Jump to content


Photo

RED is for real...I've seen it


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#1 Jeff Tanner

Jeff Tanner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Jackson, Mississippi, USA

Posted 16 April 2007 - 07:42 PM

This camera is fantastic. There is no argument to be made about it's existence, it's capabilities, it's technology, or it's price.

I've seen Peter Jackson's film that was shot with two RED camera's and it was spectacular. Film has a special place in my heart and always will but after putting my hands on the RED and talking to the people who built it (who answered every question that I had...in great detail) and seeing the demo film shot with it, there is no question that this camera is the real deal.

If you can honestly say that the RED camera does not meet your specifications after viewing the demo and playing with the camera yourself, then don't buy one but stop all of this unfounded speculation on it's shortcomings or problems that you percieve. I honestly believe that there is little reason to shoot 35mm film anymore and no reason whatsoever to shoot 16mm or super 16mm. I am stunned by what I saw at NAB today. So stunned that I've ordered a RED camera for our company.

I am by no means as technologically saavy as some of you are but I judge by what I can see and this camera meets every criteria for me.

Respectfully,

JT

Edited by Jeff Tanner, 16 April 2007 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

#2 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 16 April 2007 - 07:45 PM

I honestly believe that there is little reason to shoot 35mm film anymore and no reason whatsoever to shoot 16mm or super 16mm. I am stunned by what I saw at NAB today. So stunned that I've ordered a RED camera for our company.

I am by no means as technologically saavy as some of you are but I judge by what I can see and this camera meets every criteria for me.

Respectfully,

JT


congratulations and welcome to the club!

i am curious - when you ordered, could they tell when they expect to ship your new ordered camera and did they mention how many cameras have been sold?
  • 0

#3 Tenolian Bell

Tenolian Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 16 April 2007 - 07:56 PM

congratulations and welcome to the club!


Posted Image

Resistance is Futile.
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 April 2007 - 08:35 PM

Does that mean that I'm going to be eliminated now? Good idea I invested into that safehouse ;)
  • 0

#5 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 16 April 2007 - 08:52 PM

Does that mean that I'm going to be eliminated now? Good idea I invested into that safehouse ;)

No, Assimilated.
  • 0

#6 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 April 2007 - 09:04 PM

So they are going to send me to a reeducation camp? :ph34r:
  • 0

#7 Douglas Hunter

Douglas Hunter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 April 2007 - 11:34 PM

I honestly believe that there is little reason to shoot 35mm film anymore and no reason whatsoever to shoot 16mm or super 16mm.


Good grief man, ever heard of the idea of using different formats because they look different?

Anyway, here is one positive about RED that I am certain about. Many of REDs competitors have pre-ordered cameras, if RED is for real, the market place is going to be full of high quality competitors in a year or two and the price should go down as well.

I'm just disapointed that no one has announced a new super 8 camera at NAB.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 April 2007 - 11:41 PM

Good grief man, ever heard of the idea of using different formats because they look different?


Not to mention if you want to shoot for 35mm contact-printing without going through any laser recording of digital files to 35mm interneg.

Seriously, the final test will come when the RED camera is shot badly, not shot well, because everyone can make mistakes sometimes. People need to see how the image craps out, not just how it looks when well-photographed, exposed perfectly, minimally color-corrected, etc. It needs to be pushed to the breaking point because at some point, all formats, film and digital, are pushed to the point of failure.

Plus someone's going to have to take a feature film's worth of RED 4K data, maybe some 50 hours worth, and take it all the way through post to a film-out, just to get that workflow smoothed out.

All demos look gorgeous generally. I always take them with a grain of salt, even though it's nice to know how much quality can be obtained.
  • 0

#9 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 April 2007 - 12:54 AM

So now that Red exists and can be bought and tested can we get back to debating it now?

Hang on a second....there are two guys that call themselves the Borg at my door. Hey you where........I love RED......Richard love RED.......35mm film is obsolete.......must shoot RED.

R,
  • 0

#10 Delorme Jean-Marie

Delorme Jean-Marie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • paris, france

Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:10 AM

"Seriously, the final test will come when the RED camera is shot badly, not shot well, because everyone can make mistakes sometimes."

I agree, i saw 2 years ago at a "AFC" conference a test shot xith the genesis hand held around a pool table, large windows on a bright day and no additional light with a 360° around the table and a fix F stop.
there you could see a lot ! how the camera manage hight contrasts, bright lights and deep shadows.
Projected in 35mm print.

does such an "anti-demo" exist for RED?, maybe one of the new owner of this board could film a simple test like this one and let us know?

For true HD concerns what does the RED offers more than the Modular?
  • 0

#11 Jeff Tanner

Jeff Tanner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Jackson, Mississippi, USA

Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:33 AM

Not to mention if you want to shoot for 35mm contact-printing without going through any laser recording of digital files to 35mm interneg.

David, I completely understand where you're coming from. However, my opinion is based on what I do...commercials. To undergo the process of printing for theatrical release is something that I'm not familiar with (yet). For my work, this is an incredible accomplishment and I firmly believe that even someone like yourself who shoots features will be impressed by what this camera offers. No negative purchase (what will that save production on even the tightest of shooting ratios?), no processing. I wish that RED would send you a camera to test since you are so active on this site as well as cinematography.net. Even though I don't know you personally, I really believe that you would love the features and quality of this camera since you are a true student and lover of cinema.

