[Gunleik Groven]

att Richard B

ot to nitpick, but you'd have to scan the film into something for offline, andyou'd probably NOT have the equipment to do that.
To get offlines, you don't need a scanner but an Intel Mac/Win machine.

The first tests I did with RED footage was on MacBooks and MacMinis. RedCine won't wor with those, as they don't have GPUs, but you can use RedLine/RedRushes to pump out offlines.

The problem with that route, is that you cannot really evaluate the format from proxies. But you knew that already : )

Again, not defending the decissions, just pointing at the solutions.

[Stephen Williams]

Richard Boddington, on Dec 2 2008, 07:10 AM, said:

Wow good memory on my gear

And yes the BL2 was 100% flawless in operation.

R,

Hi Richard,

IIRC you saved money by not having any dalies, you just trusted that the fillm would be 100% OK which it was! I don't think I would want to shoot a feature on RED without seeing any takes back.

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

Gunleik Groven, on Dec 2 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

The problem with that route, is that you cannot really evaluate the format from proxies. But you knew that already : )

Hi Gunleik,

The only reason I want to see the footage on my laptop is to evaluate the footage myself. The posthouse will probably just use the proxies as they are 'good enough' for them. I wonder if that has anything to with the reason I don't yet have any RED footage on my website!

Stephen

[John Brawley]

Chris Nuzzaco, on Dec 2 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

Kinda, but not really. He wants to see what the Red can really do,

Sorry to disagree Chris but exactly *how* is this any different to viewing any other footage originated on film or whatever at 4k ?? To see what 35mm can REALLY do you're in a high end grading suite at 1k+ per hour right ???

What's great is that YOU CAN with RED. You just need a CONSUMER grade computer (albeit speced up) built in the last 2 years. The data rate of your DVX modded camera belies the fact that it's operating at 1/4 of the effective resolution of RED. (just temporarily ignoring the fact that its's effective res is 3.2 K spread across 4 k of pixels)

You'll struggle to view 4K real time in almost any high end post house.

jb

*edit. Sorry not to be snipey, but i think it's great that RED can even do what it can do now (although not exactly well or painlessly).

But I'm also a realist as well. You can't knock them for not being able to play on a 4 year old MAC.....

This post has been edited by John Brawley: 02 December 2008 - 04:00 AM

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Stephen Williams, on Dec 2 2008, 06:43 AM, said:

The posthouse will probably just use the proxies as they are 'good enough' for them. I wonder if that has anything to with the reason I don't yet have any RED footage on my website!

You know, this is something that was mentioned to me during my "Miami Mayhem Color Correction" (LOL). I was told most people have just color corrected in FCP via the proxies and then mastered from that. That notion kinda blew me away, I don't know how true it is, but man, kinda sucks if people have to resort to that.

As for just viewing the footage myself to check it, I have a big hangup with the whole Redspace thing being the default for proxies. I want to view the footage in a flat looking, "raw" view. The Redspace will apparently blow out highlights that still have detail in them. I understand why they made it that way (kinda creates this "illusion" that red has "overhead"), but to an experienced raw shooter like myself, it's kind of silly. Yes, its good for a client to see a "nicer" image, but the DP's gotta see what they need to see too. I'm still awaiting the day I can edit and load in my own custom viewing LUT's. I don't recall this feature being implemented yet (but it IS available on my Andromeda mod ).

[Chris Nuzzaco]

John Brawley, on Dec 2 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

Sorry to disagree Chris but exactly *how* is this any different to viewing any other footage originated on film or whatever at 4k ?? To see what 35mm can REALLY do you're in a high end grading suite at 1k+ per hour right ???

Some people actually do just that. Not everyone has the money though, so it can be very unrealistic, and it would be of more interest to a DP than a director. If thats the case, I would request some stuff thats been shot and already polished in post to view. The issue with viewing Red proxies is that they haven't been corrected, and they have a generic viewing LUT (redspace) that most likely doesn't show the look the DP intends the footage to have. You see where I'm going here? If you get handed .r3d files, your entering a very strange forest at the moment if you want to see the quality they can have. I highly suggest requesting a 1080p demo of finished red footage to view if you just wanna watch it and see if your impressed by it.

John Brawley, on Dec 2 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

What's great is that YOU CAN with RED. You just need a CONSUMER grade computer (albeit speced up) built in the last 2 years. The data rate of your DVX modded camera belies the fact that it's operating at 1/4 of the effective resolution of RED. (just temporarily ignoring the fact that its's effective res is 3.2 K spread across 4 k of pixels)

You'll struggle to view 4K real time in almost any high end post house.

I understand it's 1/4 the resolution of Red, but it is the same amount of data to deal with, which is my point. The files actually take a few seconds to load, so no, I don't expect it to work like greased lightning at 4K. You can actually view the .r3d files in RedCine, so apparently there is a way to work natively with them, I guess I just wish that was available more readily in other applications people use when dealing with the Red. Again, this is just a temporary hangup, I know the support is coming. I just can't believe how "super beta" the work flow was when they released the camera.

This post has been edited by Chris Nuzzaco: 02 December 2008 - 06:47 AM

[Gunleik Groven]

Stephen Williams, on Dec 2 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

Hi Gunleik,

The only reason I want to see the footage on my laptop is to evaluate the footage myself. The posthouse will probably just use the proxies as they are 'good enough' for them. I wonder if that has anything to with the reason I don't yet have any RED footage on my website!

Stephen

Yup, there could be a connection...

[Paul Bruening]

Adobe sounds like the best solution for this quagmire. The filters are the same and translate with the data so filters and color correction look pretty much the same from proxies in Premiere to full-res in AE. That's assuming that Adobe designs the RED sub-systems like all the rest that they do. I guess that might inflame the FCP users.

[Will Earl]

John Brawley, on Dec 2 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

To see what 35mm can REALLY do you're in a high end grading suite at 1k+ per hour right ???

What's great is that YOU CAN with RED. You just need a CONSUMER grade computer (albeit speced up) built in the last 2 years.

Not true. I can work with digital film scans just as well from my laptop as I can from my workstation (neither of which is a high-end grading suite), it's also possible to work with cineon/dpx files on even older machines. Funny that even in the digital world, technology centred around film just happens to work.

John Brawley said:

You can't knock them for not being able to play on a 4 year old MAC.....

Well no of course you can't fault them for that.

[Richard Boddington]

Stephen Williams, on Dec 2 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

Hi Richard,

IIRC you saved money by not having any dalies, you just trusted that the fillm would be 100% OK which it was! I don't think I would want to shoot a feature on RED without seeing any takes back.

Stephen

Oh yes I will need to see shots back with Red for sure, mainly because this frame dropping has me worried. You can fix a lot of things in post, dropped frames isn't one of them.

For those members telling me that I need more high end gear to view Red footage and that is the same as having a post house do film processing and telecine, two things I can't do myself now. Yes you have a point, I do have those steps involved when shooting 35mm.

However my view is that if I still need steps that are financially equivalent to those two steps when shooting with Red then I might as well shoot on 35mm. I want to SAVE money, I don't want to spend the SAME amount of money only to end up with a movie on Red and not 35mm.

As has been pointed out in this thread, and dozens before it, whether it's Red or 35mm all the other film production costs stay the same, i.e. talent fees, crew costs, hotels, food, location fees, etc etc etc.

So in order to "sacrifice" the beauty of 35mm and go with Red, the over all savings for me need to be substantial, I'm not sure that they are as of this writing. And this is not "anti-Red" at all, I am looking at dollars and cents here, & cost vs what I end up with.

R,

[John Brawley]

Will Earl, on Dec 3 2008, 04:27 AM, said:

Not true. I can work with digital film scans just as well from my laptop as I can from my workstation (neither of which is a high-end grading suite), it's also possible to work with cineon/dpx files on even older machines. Funny that even in the digital world, technology centred around film just happens to work.

C'mon Will.

You still have to PAY someone to do the scans. That was my point.

jb

[Matthew Rogers]

Richard Boddington, on Dec 2 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

Oh yes I will need to see shots back with Red for sure, mainly because this frame dropping has me worried. You can fix a lot of things in post, dropped frames isn't one of them.

If your operator is worth their salt, they should be able to tell you when there are dropped frames. At the bottom of the screen there is a little meter that tells you if there were any dropped frames in the last take. However, I do wonder if someone couldn't write a small program that could read through the R3D file quickly to confirm no dropped frames. Seems pretty simple.

Quote

For those members telling me that I need more high end gear to view Red footage and that is the same as having a post house do film processing and telecine, two things I can't do myself now. Yes you have a point, I do have those steps involved when shooting 35mm.

All you need is an iMac with a graphics card. Th 20" Intel iMac works great for viewing footage (not fully quality mind you, but 8 core MacPro can't do that either.) You should be able to what 1/2 Rez Med. on an iMac with no problems (4Gb ram would be suggested though). An iMac will set you back around $1200 USD.

Quote

However my view is that if I still need steps that are financially equivalent to those two steps when shooting with Red then I might as well shoot on 35mm. I want to SAVE money, I don't want to spend the SAME amount of money only to end up with a movie on Red and not 35mm.

As has been pointed out in this thread, and dozens before it, whether it's Red or 35mm all the other film production costs stay the same, i.e. talent fees, crew costs, hotels, food, location fees, etc etc etc.

But the question is, does the RED let you work faster than with film? Yes, all those fees still exists, but do getting two extra setups each day, over 30 days, shorten the shoot by one day? Because one shoot day on a film is quite a bit of money. But of course, there's a lot that factors into that. In reality, what saves you money is owning some of this gear. I own a RED for my company. I decided to go out an shoot a short film with film students as my crew. Shot 10 pages over 2, 10 hour days. Total cost: $800. $400 for the plane ticket for the director and $400 for food and other stuff. The film looks beautiful btw. Yes, because I owned all the gear it was cheap to make. However, if I owned all the gear and just needed to buy and process film, the film would have easily cost $3k WITHOUT the plane ticket or food. To me, that's a big savings.

Quote

So in order to "sacrifice" the beauty of 35mm and go with Red, the over all savings for me need to be substantial, I'm not sure that they are as of this writing. And this is not "anti-Red" at all, I am looking at dollars and cents here, & cost vs what I end up with.

What exactly are you talking about shooting with the RED? Are you talking about a feature film, or commercials, or docs, or etc? It seems like with just one shoot that has a decent budget that your raw stock and processing costs would equal what it costs to get a nice MacPro. Could you give some more details.

Btw, sorry if this post seems disjointed. I wrote it over an afternoon and haven't gone back to see what I wrote earlier (yeah, I'm lazy today!)

Matthew

[Tenolian Bell]

Matthew Rogers, on Dec 2 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

If your operator is worth their salt, they should be able to tell you when there are dropped frames. At the bottom of the screen there is a little meter that tells you if there were any dropped frames in the last take. However, I do wonder if someone couldn't write a small program that could read through the R3D file quickly to confirm no dropped frames. Seems pretty simple.

Not that I'm all that old. Between film school and growing my professional career, I've been using professional video cameras for about 18 years. I've never seen a meter that informs you of dropped frames. I have to ask, is this really progress?

Quote

But the question is, does the RED let you work faster than with film? Yes, all those fees still exists, but do getting two extra setups each day, over 30 days, shorten the shoot by one day? Because one shoot day on a film is quite a bit of money. But of course, there's a lot that factors into that. In reality, what saves you money is owning some of this gear. I own a RED for my company. I decided to go out an shoot a short film with film students as my crew. Shot 10 pages over 2, 10 hour days. Total cost: $800. $400 for the plane ticket for the director and $400 for food and other stuff. The film looks beautiful btw. Yes, because I owned all the gear it was cheap to make. However, if I owned all the gear and just needed to buy and process film, the film would have easily cost $3k WITHOUT the plane ticket or food. To me, that's a big savings.

This is all situational of course. Depending on the film and the budget the cost of film stock and processing could be a small budget line. A situation where digital can prove at least if not more expensive is if the film has a theatrical run and you need to make prints.

[Josell Ramos]

[In true Canadian fashion, the Toronto Film Festival said no to this short, and Sundance said yes. It's called Captain Coulet (sp?) Any one at Sundance next year, should have a look.
[/quote]


From what I know Toronto doesn't accept shorts outside of Canada. Did they change the rules?

[Richard Boddington]

Josell Ramos, on Dec 2 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

[In true Canadian fashion, the Toronto Film Festival said no to this short, and Sundance said yes. It's called Captain Coulet (sp?) Any one at Sundance next year, should have a look.



From what I know Toronto doesn't accept shorts outside of Canada. Did they change the rules?

Eh? This IS a Canadian short film, that is the irony....TIFF said no like they usually do to any thing Canadian that is well made and will please an audience. Compared to a major US fest like Sundance that said YES to this Canadian film.

I would be quite surprised if the TIFF shorts must be made in Canada?

R,

[Matthew Rogers]

Tenolian Bell, on Dec 2 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

Not that I'm all that old. Between film school and growing my professional career, I've been using professional video cameras for about 18 years. I've never seen a meter that informs you of dropped frames. I have to ask, is this really progress?

Have you ever shot on a camera that shoots to a hard drive? Wouldn't you like to shoot on a camera that tells you when there are tape dropouts and other recording errors? I'd say a camera that tells you those things as they are happening is very progressive--and very helpful.

BTW, if anyone doesn't know the dropped frame counter turns red when dropped frames happen. It's fairly obvious when it happens. Plus, that stays up there until you hit record again. That said, it would be nice to have a full frame message come up when dropped frames happen. But when I am shooting on the hard drive, I just do a glance to the bottom to see if the red square fame comes up--not a biggie.

Matthew

[Matthew Rogers]

(tried to put this into my last post but it wouldn't let me edit it!)

Quote

This is all situational of course. Depending on the film and the budget the cost of film stock and processing could be a small budget line. A situation where digital can prove at least if not more expensive is if the film has a theatrical run and you need to make prints.

Ummm...if you are doing a DI, wouldn't it cost the same to do a film print from the DI as it would the RED? Of course, if you are finishing without a DI, then I could maybe see your point. However, how much would raw stock & processing for a 90 minute feature? I would guess $30,000 to $60,000. Seems like I've see the avg price for a film out at $40,000 to $50,000. Maybe I am totally wrong on these numbers, but I don't think I'm too far off. $50,000 in a $500,000 budget film is a lot. In a $50 million film, not so much.

Matthew

[Paul Bruening]

.

Attached File(s)

•  dropped_frames.jpg (109.68K)
  Number of downloads: 4

[Tenolian Bell]

Matthew Rogers, on Dec 2 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

Have you ever shot on a camera that shoots to a hard drive? Wouldn't you like to shoot on a camera that tells you when there are tape dropouts and other recording errors? I'd say a camera that tells you those things as they are happening is very progressive--and very helpful.

Yes I've shot with cameras that record on hard drive. No I've never dealt with or heard of anyone else dealing with dropped frames while shooting. As many problems that can happen on set to worry about a take being blown because the camera dropped frames is one that is unnecessary.

Dropping frames is more of a concern while capturing footage from tape. This is a problem because a computer has to capture footage while the tape is running in real time. Their is little to no room for error.

Recording on a hard drive should eliminate dropped frames. Footage is not captured in real time. Its simply a transfer of a digital file.

[Tenolian Bell]

Matthew Rogers, on Dec 2 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

Ummm...if you are doing a DI, wouldn't it cost the same to do a film print from the DI as it would the RED? Of course, if you are finishing without a DI, then I could maybe see your point. However, how much would raw stock & processing for a 90 minute feature? I would guess $30,000 to $60,000. Seems like I've see the avg price for a film out at $40,000 to $50,000. Maybe I am totally wrong on these numbers, but I don't think I'm too far off. $50,000 in a $500,000 budget film is a lot. In a $50 million film, not so much.

Matthew

You certainly don't have to do a DI. My point is that creating an optical print from negative is cheaper than a digital blow up to print.

As far as the cost of film stock and processing in relation to a budget. There is no one size fits all. Its all relative as each situation is different.