the 2/3" lenses as normal. The main advantage of the 2/3" to 35mm single sensor/film adapter would be in using those large zoom range HD video lenses used in sports coverage.

There are two adapters currently* available that allow you to use a 2/3 video lens - one for 16mm and the other for Super 35. With the former, I'd imagine you'll lose some light because you're going through some extra glass. The RED would have to be windowed to allow you to use it, however, this wouldn't be an issue issue with the SI 2k on which you can use 16mm lenses. With the Super 35 version the 2 stops figure sounds like the right ball park. It matches up with the figure for 16mm lenses modified to be used on 35mm. http://www.abakus-scientific.com/Format_Converters.htm *RED are bringing one out, but I don't know if Abakus are making it for them.

Yes, I noticed them: $2000 a day working on a 3 days for a week's rental with a 2/3" CCD Zeiss HD zoom lens - they're listed with "or". I suppose it depends on how all the accessories cost out as a package.

I gather that Kubrick did a trade off between having a small crew and being allowed the time. Although I'd imagine the sparks etc were off screen in the "The Shining " documentary. I'd heard a story when they were shooting "Barry Lyndon" in Ireland that Kubrick was giving calm consideration to the actors, whilst outside the sparks were struggling to keep the brutes (which were blasting through the trace covered windows) up in the middle of a storm.

I was shooting a 35mm short in Dublin and the producer rang around the commercials production companies for short ends while we were still shooting. They seem to hold onto the short ends rather selling them.

I've just been doing some quick costing based on a RED more or less going out at a Digibeta DVW 790 rate plus a Cooke 18 to 100 and 4 Zeiss Primes and the price comes out at roughly the same rental as a HDW 750 or a Varicam kit with the standard and W/A zoom lenses. These are just ballpark figures I did for a curious local director - UK prices tend to be a bit higher than US.

Having a quick check I could only find early 1970s for Super 16. The BBC used reversal for the many programmes, especially news, lower budget and regional programmes. They had in house processing labs that could process the reversal film. This was also handy for local film makers - the head of our local BBC lab would process their film for the cost of the odd bottle of whiskey. He did more for the local indies than his bosses at the time.

Kubrick had one modifed and used it on "Barry Lyndon". It had basically a x 2 range extender fitted on the rear of the zoom lens and so became a T9.

That would've been an extremely early proposed use of Super 16, Rune Ericson must have just about come up with the idea of Super 16 around that time.

Here are the BBC's guide lines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/...ormats_v1_4.pdf The main problem would be if you're planning to shoot on HDV, but they do list in the guide lines what they regard as "SD" - this includes HDV.

You need to adjust the back focus because of thermal expansion of the lens mount etc. This expands and contracts depending the camera's operating temperature, so the back focus needs to be checked if there are any temperature changes. I've heard some horror stories about how sensitive the Panavison version is regarding its backfocus.

I think you must be talking about You Tube and similar sites, these have more impact on shaping society than RED. It's the new forms of distribution, not the cameras that will have that sort of impact.

The HDV cameras are excellent for this market. However, the RED like the Digibeta SD cameras (Yes, they do get used on weddings) would only be used at the high end of that market. The economics of the lower end work will continue to demand the use of the lower cost small cameras. How well RED beds in will depend on how well their workflow fits in with the post production people and how widespread the required plug ins etc become.

I should point out that David's post are across the all the board and not just RED and gives the impression of being passionate (rather than obsessive) about cinematography and film making. If David has excessive paternalism, I feel the world could do with more, because he's prepared to invest time and energy into offering advice to those who ask. I've always found his comments well balanced and considered. Arguments are only worth having if the subject matter is worthy of the argument.

The technology is already there for them to make SD higher end productions with cameras that already exist. I can't see a camera package that costs a similar price to a Digibeta is going to change this, it's their talents and contacts that will make the difference not a camera. For example post production companies head hunt editors, not the editing kit. I assuming that we're dealing with people/companies who are working with clients here and you do need more than an extremely basic indie kit when you''re dealing with them.

Any video installation pieces for artists that I've worked with have all had grants to creat the work. The art world's studio system - the arts council?

I'm not sure why a beginner should spend this amount of money on a camera. They and the film students (I only noticed one on REDUSER) are taking a big risk. I don't recall film students dashing off to buy DSR 570s or DSR450s, which cost less than a RED but give much better pictures than the PD 150. I know students have bought old CP16Rs etc, but the investment is a lot lower and people have been making feature films for the cost of a kitted out RED. The 1500 is a good baseline for planning production, you can get good prices for manufacturing your components compared to lower batch sizes. I'd guess RED are thinking in terms of roughly a 10% drop out rate.

If I was using a full cine 35mm lens kit especially the zooms, I'd tend to go for the 150 mm bowl tripods. There's no point in buying higher end kit like RED and not making the investment in the associated equipment. A good tripod will last many years, some of the DV tripods are actually impossible to repair. By making the purchase the quality of your work will also improve. The RED is the same investment as a SD broadcast camera, no camera person would dream of buying tripod that doesn't match that level of investment. You really need to match up kit.

You'd really need a video type tripod as used with ENG broadcast cameras (which are this wieght). to be comfortable. DV tripods might claim that weight, but it's getting out of their comfort zone. For big screen (or drama) work you really do need a sturdy tripod and smooth head, even more if you want to use long lenses. A Sachtler Video (ideally an 18) or Vinten, O'Connor or Cartoni equivalent is what you're looking at for a good tripod at this camera weight.

Go to: http://www.arri.com/entry/products.htm Select downloads and you'll find Arri camera manuals there.

There has been lots of discussion on various forums over the past year that you wouldn't get a shooting camera package for $17.500. There has also been loads of feedback about the original drawings and questioning of the original form factor was the best for a camera of that size and wieght. RED seem to have taken much of this on board and also realised that the main market isn't the prosumer market. Although, some people will move up, however, that has always happened, even with film, going from 8mm to 16mm and then 35mm. The unique selling point of RED is 4k 35mm, in other respects other upcoming cameras in the price range can shoot 2k. The other selling point is the system, an idea that Panavision developed for the Panaflex in the 1970s. I think some people got excited because the camera module looked like a prosumer camera, which was something they were used to. In really, a shooting configuration RED is around the same size and weight as a broadcast SD camera (not including lenses). This was flagged up by various people over the last year. There are a number of interesting new HD cameras coming out. However, the difficulties in actually making a film/programme remain, no one camera is going to change that and these new HD cameras just increase the number of options available for producers.

Some of the rental companies have been running one day courses on the HDW 750. It's worth applying to the NFTS short course, if you don't get on the first time they'll know you're interested and it can increase your chances the second time around.

The marketing has had counter productive effects, Recently I spoke to one London/French based production person who's usually quite up on things. He seemed to nearly regard RED as the Internet fantasy camera of a sunglasses billionaire that could to all things, including recording onto DVD. I had to explain that it was a serious project and give him the specs.

I'd imagine that the later VTR's should be able to handle progressive, but best check with Sony because we had problems with DVPRO VTRs playing progressive material shot on a SDX 900 - you needed a higher end model.

If you're doing sports and they want mostly Digibeta I'd tend towards a low hours used DVW790. You should check on how the numbers add up compared to renting (you might get a good rental deal), because the camera mightn't have that high a resale value when you come to sell it in a few years. Also do other clients want to shoot Digibeta rather than just one? Just one increases the risk factor. I'd say 24 months is marginal given how things are going with HD, an 18 month pay back would be better.