Seriously, the final test will come when the RED camera is shot badly, not shot well, because everyone can make mistakes sometimes. People need to see how the image craps out, not just how it looks when well-photographed, exposed perfectly, minimally color-corrected, etc. It needs to be pushed to the breaking point because at some point, all formats, film and digital, are pushed to the point of failure.

But this completely eliminates MOST of the problems I see in the theater. Dirty gates. With the 4K data files I think that anyone who calls themselves a cinematographer will be able to operate well within this camera's limitations and I'm not sure what the limitations are yet.

Plus someone's going to have to take a feature film's worth of RED 4K data, maybe some 50 hours worth, and take it all the way through post to a film-out, just to get that workflow smoothed out.

Again, I agree but from my perspective the likelyhood of success seems nearly certain.

All demos look gorgeous generally. I always take them with a grain of salt, even though it's nice to know how much quality can be obtained.



I await your personal testing. I'm eager to know what someone of your stature thinks. All that I can say is that this camera will render 35mm obsolete for my commercial/tv programming/documentary work.

Respectfully,

Jeff
  • 0

#12 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 April 2007 - 02:45 AM

I honestly believe that there is little reason to shoot 35mm film anymore and no reason whatsoever to shoot 16mm or super 16mm.

Respectfully,

JT

OK, so film is dead.....again. Good to know.
  • 0

#13 Delorme Jean-Marie

Delorme Jean-Marie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • paris, france

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:04 AM

don't you think film will be dead when kodak will stop manifacturing film stocks?
and only at this time!
  • 0

#14 Carl Brighton

Carl Brighton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:53 AM

So now that Red exists and can be bought and tested can we get back to debating it now?

Hang on a second....there are two guys that call themselves the Borg at my door. Hey you where........I love RED......Richard love RED.......35mm film is obsolete.......must shoot RED.

R,



You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down...

What one?


What?

What desert?

It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.

But, how come I'd be there?


Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Richard. It's crawling toward you...

Tortoise? What's that?


You know what a turtle is?

Of course!


Same thing.

I've never seen a turtle. (pause) But I understand what you mean.


You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Richard-

Do you make up these questions, Mr. Brighton? Or do they write 'em down for you?


The-tortoise lays-on-its back-its belly-baking in-the hot-sun, beating-its legs-trying to-turn itself-over but-it can't.Not without-your help.-But you're-not-helping.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, I'M NOT HELPING?


I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Richard?
(Richard has become visibly shaken)

They're just questions, Richard. In answer to your query they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. (pause) Shall we continue?
  • 0

#15 Francesco Bonomo

Francesco Bonomo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • currently in Rome, Italy

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:59 AM

ROTFL
  • 0

#16 Andrew Ray

Andrew Ray
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:00 AM

Film is not dead, it will be just marginalized to the special projects.
Also you can have ?film like? filter in post, so you can apply film-like-look to your final digital material. Some people are sentimental and some material calls for old film look, instead of silky smooth crispy look of digital. Nature/science films and wide angle shots will benefit from digital high detail content for sure.

Edited by Andrew Ray, 17 April 2007 - 08:01 AM.

  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:24 AM

Film is not dead, it will be just marginalized to the special projects.


You're speaking of a future that isn't here yet, so again, we're not talking practical reality just theory.
  • 0

#18 Andrew Ray

Andrew Ray
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:32 AM

Dave, as on any other forums, when people post something it is IMHO kind of statements unless otherwise specified.

Sorry, I should add that it is my opinion.
That is why I read the forums, to compare many people opinions and arguments and then pull my own judgment out of it.
  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:40 AM

Dirty gates is a projector problem, not a camera problem generally.

And with 1.85 projection, a dirty camera gate is below the projection area anyway, so you'd only see a hair in a camera gate with 35mm anamorphic projection of something shot with anamorphic lenses -- which is rare (a dirty camera gate, not anamorphic photography.)

What I was referring to as the image being pushed to failure is having to make extreme corrections in post to problematic material, since digital images crap-out in non-film-like ways than film images do.
  • 0

#20 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 17 April 2007 - 08:45 AM

You're speaking of a future that isn't here yet, so again, we're not talking practical reality just theory.


i have to agree with david mullen here - and i have big $$$.$$$ in our digital cameras, so i am certainly not an usual suspect of the "film for ever", "digital bashers".

film works, lots of mayor players have invested millions of dollars in their infrastructure, and especially as the -distribution- is mainly film basing there will be years and years to come where we will see lots of film used and sold.

what we can assume, is that the raise in digital cinematic productions will be -strongly- accelerated, and i suppose not only a-budgets but also indy etc.

one thing however is for sure, the market share of digital cinematic cameras skyrocketed - and the sales of new 16/35mm will be somewhat more difficult from here.

many business models will be altered. and, most important for me, most of the creative & quality issues one could have when shooting digital are now easy to overcome - be it 35 dof, arri pl lock, higher frame rates, very high bitdepth for DI/CC, 4k, lightweight, compact camera and yes, also last but not least - production costs when shooting digital now can begin to be really really interesting.

one thing will be interesting to watch - i think we have a new candidate for the best selling cinemacamera of the last 25 years.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Opal

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

The Slider

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies