Jump to content


Photo

A more realistic view of RED


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 April 2007 - 08:13 AM

http://www.fxguide.c...e412-print.html
  • 0

#2 Erik Olson

Erik Olson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Concord, NC

Posted 18 April 2007 - 09:14 AM

Actually, they're careful to point out that their "sister site" is a RED reservation holder. There goes at least a bit of their capacity to be objective.

It still doesn't change the inherent truth about the RED product within this blog / pod.

e
  • 0

#3 Trevor Swaim

Trevor Swaim
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2007 - 09:15 AM

that was written almost a month ago and is full of speculation and questions, many of which have been answered. I'm no RED cool-aid drinker, i wander how much manipulation REDCODE RAW can handle in post for one.

one wanders why you are so desprate to knock down something you have never used, kinda a reverse jumblemouth.
  • 0

#4 Erik Olson

Erik Olson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Concord, NC

Posted 18 April 2007 - 09:23 AM

Fear of the unknown?

e
  • 0

#5 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 April 2007 - 10:06 AM

I don't think RED is a bad thing so don't look at the fact that they ordered a RED being bad, it's just refreshing to see they have a much more open attitude. It seemed to be a much more reasonable article than these RED fanatics who somehow think a camera is going to change the course of all film and TV as we know it. But of course one has to ask with RED already being outdated by newer much more "high" HD down the road, when does this ridiculous marketing of HD stop? Does it get to the point that HD sees so much better than us that it sees beyond our dimension? There's a movie in there somewhere. The problem isn't RED. RED is just caught up in the bigger gimmick of HD in general.
  • 0

#6 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 April 2007 - 10:10 AM

I think whoever wrote that article ought to get a PD-170 kit.
  • 0

#7 jan von krogh

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

Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:44 PM

So, heres the actual report of the "more realistic" authors for red@nab:

http://www.fxguide.com/article420.html
  • 0

#8 Alexander Joyce

Alexander Joyce
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 18 April 2007 - 05:26 PM

f2.8 15mm lens
f1.9 25mm
f1.9 35mm
f1.9 50mm
f1.9 85mm


Wonder why the Red lenses use f-stops? :unsure:
  • 0

#9 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 April 2007 - 06:03 PM

Not trying to start something here, just adding another point. From a film students point of view.

35mm film seems like a very 'elitist' format to me. The question was never, is 35mm film good enough to shoot our film on, it was, are YOU good enough to shoot on 35mm film?

With this RED camera, they are purposely aiming to make 35mm quality accessible to film students like myself, all the way to the professionals.

The way see it, RED was designed for the consumer. The consumers have to be designed to use 35mm film.

And considering the advances made in digital technology in the space of time it has been around, I'd say that certain peoples predictions that mention film staying as the prime format for the next 30 years is based purely on 35mm being the 'norm', the de facto of professional film making formats (the mainstream, trusted choice). Not quality.

I hate getting involved in these controversial debates but I can't stand watching people trying to pull apart a brave new, groundbreaking piece of technology. It reminds me of my granddad pulling apart all of the modern day films. They're certainly not bad, he just doesn't understand them as well, they don't speak his 'language'.

I suppose the only good thing about people trying to pull it apart is the fact that it will only entice the designers of RED even further to make it succeed and prove everyone wrong. Therefore giving people like me better technology.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 18 April 2007 - 06:04 PM.

  • 0

#10 jijhh

jijhh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Student

Posted 18 April 2007 - 06:12 PM

Enough already, jesus christ.

Arguing digital over film might as well be an unending philosophical argument.

And for those of you who are anti-RED, all you are doing is PERPETUATING THE HYPE.

I'm tired of seeing a list of RED posts every time I come on.
  • 0

#11 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 April 2007 - 06:21 PM

35mm film seems like a very 'elitist' format to me. The question was never, is 35mm film good enough to shoot our film on, it was, are YOU good enough to shoot on 35mm film?

I understand what you mean, but look at it this way: at least the cost of shooting 35mm (and the whole cost of shooting a film in fact) encouraged a certain natural selection, since one needed to convince financiers (be they public, private or corporate) to give out money for one's filmshoot. Chances are that if you couldn't even convince people to invest in your film, then it is very likey not going to be succesful either.

Now I find it exciting that prices are coming down so far that everyone gets the opportunity to make a film, as there will certainly be some gems to be discovered, as has happened in the music industry for instance, but the thruth is that most people who didn't manage to get their films made previously were out of the industry for a simple reason: they are just not good enough. Now loads of horrible films that never should have been made will get made anyway, because prices are coming down, but that does not change anything to the natural selection process which will only kick in at a later stage than before: the number of films that will never see the light of day will increase exponationally.
  • 0

#12 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 April 2007 - 06:30 PM

So, heres the actual report of the "more realistic" authors for red@nab:

http://www.fxguide.com/article420.html



Seems like a very well written and level headed review of RED and their current undertakings. Now if only the amateur REDheads could act as civilized.
  • 0

#13 jan von krogh

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

Posted 18 April 2007 - 07:30 PM

Seems like a very well written and level headed review of RED and their current undertakings.

listening to the (long) podcast inside the article is recommended as well.

Now if only the amateur REDheads could act as civilized.

the red-community is very civilized. spend some time at that other site, be polite, and you will come to no other conclusion.
  • 0

#14 Trevor Swaim

Trevor Swaim
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2007 - 07:36 PM

I understand what you mean, but look at it this way: at least the cost of shooting 35mm (and the whole cost of shooting a film in fact) encouraged a certain natural selection



does this apply to michael bay or Uwe Bol? :lol:
  • 0

#15 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 18 April 2007 - 07:49 PM

listening to the (long) podcast inside the article is recommended as well.


the red-community is very civilized. spend some time at that other site, be polite, and you will come to no other conclusion.



For the few who actually make a living off film and video who are into RED I haven't a problem. These are folks who would actualy use the camera to make a living although as I said, your buying a sensor and have to find a whole bunch of things ot attach to it to finally get it to record, not my favotie pick up and go senario, but if these folks think they need 4k, then great I wish them luck.

No, I'm referring to what I call REDheads, amatuer/hobbiests who are teh core of hte free marketing that has made RED a name. These are those that can't afford RED and wouldn't have a need for it and frankly any camera really. And as for the site, a few good threads and posts but mostly REDheads with such posts as:

"Guy I know this sounds trivial, but I need to wear this shirt to let people know, YES I HAVE THIS CAMERA AND WILL SHOOT YOUR PROJECT WITH IT.
When and where can we buy them?!"

"I second that! I don't have a camera (student poor and it's beyond my current skills) but I want to show my support for RED and what they are doing. A couple years down the road I want to use this camera."


"The guy even went as far as to say that the HVX was a failure because of it's small image sensor and P2 format which is slowly proving to be a non-reliable media. I realize that the XDCAM has better specs technically, but has anyone seen 24P XDCAM footage that looks as filmic as an HVX with 35mm adapters? If you have please link me to it!"

" Well that's all for now - I'm thrilled about the camera and Red's sudden and much needed entry into the world of cinematography."

  • 0

#16 Michael Newton

Michael Newton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 April 2007 - 04:40 PM

For the few who actually make a living off film and video who are into RED I haven't a problem. These are folks who would actualy use the camera to make a living although as I said, your buying a sensor and have to find a whole bunch of things ot attach to it to finally get it to record, not my favotie pick up and go senario, but if these folks think they need 4k, then great I wish them luck.

No, I'm referring to what I call REDheads, amatuer/hobbiests who are teh core of hte free marketing that has made RED a name. These are those that can't afford RED and wouldn't have a need for it and frankly any camera really. And as for the site, a few good threads and posts but mostly REDheads with such posts as:

"Guy I know this sounds trivial, but I need to wear this shirt to let people know, YES I HAVE THIS CAMERA AND WILL SHOOT YOUR PROJECT WITH IT.
When and where can we buy them?!"

"I second that! I don't have a camera (student poor and it's beyond my current skills) but I want to show my support for RED and what they are doing. A couple years down the road I want to use this camera."


"The guy even went as far as to say that the HVX was a failure because of it's small image sensor and P2 format which is slowly proving to be a non-reliable media. I realize that the XDCAM has better specs technically, but has anyone seen 24P XDCAM footage that looks as filmic as an HVX with 35mm adapters? If you have please link me to it!"

" Well that's all for now - I'm thrilled about the camera and Red's sudden and much needed entry into the world of cinematography."

Ha! You really do have time on your hands, don't you?
  • 0

#17 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 19 April 2007 - 05:16 PM

The fact of the matter is that I cannot afford to shoot and to process 35mm film when the cost of archiving Red footage in any digital format is a fraction of the cost. Plus I cannot afford to distribute my movies unless they are in a digital format. Yet if I am going to be competitive I need the quality of 35mm film. Traditional 1080 or 720p high definition is fine for the home theatre but it is never going to get the consideration that 35mm or 65mm film gets when people actually pay to see a movie at a theatre otherwise people will just wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray and watch it on their home theatre.

Plus I am very interested in promoting the Showscan format which plays at 60 frames per second. If I try to shoot and distribute Showscan at 720p60 resolutions everyone one will just laugh at me and call my work video. But if I can shoot and distribute Showscan at 4k resolutions then I think they might call it the IMAX experience.
  • 0

#18 Eric Steelberg ASC

Eric Steelberg ASC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 19 April 2007 - 05:23 PM

Yet if I am going to be competitive I need the quality of 35mm film. Traditional 1080 or 720p high definition is fine for the home theatre but it is never going to get the consideration that 35mm or 65mm film gets when people actually pay to see a movie at a theatre otherwise people will just wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray and watch it on their home theatre.


I'm not a RED fanboy, but sorry, your comment is far from true. How do you know, you've tried? I'm curious as to your reasons behind your statements.

There have been many successful films shot in 1080 or less and distributed widely, many making a healthy profit on their investment. Also, 99% of an audience does not know when they are deciding to see a movie what format is was shot on. So the idea that people are going to pass on a theatrical film just because it's HD is ridiculous. It didn't seem to affect Star Wars, Blair Witch, Borat, or Click.

FYI..you know that 1080 resolution is less than a couple hundred pixels difference from 2k, yes?
  • 0

#19 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 April 2007 - 05:24 PM

I understand what you mean, but look at it this way: at least the cost of shooting 35mm (and the whole cost of shooting a film in fact) encouraged a certain natural selection, since one needed to convince financiers (be they public, private or corporate) to give out money for one's filmshoot. Chances are that if you couldn't even convince people to invest in your film, then it is very likey not going to be succesful either.

Now I find it exciting that prices are coming down so far that everyone gets the opportunity to make a film, as there will certainly be some gems to be discovered, as has happened in the music industry for instance, but the thruth is that most people who didn't manage to get their films made previously were out of the industry for a simple reason: they are just not good enough. Now loads of horrible films that never should have been made will get made anyway, because prices are coming down, but that does not change anything to the natural selection process which will only kick in at a later stage than before: the number of films that will never see the light of day will increase exponationally.

True enough... now that RED is coming out, almost any maniac like myself can get their hands on technology that isn't all that distant in quality to what the pro's are using. But having said that, perhaps RED or someone else will create a new camera that is 4 times the cost of the current RED camera and superseeds its quality by far. Technology that will only be available to the large productions.

But from my point of view, I'll be very lucky to shoot on 35mm. I don't want to make films about politics, I want to make films that tell stories that I'm passionate about. Which renders my chances of making big in Britain, crap.

But with RED, I'm using technology that in ways, competes with 35mm film. So I can still make the films I want to, but also compete with the quality of some of the larger films.

I would agree that only the natural selection get to shoot on 35mm, but I personally don't think that is 100% of the case here in Britain.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 19 April 2007 - 05:25 PM.

  • 0

#20 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 19 April 2007 - 05:26 PM

The RED camera produces 4K images -- it does NOT produce feature films! It does NOT produce the 100's of thousands of dollars it takes to produce a quality feature film. And it certainly does not produce talent!

It gets tiresome to hear these arguments that a camera will somehow equalize all the costs and difficulties of getting a quality feature film up on the screen in front of a paying audience. 4K projection is not in theaters yet. People don't pay to see short films and music videos in theaters (not in significant numbers anyway).

It's a camera, not friggin' microwave oven for movies... <_<
  • 0


Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

CineLab

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Opal

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC