Jump to content


Photo

Films shot on the RED?


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Moore

Daniel Moore
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 October 2008 - 09:36 AM

I remember hearing that David Fincher's movie Zodiac was shot on the RED, but I'm not sure if that's true. Does anyone know the truth behind that?

Also, if anyone can list any major films that were shot on the RED(if any), I would be really interested to see what films would be listed. Thanks.
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 31 October 2008 - 09:39 AM

I remember hearing that David Fincher's movie Zodiac was shot on the RED, but I'm not sure if that's true. Does anyone know the truth behind that?

Also, if anyone can list any major films that were shot on the RED(if any), I would be really interested to see what films would be listed. Thanks.


Hi,

It's not true, Zodiac was completed a long time before any Red cameras were delivered. The Thompson Viper was used.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 October 2008 - 10:15 AM

Also, if anyone can list any major films that were shot on the RED(if any), I would be really interested to see what films would be listed. Thanks.


Already released? None, unless you count "Che", which has had a few screenings. Upcoming? There are a few, but I don't know if I'd call the ones I know about "major." That's not to say it won't happen, it most certainly will. But if you're looking for examples in your local theater, you won't find them at this point in time.
  • 0

#4 Jase Ryan

Jase Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 November 2008 - 10:17 AM

Actually there are a few major films shot on the Red. Che is one and yes I think that counts. I saw that at the Toronto film festival and it looked amazing. Also Nicolas Cages new film, Knowing, Lindsay Lohans new film, Labor Pains and Tom Hanks new film as well were all shot on a Red. Plus there are lot's in the making that have major distribution and the TV series Sanctuary is the first major series to ever shoot on a Red.
  • 0

#5 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 04 November 2008 - 05:06 AM

Also, if anyone can list any major films that were shot on the RED(if any), I would be really interested to see what films would be listed. Thanks.

So would I.
This question has been asked here several times by various people.
You seem to get the same basic answer: There's apparently LOTS of them, but, nothing that anybody seems to think anybody would pay to see.
Somebody who calls himself "OffHollywood" on Reduser claims to have just wrapped his eighth Red feature! Somehow it sounds like it should be more like "OffBollywood" :lol:
I guess one problem is the highly elastic nature of the word "major".
And where are all the TV commercials?

Excuse me, I have to go now. I have to feed this elephant that's in the room. He starts trumpeting when he gets hungry, and I don't want anybody to know he's here :P
  • 0

#6 Igor Ridanovic

Igor Ridanovic
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Colorist
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2008 - 03:14 AM

So would I.
This question has been asked here several times by various people.
You seem to get the same basic answer: There's apparently LOTS of them, but, nothing that anybody seems to think anybody would pay to see.
Somebody who calls himself "OffHollywood" on Reduser claims to have just wrapped his eighth Red feature! Somehow it sounds like it should be more like "OffBollywood" :lol:
I guess one problem is the highly elastic nature of the word "major".
And where are all the TV commercials?

Excuse me, I have to go now. I have to feed this elephant that's in the room. He starts trumpeting when he gets hungry, and I don't want anybody to know he's here :P



OffHollywood is a reputable facility and a studio in New York City and a leader in RED production and post production. For the full disclosure I am not connected to them in any way.

A "major" film maybe be a misnomer. It seems we're talking about U.S. theatrically released pictures and one glance at your local paper calendar section will prove that this is hardly a measure of quality.
  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:31 AM

So would I.
This question has been asked here several times by various people.
You seem to get the same basic answer: There's apparently LOTS of them, but, nothing that anybody seems to think anybody would pay to see.
Somebody who calls himself "OffHollywood" on Reduser claims to have just wrapped his eighth Red feature! Somehow it sounds like it should be more like "OffBollywood" :lol:
I guess one problem is the highly elastic nature of the word "major".
And where are all the TV commercials?


I know one of the Irish commercials DP's owns a RED and this has been used on a number of commercials. I also know of lower budget feature films that have been shot using a RED camera.

Commercials producers tend not to proclaim the make of cameras they shoot on and you're only likely to find out if you know someone who worked on a particular commercial or camera people talking amongst themselves on other shoots etc.
  • 0

#8 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:45 AM

Searching on imdb found these productions using a RED;

http://www.imdb.com/...chTechnical?RED
  • 0

#9 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 06 November 2008 - 02:45 PM

Searching on imdb found these productions using a RED;

http://www.imdb.com/...chTechnical?RED

Have a closer look. That's actually a list of films where the sequence of letters "red" appears in the description. There were, as far as I am aware, no RED ones in 1913 :lol:

But OK, some of them are genuine RED productions. And these films are coming to a cinema near me ... when?
Most of that stuff would have been shot on HVX or some other cheapo video format if the RED hadn't come along.
  • 0

#10 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 November 2008 - 04:51 PM

Have a closer look. That's actually a list of films where the sequence of letters "red" appears in the description. There were, as far as I am aware, no RED ones in 1913 :lol:

But OK, some of them are genuine RED productions. And these films are coming to a cinema near me ... when?
Most of that stuff would have been shot on HVX or some other cheapo video format if the RED hadn't come along.


Given the RED's price point I would expect most of its productions to either be distributed on TV or DVD. However, I suspect many features shot on film also never get a theatrical (or at best get a very limited theatrical distribution), they either go straight to DVD or TV.

Yes, I know that "The House of Flickers" (1925) wasn't shot on a RED, but it's easy enough to spot the ones that possibly were. Indeed, there are so many films which have a RED camera listed before the camera ever existed that it could also be a time machine. More likely some RED fan must enjoy messing around in imdb.
  • 0

#11 Thomas James

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

Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:37 PM

I downloaded in 720p the "Knowing " trailer starring Nicholus Cage that is supposed to be shot entirely Red. However it is very difficult to judge the quality of Red unles you see it projected in 4K.
  • 0

#12 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 08 November 2008 - 12:42 AM

I've done some writing for ICG and HDVIDEOPRO, and as a result covered WANTED and MOSTLY GHOSTLY. The Red shooting on WANTED was almost a kind of field test, where they shot alongside film cameras, but saw at some point that it wasn't going to be ideal for a number of factors, so NO Red went into it.

MOSTLY GHOSTLY was supposed to be the first feature to release on Red, around Halloween, on DVD direct, but I'm not sure if it did come out or not. The story I did ran a couple months back at:
http://icgmagazine.c...aug/ghosts.html
  • 0

#13 Thomas James

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

Posted 08 November 2008 - 02:08 AM

Again how are you going to judge Red quality if Mostly Ghostly will only be released on a crummy low definition DVD ?
  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 08 November 2008 - 03:52 AM

Again how are you going to judge Red quality if Mostly Ghostly will only be released on a crummy low definition DVD ?


Hi,

Film has always looked beter than video on DVD so I think you will get a very good idea.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 08 November 2008 - 06:13 AM

Hi,

Film has always looked beter than video on DVD so I think you will get a very good idea.

Stephen

Film originated footage looks better on VHS than video derived footage.
Because, resolution is NOT the issue. (Well, not for vast majority of the viewing public.
Otherwise about 1.8 billion VHS VCRs would never have been sold).

The issue is dynamic range, or, what percentage of pixels are wasted transmitting "11111111"
A nasty, clippy video picture is going to look just as nasty and clippy whether it's released on Blu-Ray, DVD, VHS or YouTube.

But clearly some people desperately want the issue to be resolution, purely because a certain camera manfacturer offers high resolution at an attractive price.

And on that subject, I've recently had the opportunity to compare quite a few Blu-Ray movie releases with their DVD counterparts on a 50" "true HD" LCD TV. In most cases I'm damned if I can tell the difference between genuine 1080p from Blu-Ray discs and 1080p up-conversions from regular DVDs.

And before you suggest there's something wrong with my equipment and/or my eyes, in some cases I can see a difference, but not many.

People used to waffle (many still do) about the alleged superiority of LaserDisc over DVD, but nearly all the more recent releases I've ever seen were clearly mastered from 3/4" videptape!
  • 0

#16 Michel Hafner

Michel Hafner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 November 2008 - 08:22 AM

And on that subject, I've recently had the opportunity to compare quite a few Blu-Ray movie releases with their DVD counterparts on a 50" "true HD" LCD TV. In most cases I'm damned if I can tell the difference between genuine 1080p from Blu-Ray discs and 1080p up-conversions from regular DVDs.

Hm. I have seen maybe 300 HD discs the last 2 years and there was not a single one where the resolution difference between the HD and the DVD was not obvious to brutal. No, I'm not saying I watched the same 200 on DVD in parallel. But I know how DVD looks on my system, even the best DVDs. It was not an LCD monitor, though, but 1080p projection onto 3.5m wide screen.
  • 0

#17 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 08 November 2008 - 06:45 PM

Hm. I have seen maybe 300 HD discs the last 2 years and there was not a single one where the resolution difference between the HD and the DVD was not obvious to brutal. No, I'm not saying I watched the same 200 on DVD in parallel. But I know how DVD looks on my system, even the best DVDs. It was not an LCD monitor, though, but 1080p projection onto 3.5m wide screen.

Hm. Well all I can tell you is that just about all the discs I saw were fairly recent big-budget releases which were presumably scanned at HD resolution first and the SD release down-converted from that.

Without knowing the details of your system or the naybe 300/200 (which is it?) discs, I can't really comment, but I could imagine you might have been comparing pre-HD SD scans with state-of-the-art HD re-scans, which is what we specifically set out to avoid.
  • 0

#18 Walter Graff

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

Posted 09 November 2008 - 01:00 AM

And on that subject, I've recently had the opportunity to compare quite a few Blu-Ray movie releases with their DVD counterparts on a 50" "true HD" LCD TV. In most cases I'm damned if I can tell the difference between genuine 1080p from Blu-Ray discs and 1080p up-conversions from regular DVDs.


About the only thing that matters is how far you sit from the TV. In most all scenarios, spending additional money on a 1080p television is like throwing money down the garbage disposal. Regardless of how much "resolution" your source is, you simply can not see it depending on your distance from the set.
  • 0

#19 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 09 November 2008 - 03:45 AM

About the only thing that matters is how far you sit from the TV. In most all scenarios, spending additional money on a 1080p television is like throwing money down the garbage disposal. Regardless of how much "resolution" your source is, you simply can not see it depending on your distance from the set.

A lot of that comes from the fact that for generations we've been used to either watching movies on huge cinema screens whose main function was to be able to show the same picture to as many people as possible, or on interlace-scan TV sets which were designed to be viewed from the opposite side of the average living room, (any closer and interlace flicker starts to become intrusive).
It's no accident that when room and budget permitted, 25 inch TV's were for generations by far the most popular screen size.
It's hard to get people's heads around the fact that, because of the total abscence of screen flicker you can either sit a lot closer to a Plasma or LCD TV, or have a much larger screen at the same viewing distance.
  • 0

#20 Michel Hafner

Michel Hafner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 November 2008 - 04:21 PM

Without knowing the details of your system or the naybe 300/200 (which is it?) discs, I can't really comment, but I could imagine you might have been comparing pre-HD SD scans with state-of-the-art HD re-scans, which is what we specifically set out to avoid.

No. Anyway, there are many examples out there on the net with the same stills from the DVD and the HD, the DVD upscaled to 1080p for comparison. There is no comparison if the HD is high quality. If they would look basically the same HD would look basically the same as SD. And we all know that is not the case. Either that or Blu Rays suddenly lose their HD detail when they are mastered from the studio tapes. That ain't usually the case either. But there are old transfers around with barely 720p detail and some films are just not that sharp to begin with. So the difference is not always big. Even some upscaled SD has been put on HD disks. That's looks marginally better than DVD, of course. Appreciating HD detail depends a lot on viewing conditions, though.
Some examples here: http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/
  • 0


Glidecam

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Tai Audio

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Glidecam

Technodolly

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Visual Products

CineLab

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera