Lets compare clips to be realistic.

[jamesmallonuk]

You know when a new camera like this comes out people lose perspective. I really want a cheap DSLR to work as a filmaking tool I really do, and wonder if it will be Nikon who produces something that really looks like a serious tool. Of course we have heard all the arguments that a tool is just part of the work and with these digital VDSLR they can in the right hands be a filmaking tool.

But I would argue that I haven't seen one single clip of any DSLR that if I turn my technical brain off can be convinced it is anything more than good video. Red footage when properly graded and shot can truely allow you to believe you are watching a movie. So in conclusion I've yet to see something that will change my mind. Sure tha VDSLR's could be a great tool for certain tasks but if anyone here is an 'indie filmaker' they should wait for the scarlett and not waste their money. I think the Canons are way too contrasty for one thing.

So I challenge anyone to post DSLR work that can convince were are watching a movie. Here's a clip form the RED to get the ball rolling its by far the best I've seen but it furthurs my point. And yes lighting etc makes the difference but lets have some DSLR footage that is as convincing.

http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/La%20Premiere/

[PaPa]

light properly, desaturate your image, give it a sepia tone, and lower your contrast.... Not too difficult in my opinion and easily achievable.

[Barry_Green]

I really want a cheap DSLR to work as a filmaking tool I really do/ (http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/La%20Premiere/)
Okay, work with me here, but -- WHY?

Why would anyone want to shoot a movie on a DSLR?

Aren't we putting the cart before the horse, or getting completely twisted around here?

What I want is a proper video camera that has the shallow DOF of the recent DSLRs, the lens interchangeability, and the low price. But I certainly don't WANT a DSLR. I'll take it, if it's the only way to get the low price and DOF look, but the DSLR is about the worst form factor, the least designed for the purpose of making proper video and film-looking projects.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Agree, nobody here "WANTS" a DSLR, right now we are getting the image aesthetic we as a community have grown to worship and idolize in a really cheap product. And honestly it's caught us of gaurd and made us feel unshackled by combersome adapters, high prices (for some) and riging and for now we are loving it. That's all, nothing more for the most part. As the product development pushes forward we'll start seeing more of the features we need as videographers and filmmakers. And remember filmmaking is not about a "look" or about a process, it's about communicating ideas and conveying emotion. I don't care 2 s**ts about your latitude, dynamic range, DoF, composition, exposure, lighting, codec, etc... if you can't tell a story.

[John Caballero]

What I want is a proper video camera that has the shallow DOF of the recent DSLRs, the lens interchangeability, and the low price.

Yes, you want the HPX170 with 4/3 sensor. We can dream. Maybe Panasonic will listen.

[ryansheffer]

Because I want to shoot a movie without permits - in Los Angeles.

[Barry_Green]

Well, that's a pretty good reason. Don't know how long that anonymity will last though.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, you want the HPX170 with 4/3 sensor. We can dream. Maybe Panasonic will listen.
Yeah, exactly. I mean, I love the little GH1, I'm looking forward to the 7D, but... seriously, it's mainly about the price tag. Plus I'm hoping beyond hope that there'll be a Magic Lantern hack for the 7D to give it some more usability (audio meters, zebras, etc).

But the minute there's a proper video camera that does proper ergonomics, connectivity, monitoring, and workflow, man, the DSLR loses pretty much all appeal.

Except for the killer price tag. :)

[reem12]

I would make one all day, and people are doing it inspite of the short comings. True artists are those who will make a movie on their camera phone if that all they had to get their vision across. Not only would they make it on a camera phone, but probably win awards. I've not seen footage from any sub $10,000 video camera rendering the images coming from these new dslrs.

[dcoughla]

Because I want to shoot a movie without permits - in Los Angeles.

Ditto on the guerilla shooting. No one really bats an eye when someone has a DSLR in a public place, at least where I'm from. Pair that with a zoom H4n in my pocket and some wireless mics and you can shoot wherever there's light!

[sblfilms]

I know it can be a PITA at times, but the formfactor of the DSLR can also be a saving grace at time. I'm glad that in the near future we will have video and stills cameras with footage that will seamlessly integrate with one another.

[Zak Forsman]

I actually like the form-factor for most handheld situations. the last shot of Mo/Pho (http://sabipictures.com/films/eloquentgraffiti/previews/modelphotographer/) had to be done "blind" because I was holding the D90 against the windshield in front of the actor. No way for me to monitor the shot other than set focus, burn off a few tests positions to check composition before letting her rip.

so an articulating LCD screen would be nice.

[Cassius]

Comparing clips only does any good if the shots are identical. Even then, all it does is shows you potential weaknesses of the technology. With that information you compensate. There is a hell of a lot more than a camera on a proper set. The right equipment also depends on what's needed. The OP here asks for something that convinces us we're watching a real movie; real movies can be shot on cell phones if everything else is done right, so there's no convincing to be done.

That said, watching clips from a certain camera can give you an idea of its ability and general look if you know the lighting situation and other variables. But you have to know that to know if it applies at all. I looked those up before getting a GH1, the ones taken at events and the like (not on set) worked because I knew the lighting setup was natural only.

[Zim]

I think the video from these VDSLR are going to have some good uses and you knows what a person might do with it. My main reason for getting a new DSLR is for photography. The video will be a nice plus for some internet stuff, music video on the run interviews etc. I will probably go with the D300s. I just like Nikon and probably not going to switch for the HD video.

[mattsand]

the stealth factor and portability both make slr's really well suited for the shooting style we used on my feature fuerteventura. we had the option to shoot on the red one or 16mm but chose the d90 for those reasons. it was a major pain with the lack of manual control, but i'm happy with the results. we've blown up the trailer to 35mm to see if the pretty soft quality would hold up for mainstream theatrical distribution, and it definitely does both we, the post house, the distributors, and the test audience agreed. it's not 4k or even real hd but sharper than sd, which many mainstream movies were actually shot in, and the 35mm dof helps making it cinematic too. check it out:

http://vimeo.com/4293535 (pass: luifer)

/m

[squig]

I think the Canons are way too contrasty for one thing.

So I challenge anyone to post DSLR work that can convince were are watching a movie. Here's a clip form the RED to get the ball rolling its by far the best I've seen but it furthurs my point. And yes lighting etc makes the difference but lets have some DSLR footage that is as convincing.

http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/La%20Premiere/

Have you looked at my MKII test? I've had a lot of positive feedback about its filmic look and all I did was dial down the contrast and sharpness on the neutral setting with minimal grading.

I'll take you up on your challenge, I've got loads of narrative stuff to shoot over the next year and although I have free access to a RED I think I'll be shooting everything on either the MKII or 7D.

[Rakesh Jacob]

@mattsand Dude your movie looks like it's gonna be badass, love, love, love the concept!!!!

@squig Looks good man, but who the hell let you procreate! ;p

[squig]

@mattsand Dude your movie looks like it's gonna be badass, love, love, love the concept!!!!

@squig Looks good man, but who the hell let you procreate! ;p

hehe, it was an accident, both times! I breed bond girls.....now I need a big gun to keep them away from the likes of you :D A plan sure to fail.

the big question is who let matt procreate? and why make us suffer?

[PaPa]

Now, this example isn't perfect, because in the original shot the blacks are too crushed and there is too much contrast in camera from the original, but if you were to soften the sharpness in camera and lower the contrast and saturation, you could probably get something a lot closer to what he RED delivers:

This is only a simulated look:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6128/7dlowcontrast.jpg

[ydgmdlu]

But the minute there's a proper video camera that does proper ergonomics, connectivity, monitoring, and workflow, man, the DSLR loses pretty much all appeal.
You mean like the Scarlet?

[ydgmdlu]

I've not seen footage from any sub $10,000 video camera rendering the images coming from these new dslrs.
And again, just for argument's sake, what about the Scarlet?

[Everts]

....like Scarlet Johanson ?

Up untill a few months a go the 7d did not exist and we have gotten more test footage out of and a real release for the 7d. So again Scarlet who ......

[booggerg2]

You know when a new camera like this comes out people lose perspective. I really want a cheap DSLR to work as a filmaking tool I really do, and wonder if it will be Nikon who produces something that really looks like a serious tool. Of course we have heard all the arguments that a tool is just part of the work and with these digital VDSLR they can in the right hands be a filmaking tool.

But I would argue that I haven't seen one single clip of any DSLR that if I turn my technical brain off can be convinced it is anything more than good video. Red footage when properly graded and shot can truely allow you to believe you are watching a movie. So in conclusion I've yet to see something that will change my mind. Sure tha VDSLR's could be a great tool for certain tasks but if anyone here is an 'indie filmaker' they should wait for the scarlett and not waste their money. I think the Canons are way too contrasty for one thing.

So I challenge anyone to post DSLR work that can convince were are watching a movie. Here's a clip form the RED to get the ball rolling its by far the best I've seen but it furthurs my point. And yes lighting etc makes the difference but lets have some DSLR footage that is as convincing.

http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/La%20Premiere/

What r u talking about dude!? The red is a big beast that costs many times more than the 7D... stop comparing... Wait for the scarlet? Why not jus say "indie filmmakers should wait for an arbitrary camera that may come out in the future." Such funny mindset.

[mhood]

The Scarlet is a far cry from tiny.

[bwwd]

http://vimeo.com/5981422

And for me this is the best footage from DSLR,i really have a hard time to believe its D90:
http://vimeo.com/3246212

Most footage from DSLR's on youtubes or vimeos are pure garbage to be really honest.

This one is kinda OK too:
http://vimeo.com/5619497

Looks like 16mm-d90 hybrid.

[ryansheffer]

Scarlet is horrible ergonomically. At least the current model. It's huge and awkward. That fact really surprised me when I held one. Huge is obviously incredibly relative.

Also - don't underestimate what canon's picture style editor can do in terms of taking the cameras image to the next level. There are weird visual issues with all presets in the 5d, but infinite options using software canon bundles with that camera and is also including with the 7d.

[mattsand]

And for me this is the best footage from DSLR,i really have a hard time to believe its D90:
http://vimeo.com/3246212
it looks great but scaling it down effectively hides the most obvious problems with the d90 image, we know the colors, the latitude and the bokeh is amazing, while it's impossible to tell the sharpness, richness in detail and compression artifacts at this res. i see nothing in that clip that would make me doubt its origin. what do you mean?

[bwwd]

Its very well shot with proper equipment and smooth movement ,i know its SD quality but leave the HD sharpness and tell me where i can find similar clip from any DSLR ? I keep looking but i didnt found any clips shot like that .
Im still not 100% sure that its d90 cause compared to other d90 tests/videos it stands out so much.But if it is d90 then it proves that in the right hands DSLR footage can look incredible,especially after watching hundreds of overexposed jello tests.

[Barry_Green]

You mean like the Scarlet?
Hopefully.

[jamesmallonuk]

Actually I have no problem with the form factor of DSLR's, the new Scarlett 2/3 looks just like a DSLR if it is configured in this form. The scarlett at least the fixed lens is comparable in price to the DSLR's or only marginally more. I just think while the image will be great from the 7D I don't think it is a good investment for an indie filmaker who really dreams of getting his work up on a big screen. Like I said I think Nikon has a more filmic option and if they can get rid of jello and be full HD then it could be a serious contender. But It wont be long for the Scarlett possibly by christmas I would guess so why not wait?

[Rakesh Jacob]

I just think while the image will be great from the 7D I don't think it is a good investment for an indie filmaker who really dreams of getting his work up on a big screen.

This is the asinine part of the whole premise. How many films actually get theatrical distribution? EVEN THE ONES SHOT ON FILM!!!! If anyone, as an up and coming filmmaker, is self-deluded enough to work under this premise... I don't know what to say, it's ridiculous and obtuse.

[FatDaddy]

At least we know what we are getting with vdslr. Outside of an articulating screen, they will remain a dslr in form and hybrid function. I agree they are harder to use than a video camera (HPX 170, etc), but people will continue to make accessories that make it usable. The price, performance, size (no more lugging a Brevis adapter w/lenses around the world) and the fact that I can use it as a stills camera. I'm never going back and the 7D will be it for me - until the 5D Mark3 :grin:

[jamesmallonuk]

This is the asinine part of the whole premise. How many films actually get theatrical distribution? EVEN THE ONES SHOT ON FILM!!!! If anyone, as an up and coming filmmaker, is self-deluded enough to work under this premise... I don't know what to say, it's ridiculous and obtuse.


Well at least taken seriously, The whole point with the digital revolution that RED is part a professional short could be made for 10,000 dollars when a few years back you would be looking at 5-10 times that for film. I think your missing the point of what is going on and what is being put into your sweaty hands.

Saying that if you see yourself as a documentary filmaker or just a video production hobbist sure get a 7D and start shooting the kids at at home.

By the way big screen dosen't have to mean theatrical release it means being projected on a screen for others to see like an indie film festival!

[mattsand]

tell me where i can find similar clip from any DSLR ? I keep looking but i didnt found any clips shot like that
i'm not sure what you mean. what exactly is it you see in this clip that you haven't seen in other professionally shot clips, like the trailer i posted earlier in this thread for example, or model/photographer, or some of the many 5d and d90 music videos out there?

[Rakesh Jacob]

Well at least taken seriously, The whole point with the digital revolution that RED is part a professional short could be made for 10,000 dollars when a few years back you would be looking at 5-10 times that for film. I think your missing the point of what is going on and what is being put into your sweaty hands.

Saying that if you see yourself as a documentary filmaker or just a video production hobbist sure get a 7D and start shooting the kids at at home.

By the way big screen dosen't have to mean theatrical release it means being projected on a screen for others to see like an indie film festival!

Well the "dream" of seeing it on the big screen is more than indie projections. Honestly if that was the dream, well hell, I'd like to invite everyone to my brother in-law's house. He projects on a 12x8 wall in what used to be his family room. I'm sure he'll let you live the dream!

EDIT: Referring to your last post before this of " ...the 7D I don't think it is a good investment for an indie filmaker who really dreams of getting his work up on a big screen" Keep it in context dude

[Barry_Green]

Hmmm, I must be in a bad mood today, so... here goes...

Look, the standard-def DVX has made plenty of big-screen films, theatrically-released pictures like "November", "Lonesom Jim", "Murderball", "9 Songs", "Mad Hot Ballroom", "The Aristocrats", and probably many more. Including Academy Award nominees like "Iraq In Fragments" and (again) "Murderball". And Sundance Cinematography award winners Murderball and November.

A standard-def DVX.

A 4:3-native, 360-line DVX. 360 lines of resolution when cropped to 16:9. Good enough for the big screen, good enough to get two oscar noms and to win Sundance's best-cinematography award. Twice. On the big screen.

An HVX200 was used for pickup shots in the theatrical release of Spielberg's "Munich" and Scorsese's "The Departed".

XHA1s and HV20s were used in Crank 2.

To say that you need a Scarlet or a Red One or ... ANYTHING ... to hide behind as an excuse as to why you're not making something for the big screen right now, is simply unsubstantiatable.

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.

Mark Pirro made over $500,000 off of his film "A Polish Vampire in Burbank". It was shot on Super 8. Super 8. As in, VHS quality Super 8. And when I say $500,000 I'm talking about 1985 dollars, 24 years ago... assuming 4% inflation, that'd be $1.3 million in today's dollars.

The cameras of today are good enough. An HV40 is good enough, if you've got the story to go with it. Put on a Letus Mini and go shoot. If you're waiting for a 7D or a Nikon something-or-other or a Scarlet or a GHX100 or whatever, then you're just hiding behind an excuse.

[Zim]

They did get rid of a lot of it on the D300s it looks like. Waiting for more reviews. But maybe the Nikons at a 720p looks more filmic than the Canon does at 1080? I really like the look of the Nikon. I think the Nikon is a serious contender . Really the DSLR's coming out with HD are all going to be pretty nice. The new D300s might have better auto focus for photography which I like.



Actually I have no problem with the form factor of DSLR's, the new Scarlett 2/3 looks just like a DSLR if it is configured in this form. The scarlett at least the fixed lens is comparable in price to the DSLR's or only marginally more. I just think while the image will be great from the 7D I don't think it is a good investment for an indie filmaker who really dreams of getting his work up on a big screen. Like I said I think Nikon has a more filmic option and if they can get rid of jello and be full HD then it could be a serious contender. But It wont be long for the Scarlett possibly by christmas I would guess so why not wait?

[bwwd]

i'm not sure what you mean. what exactly is it you see in this clip that you haven't seen in other professionally shot clips, like the trailer i posted earlier in this thread for example, or model/photographer, or some of the many 5d and d90 music videos out there?
Ive seen your clip long time ago,it looks like its mostly handheld and mostly 50mm lens,on this link which i gave i see more lenses,dolly shots ,no jello at all and no white blowouts.Many music videos you say... ive seen some and mostly handheld ,without smooth pans and problems with exposure.
Well i see the difference ,if you dont see it so what can i say ?

[Kholi]

Hmmm, I must be in a bad mood today, so... here goes...

Look, the standard-def DVX has made plenty of big-screen films, theatrically-released pictures like "November", "Lonesom Jim", "Murderball", "9 Songs", "Mad Hot Ballroom", "The Aristocrats", and probably many more. Including Academy Award nominees like "Iraq In Fragments" and (again) "Murderball". And Sundance Cinematography award winners Murderball and November.

A standard-def DVX.

A 4:3-native, 360-line DVX. 360 lines of resolution when cropped to 16:9. Good enough for the big screen, good enough to get two oscar noms and to win Sundance's best-cinematography award. Twice. On the big screen.

An HVX200 was used for pickup shots in the theatrical release of Spielberg's "Munich" and Scorsese's "The Departed".

XHA1s and HV20s were used in Crank 2.

To say that you need a Scarlet or a Red One or ... ANYTHING ... to hide behind as an excuse as to why you're not making something for the big screen right now, is simply unsubstantiatable.

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.

Mark Pirro made over $500,000 off of his film "A Polish Vampire in Burbank". It was shot on Super 8. Super 8. As in, VHS quality Super 8. And when I say $500,000 I'm talking about 1985 dollars, 24 years ago... assuming 4% inflation, that'd be $1.3 million in today's dollars.

The cameras of today are good enough. An HV40 is good enough, if you've got the story to go with it. Put on a Letus Mini and go shoot. If you're waiting for a 7D or a Nikon something-or-other or a Scarlet or a GHX100 or whatever, then you're just hiding behind an excuse.


Train stops here. In the end, it's whatever you can shoot with that makes you comfortable.

[mattsand]

Ive seen your clip long time ago,it looks like its mostly handheld and mostly 50mm lens,on this link which i gave i see more lenses,dolly shots ,no jello at all and no white blowouts.Many music videos you say... ive seen some and mostly handheld ,without smooth pans and problems with exposure.
Well i see the difference ,if you dont see it so what can i say ?
well, i see *that* difference obviously, but i've no idea what that has to do with the camera; as long as it has a tripod mount you can put it on a dolly. btw my film was shot on a 24, 35, 50, 85, 18-55 and 70-210, all of them in the trailer actually. :-) let me rephrase: what about the image itself makes you doubt that it was shot on a d90, and aside from production value, what's so special about it?

[Kholi]

D90 color to me is the worst. Was never and still am not a fan of it. The odd peachy oranges in nearly everything makes my eyes bleed and I have no idea why it's being called accurate. Such things never show up in properly shot RED footage, MKii or GH-1 footage.

[mattsand]

Well the "dream" of seeing it on the big screen is more than indie projections
why would anyone make a feature if it wasn't made to be distributed, preferably on the big screen? the whole reason people do it, and even more so the reason people invest in it, is that the film might actually make it. what exactly would be the benefit of *not* dreaming of success? eliminating the risk of failure is a reason only suitable for losers, in my opinion.

[f64manray]

Hmmm, I must be in a bad mood today, so... here goes...

Look, the standard-def DVX has made plenty of big-screen films, theatrically-released pictures like "November", "Lonesom Jim", "Murderball", "9 Songs", "Mad Hot Ballroom", "The Aristocrats", and probably many more. Including Academy Award nominees like "Iraq In Fragments" and (again) "Murderball". And Sundance Cinematography award winners Murderball and November.

A standard-def DVX.

A 4:3-native, 360-line DVX. 360 lines of resolution when cropped to 16:9. Good enough for the big screen, good enough to get two oscar noms and to win Sundance's best-cinematography award. Twice. On the big screen.

An HVX200 was used for pickup shots in the theatrical release of Spielberg's "Munich" and Scorsese's "The Departed".

XHA1s and HV20s were used in Crank 2.

To say that you need a Scarlet or a Red One or ... ANYTHING ... to hide behind as an excuse as to why you're not making something for the big screen right now, is simply unsubstantiatable.

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.

Mark Pirro made over $500,000 off of his film "A Polish Vampire in Burbank". It was shot on Super 8. Super 8. As in, VHS quality Super 8. And when I say $500,000 I'm talking about 1985 dollars, 24 years ago... assuming 4% inflation, that'd be $1.3 million in today's dollars.

The cameras of today are good enough. An HV40 is good enough, if you've got the story to go with it. Put on a Letus Mini and go shoot. If you're waiting for a 7D or a Nikon something-or-other or a Scarlet or a GHX100 or whatever, then you're just hiding behind an excuse.

Thanks! Most inspiring post ever.

[mattsand]

D90 color to me is the worst. Was never and still am not a fan of it. The odd peachy oranges in nearly everything makes my eyes bleed
i know what you're saying but i like that it holds saturation even in shadows and highlights, which is what you're seeing. the 5d is pretty similar in that respect, while the gh1 completely desaturates as you add exposure.

[mattsand]

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.
of course it does, but just as often the other way around from what you're referring to. :-)

[bwwd]

what about the image itself makes you doubt that it was shot on a d90, and aside from production value, what's so special about it?

Smooth pans and telephoto shots.No overexposing.Some shots look very nice.
Takes on 0:27 , 0:43 look very good,what kind of lens it could be ? 200/300mm ?
I would also say good choice of lens,instead of shooting on infinity with 50mm or 28mm they shot with telephoto lens and there still is depth of field.Most DSLR footage on infinity looks like regular HD cam.
Ive seen a lot of tests and footage from d90 and this one really stands out from all jello overexposed handheld videos.

[filmmaker's gang]

Hmmm, I must be in a bad mood today, so... here goes...

Look, the standard-def DVX has made plenty of big-screen films, theatrically-released pictures like "November", "Lonesom Jim", "Murderball", "9 Songs", "Mad Hot Ballroom", "The Aristocrats", and probably many more. Including Academy Award nominees like "Iraq In Fragments" and (again) "Murderball". And Sundance Cinematography award winners Murderball and November.

A standard-def DVX.

A 4:3-native, 360-line DVX. 360 lines of resolution when cropped to 16:9. Good enough for the big screen, good enough to get two oscar noms and to win Sundance's best-cinematography award. Twice. On the big screen.

An HVX200 was used for pickup shots in the theatrical release of Spielberg's "Munich" and Scorsese's "The Departed".

XHA1s and HV20s were used in Crank 2.

To say that you need a Scarlet or a Red One or ... ANYTHING ... to hide behind as an excuse as to why you're not making something for the big screen right now, is simply unsubstantiatable.

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.

Mark Pirro made over $500,000 off of his film "A Polish Vampire in Burbank". It was shot on Super 8. Super 8. As in, VHS quality Super 8. And when I say $500,000 I'm talking about 1985 dollars, 24 years ago... assuming 4% inflation, that'd be $1.3 million in today's dollars.

The cameras of today are good enough. An HV40 is good enough, if you've got the story to go with it. Put on a Letus Mini and go shoot. If you're waiting for a 7D or a Nikon something-or-other or a Scarlet or a GHX100 or whatever, then you're just hiding behind an excuse.man.. me agrees w/ you sure.. but you're forgetting an excuse.. in 2 true figures & 2 true words.. 35 (me wrote true not simulated) & future proof

edit
btw.. 9 songs sucks & The Aristocrats or Iraq in Fragments would never demand the 35 look.. november yes.. but cannot comment when the dvd is less than 2 meters of me now but didn't watch it yet.

[John Caballero]

I just think while the image will be great from the 7D I don't think it is a good investment for an indie filmaker who really dreams of getting his work up on a big screen.

Which ones? The dying breed of film projected big screens or the developing breed of digitally projected ones?


The cameras of today are good enough. An HV40 is good enough, if you've got the story to go with it. Put on a Letus Mini and go shoot. If you're waiting for a 7D or a Nikon something-or-other or a Scarlet or a GHX100 or whatever, then you're just hiding behind an excuse.

That is why when I called Abelcine a couple of days ago to find out the status of the GH1 and they told me they got a few and were holding one for me I ran out the door like a madman. The previous day I thought for 2 seconds about holding on for the 7D. I decided no, get the GH1 NOW make the money you spent on it back and when the 7D is available in a few months get it if it suits your needs. The next day after I got the GH1 I started making my money back. BTW: Barry you are right, it is a pretty cool cam. So far no a single drop of "mud" on 1080P, (maybe I got a magical one or maybe Panasonic fixed something while we waited?). Also the MJPEG is very good. Everything I shot yesterday was MJPEG for the ease of quick editing. I still have loads to learn about the camera though.

[Zim]

You should post more. I'm keeping my DVX100b longer now!!




Hmmm, I must be in a bad mood today, so... here goes...

Look, the standard-def DVX has made plenty of big-screen films, theatrically-released pictures like "November", "Lonesom Jim", "Murderball", "9 Songs", "Mad Hot Ballroom", "The Aristocrats", and probably many more. Including Academy Award nominees like "Iraq In Fragments" and (again) "Murderball". And Sundance Cinematography award winners Murderball and November.

A standard-def DVX.

A 4:3-native, 360-line DVX. 360 lines of resolution when cropped to 16:9. Good enough for the big screen, good enough to get two oscar noms and to win Sundance's best-cinematography award. Twice. On the big screen.

An HVX200 was used for pickup shots in the theatrical release of Spielberg's "Munich" and Scorsese's "The Departed".

XHA1s and HV20s were used in Crank 2.

To say that you need a Scarlet or a Red One or ... ANYTHING ... to hide behind as an excuse as to why you're not making something for the big screen right now, is simply unsubstantiatable.

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.

Mark Pirro made over $500,000 off of his film "A Polish Vampire in Burbank". It was shot on Super 8. Super 8. As in, VHS quality Super 8. And when I say $500,000 I'm talking about 1985 dollars, 24 years ago... assuming 4% inflation, that'd be $1.3 million in today's dollars.

The cameras of today are good enough. An HV40 is good enough, if you've got the story to go with it. Put on a Letus Mini and go shoot. If you're waiting for a 7D or a Nikon something-or-other or a Scarlet or a GHX100 or whatever, then you're just hiding behind an excuse.

[Barry_Green]

I decided no, get the GH1 NOW make the money you spent on it back and when the 7D is available in a few months get it if it suits your needs. The next day after I got the GH1 I started making my money back.
That right there is the attitude. Look at Kholi -- he hates almost every camera he buys, but he puts 'em to work, makes his money back, sells 'em, and moves on to the next one. And all the time, he's increasing his skills, widening his client base, etc...

Get what you need now. Put it to work. Sell it to upgrade when something better comes along.

[Kholi]

That right there is the attitude. Look at Kholi -- he hates almost every camera he buys, but he puts 'em to work, makes his money back, sells 'em, and moves on to the next one. And all the time, he's increasing his skills, widening his client base, etc...

Get what you need now. Put it to work. Sell it to upgrade when something better comes along.


LMFAO. =( ... I do hate just about every camera.

[Zim]

If done right and maybe a good story who knows how far a film could go, but if I really had the money to make a movie . My first choice would not be a VDSLR. But it could be a fun piece of equipment to make films, music vids, EPKs.

We have seen a lot of good stuff from the D90. I'm sure we will see more from the D300s and the 7D. It is all good.

[Rakesh Jacob]

why would anyone make a feature if it wasn't made to be distributed, preferably on the big screen? the whole reason people do it, and even more so the reason people invest in it, is that the film might actually make it. what exactly would be the benefit of *not* dreaming of success? eliminating the risk of failure is a reason only suitable for losers, in my opinion.

Believe me I understand, but I think there are plenty of filmmakers realistic about their shot at the big screen. NEVER THE LESS I was arguing a specific comment saying that shooting on anything less than Red is a waste of time and using the hope of "Big Screens" as the reason. Which I obviously found asinine.
And speaking of distribution there are so many avenues right now thank (whatever) God (u believe in). Film Fests, Private Screenings, Youtube, Vimeo... It's a great time to make films. I don't think what you are shooting on should stop you and the 5Dmkii/7D/GH1 is plenty of ammunition for someone who is a good story teller. Hell I got an award for something done on a $500 consumer cam. Not because I did a good job, but because my friend, who wrote it, had a brilliant idea and dispite my shortcomings (financially, talent, skill, equipment, experience, whatever) the IDEAS STRUCK A CHORD!
If you got it shoot it!!!!!! F--- it use your iPhone if you have to!

[Rakesh Jacob]

LMFAO. =( ... I do hate just about every camera.

I think that's a good thing, it means what's in you, your vision, is greater than the gear you are using. You will go far young Jedi!

[Zim]

You are so right Johnny it is a great time to make films. You can buy a camera that just a few years ago people could only dream about. Software to edit films. Audio recorders! Ways to put films on the web. Film fest like the DVXfest.
Anyone who says they can't make a film or a good film till they get a 7D or a D700x with a full frame sensor. Or they can't make a film or a good film till they get a RED shouldn't be making films. Make it with what you got. Put it on youtube Vimeo. Maybe Peter Jackson will see it!!



Believe me I understand, but I think there are plenty of filmmakers realistic about their shot at the big screen. NEVER THE LESS I was arguing a specific comment saying that shooting on anything less than Red is a waste of time and using the hope of "Big Screens" as the reason. Which I obviously found asinine.
And speaking of distribution there are so many avenues right now thank (whatever) God (u believe in). Film Fests, Private Screenings, Youtube, Vimeo... It's a great time to make films. I don't think what you are shooting on should stop you and the 5Dmkii/7D/GH1 is plenty of ammunition for someone who is a good story teller. Hell I got an award for something done on a $500 consumer cam. Not because I did a good job, but because my friend, who wrote it, had a brilliant idea and dispite my shortcomings (financially, talent, skill, equipment, experience, whatever) the IDEAS STRUCK A CHORD!
If you got it shoot it!!!!!! F--- it use your iPhone if you have to!

[mattsand]

Smooth pans and telephoto shots.No overexposing.Some shots look very nice [...] this one really stands out from all jello overexposed handheld videos.
whatever. you're obviously not listening. you're seriously amazed that somebody was able to put a d90 on a dolly? that's fine i guess, not everyone can be a rocket scientist, but i don't see how it's relevant.

[mattsand]

Believe me I understand, but I think there are plenty of filmmakers realistic about their shot at the big screen. NEVER THE LESS I was arguing a specific comment saying that shooting on anything less than Red is a waste of time and using the hope of "Big Screens" as the reason.
i know what you're saying too, but if you're aiming for the big screen surely it's not a bad idea to shoot on the best format instead of fooling yourself that the cheapest one is good enough? succesful low budget films shot on dv or similar have pretty much always used the technology to their advantage, by giving it a dirty, diy, documentary look, shooting with a light crew and so on. i think a much more common trap is to think that you can shoot anything on anything. i wouldn't advice anyone who needs "mainstream production value" for their film to shoot on an slr or hdv+adapter. if you have a great screenplay and some money and you're aiming for the big screen the best idea is probably to shoot 35mm.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Matt I not arguing any of that, LOL. Maybe I'm not making my arguments clear. Maybe I should go back to sleep and let the rest of you guys circular logic your selves till Scarlet comes out, or another Iguana video surfaces... my head hurts LOL

[mattsand]

no i get it, but i actually enjoy trying to extract whatever meaning there might be in a statement after its obvious meaning is made, um, obvious. perhaps this is what's caller discussing in circles, i don't know. :-)

i tend to use either the most expensive cameras or the cheapest on my stuff because they are the best at what are best at. the scarlet just looks almost as good as a red one and almost as convenient as an slr.

[bwwd]

whatever. you're obviously not listening. you're seriously amazed that somebody was able to put a d90 on a dolly? that's fine i guess, not everyone can be a rocket scientist, but i don't see how it's relevant.

Im not amazed like "oh WOW !!!" but i really like outcome and i see huge difference between this and 90% of other D90 footage from vimeo.Im not sure what you want to hear ,i like almost every shot from that vid and i dont think even for second that it was shot on D90.It looked clean (even if its only sd res,im not comparing codecs right now but look of takes),like something shot with new film cams or like music video not like regular d90 footage.But as i wrote earlier ,if you have something equal from D90 i really would like to see it .

[squig]

NO CAMERA IS GOING TO MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT.

bravo! I keep saying the same thing but nobody will listen to me until I pick up my awards.

[squig]

This year somebody won tropfest (worlds biggest short film festival) with a film shot on a mobile phone.

[Ian-T]

Talk about ironic. And here we all are pixel peeping and sizing up each other's camera gear.

[Boomerang]

Just drank my Muscle Milk..... so what about those big muscles I am supposed to have??

Just tools... sure the better the tool maybe the more your talents can shine.... but have to work hard and have the talent from the start....

[jamesmallonuk]

I feel Barry Green deserves some respect but I disagree completely the films he mentions are mainly documantaries (which personally I am interested in and am huge fan of James Longley) But they are the exception, compared with the thousands of fiction based movies shot on 35mm. As a side point the DVX has some film like characteristics which is precisely why it was so popular and Barry has been flogging books on how to make it look FILMIC!.

So we come again to my point, Big Budget players are using the RED, the same camera that the latest Nicolas Cage movie, the same camera Matt Damon is using for his latest, the same camera used for the latest Denzel Wasington movie. And you haven't grasped the point that you can use the same camera as them! Barry is missleading not to encourage people in this oportunity at this time. The scarlet is going to be ther same price as the average wage of two.

You know a few years ago I met this regular guy and his cousin was making a movie with money his family friends got together and he was making the soundtrack on an old apple ibook, it was called Brick, his next movie had Rachel Wise in it. That same movie could of been made today for considerably less today with a RED. I think we think real indie movie making is too far off from us. I think the guy Mattsand and guys like him have the right model which has to include some serious marketing and a buisness model like Zak Forsman. And sure they are using DSLR's but I bet they will be using a Scarlett in a year.


I think if you want to enter the movie/tv/Advertising/Music industry even if its just an editor or camerman or something, make a serious attempt at something if you think your talents are truly any good. Man why dont 5-10 of you get together for a month and make a proper Short that could open doors in the industry.

Like I said other people just want to make web videos etc so great use a DSLR. But if you deep down dream about making movies, don't crumple under fear and seize the opportunity a Scarlett will give you and save your money for it.

I fear if I come back in years time many of you will be making terrible rap videos or clips of the backyard with a DSLR but the wise will be using the Scarlett/RED for something with bigger aspirations. If this upsets anyone its susposed to so you wise up.

[bwwd]

This year somebody won tropfest (worlds biggest short film festival) with a film shot on a mobile phone.
I dont think that many of us really care (i dont)because its about the look here,we dont want our films to look like they were filmed with cellphone,we want serious expensive and professional looking film footage with depth of field ,i would never want my film to look like it was shot on cellphone,there are billions cellphone films and nobody care about them when starts to watch 2 seconds because its very visible that they were filmed with cellphone.Awards and things simply dont belong to the same discussion,its about the look not trophies.
Can we see this cellphone award winning film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d-7IFN4DKA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fanamnesis%2Dremembranceofthingsp ast%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2Feat%2Dmy%2Dshor ts%2Dtropfest%2Dwinner%2D2009%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
If this is the one then how did he get shallow dof in some takes ,as far as i remember cellphones didnt had optical zoom lens to achieve this.
I dont think it was shot on cellphone but also its not the look i would want in my film.

[Rakesh Jacob]

I feel Barry Green deserves some respect but I disagree completely the films he mentions are mainly documantaries (which personally I am interested in and am huge fan of James Longley) But they are the exception, compared with the thousands of fiction based movies shot on 35mm. As a side point the DVX has some film like characteristics which is precisely why it was so popular and Barry has been flogging books on how to make it look FILMIC!.

So we come again to my point, Big Budget players are using the RED, the same camera that the latest Nicolas Cage movie, the same camera Matt Damon is using for his latest, the same camera used for the latest Denzel Wasington movie. And you haven't grasped the point that you can use the same camera as them! Barry is missleading not to encourage people in this oportunity at this time. The scarlet is going to be ther same price as the average wage of two.

You know a few years ago I met this regular guy and his cousin was making a movie with money his family friends got together and he was making the soundtrack on an old apple ibook, it was called Brick, his next movie had Rachel Wise in it. That same movie could of been made today for considerably less today with a RED. I think we think real indie movie making is too far off from us. I think the guy Mattsand and guys like him have the right model which has to include some serious marketing and a buisness model like Zak Forsman. And sure they are using DSLR's but I bet they will be using a Scarlett in a year.


I think if you want to enter the movie/tv/Advertising/Music industry even if its just an editor or camerman or something, make a serious attempt at something if you think your talents are truly any good. Man why dont 5-10 of you get together for a month and make a proper Short that could open doors in the industry.

Like I said other people just want to make web videos etc so great use a DSLR. But if you deep down dream about making movies, don't crumple under fear and seize the opportunity a Scarlett will give you and save your money for it.

I fear if I come back in years time many of you will be making terrible rap videos or clips of the backyard with a DSLR but the wise will be using the Scarlett/RED for something with bigger aspirations. If this upsets anyone its susposed to so you wise up.



ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
Jannard is that you?

DUDE WTF DO YOU THINK 35mm FILM GUYS WERE SAYING TO RED USERS WHEN THE RED FIRST CAME OUT? Gear snobbery is one thing, but you are bordering or douchebaggery!
How freaking many total crap RED video clips are there for every 1decent Red clip? Come on man there's just as much sh**y Red stuff out there by people that don't know what they are doing as anything else. RARELY, RARELY, RARELY does a totally indie production make it through final distribution to the mainstream studio outlets AS IS. People who are shooting for the major studios on RED made it in cause of thier skills and thier creativity not the gear they use. People that make terrible rap videos on a 5D will make terrible rap videos with a RED1, or do you not understand that?

[jamesmallonuk]

People that make terrible rap videos on a 5D will make terrible rap videos with a RED1, or do you not understand that?

Yes I do. But YOU guys can make great (professional) looking Rap videos on a cheap Scarlett right?

[Rakesh Jacob]

Yes I do. But YOU guys can make great (professional) looking Rap videos on a cheap Scarlett right?

ACTUALLY NO!!!! Find me a Scarlet I can shoot a video on LOL

[Pirata]

ACTUALLY NO!!!! Find me a Scarlet I can shoot a video on LOL

LOL, the truth stick hurts.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Look JamesMallonuk, there is no one way a person "makes it." Hell there is no one way to define what "making it" means. And certainly there is not one camera that rules them all. This is not Lord of the Films. From my experience in the music industry it was about networking and persistance. If you are acutally talented, well hell that's a bonus :)
Entertainment is subjective, some of the craziest crap gets picked up and some of the most wonderfully brilliant stuff gets boned...hard! I'm not really sure what you're angle is, I'm just speaking for the guys that wanna be empowred to do their own thing, to do it on their time line, on their terms. Those are the true artists in my book. And I don't care if they use 35mm, RED1, 7D, GH1, iPhone 3gs, Scarlett, Charolett or Harlot, they have a path they have to walk and decisions they have to live with, and VERY FEW of us will "make it" in the stereotypical mainstream sense of the word but WE DON'T REALLY GIVE A F--- as long as we get to do what we do!

[xbourque]

jamesmallonuk:

I agree with the gist of your idea, being that the current crop of DSLRs are crippled and limited in some areas, and that we (low budget indie folks) should all aspire to something better technically... less jello, less aliasing, better codec, proper audio, etc...

You sound like your money is on Scarlet. My money is on future DSLRs/Camcorders from the usual suspects. Both being hypothetical unreleased future cameras. :-)

Even *if* (and that's a HUGE if) Canon/Panny/Sony/Nikon haven't gotten the memo yet that we want affordable, large sensor, photo lens compatible, high quality camcorders. And *if* Scarlet becomes a huge hit. How long until the big 4 react? 6 months? 9 months? They already have all the tech right there on the table. How long do you think it's gonna take them to figure out how to write 24 sRAW per second on a compact flash card?

-X

[Jim Klatt]

i'm just speaking for the guys that wanna be empowred to do their own thing, to do it on their time line, on their terms. Those are the true artists in my book. And i don't care if they use 35mm, red1, 7d, gh1, iphone 3gs, scarlett, charolett or harlot, they have a path they have to walk and decisions they have to live with, and very few of us will "make it" in the stereotypical mainstream sense of the word but we don't really give a f--- as long as we get to do what we do!

+1

[mico]

Look JamesMallonuk, there is no one way a person "makes it." Hell there is no one way to define what "making it" means. And certainly there is not one camera that rules them all. This is not Lord of the Films. From my experience in the music industry it was about networking and persistance. If you are acutally talented, well hell that's a bonus :)
Entertainment is subjective, some of the craziest crap gets picked up and some of the most wonderfully brilliant stuff gets boned...hard! I'm not really sure what you're angle is, I'm just speaking for the guys that wanna be empowred to do their own thing, to do it on their time line, on their terms. Those are the true artists in my book. And I don't care if they use 35mm, RED1, 7D, GH1, iPhone 3gs, Scarlett, Charolett or Harlot, they have a path they have to walk and decisions they have to live with, and VERY FEW of us will "make it" in the stereotypical mainstream sense of the word but WE DON'T REALLY GIVE A F--- as long as we get to do what we do!

So f---g perfect.

[Taylor Rudd]

You guys are funny.

Go out and shoot :thumbup:

[david_p]

the stealth factor and portability both make slr's really well suited for the shooting style we used on my feature fuerteventura. we had the option to shoot on the red one or 16mm but chose the d90 for those reasons. it was a major pain with the lack of manual control, but i'm happy with the results. we've blown up the trailer to 35mm to see if the pretty soft quality would hold up for mainstream theatrical distribution, and it definitely does both we, the post house, the distributors, and the test audience agreed. it's not 4k or even real hd but sharper than sd, which many mainstream movies were actually shot in, and the 35mm dof helps making it cinematic too. check it out:

http://vimeo.com/4293535 (pass: luifer)

/m

impressive for the D90. very impressive on all other elements of this piece of work!

david
www.davidprobst.com

[jamesmallonuk]

So f---g perfect.


Can I get permission now to say I told you so later when you are desperately selling everything you own including the 7D on Ebay to buy a Scarlett before this Christmas?

So f...g missing the point I'm making.



ps I look forward to seeing your next iphone movie....maybe.

[Jean Dantes]

RED blows if you put a shit lens on it. And if you want the best out of RED, you have to put a whole lot of money on renting (even more if you wanna buy) true filmmaking prime-lenses.

Scarlett will be using a 2/3 sensor, just like the Thomson Viper that Mann uses. The difference is, Mann has got the best lenses available for filmmaking on his 2/3 camera, with Dion Bebe sitting behind the camera to take advantage of them.

Most indie filmmakers that hang out on forums like this are more Cinematographers at heart then Directors or Writers I believe. Most of the indie Directors I know don't know shit about camera technologies, and are still using SD miniDV to tell their stories.

jamesmallonuk, I can see the point you're trying to make. However, when it comes to cameras that are powerful in regards to photographic capabilities (GH1, 5D, 7D, Scarlett), the image they will create will be decided by the operator, not the camera. And in regards to filmmaking in general (even music-videos to some degree): STORY IS KING. Will always be King.

RED is cool, but too exspensive for people I consider to be "true" indie filmmakers.

[Taylor Rudd]

Can I get permission now to say I told you so later when you are desperately selling everything you own including the 7D on Ebay to buy a Scarlett before this Christmas?

So f...g missing the point I'm making.



ps I look forward to seeing your next iphone movie....maybe.

It's probably better that I just invest time elsewhere, but why is this so important to you? Why is everything you talk about promoting a camera that does not exist today? I'm trying to understand your agenda, and why you are taking this so personally.

Will the Scarlett be better than the 7D? Hopefully. And when it's released, the community will react appropriately. Until then, we are going to do what we do with what have (or have on pre-order).

A camera is not going to be the catalyst of your career, unless you're going into rentals and have a short-term business model.

[Rakesh Jacob]

I'm telling you it's Jannard and OMG I think he just confirmed a Scarlet release date!!!!!! :love4:

[mico]

Can I get permission now to say I told you so later when you are desperately selling everything you own including the 7D on Ebay to buy a Scarlett before this Christmas?

So f...g missing the point I'm making.



ps I look forward to seeing your next iphone movie....maybe.

Actually my comment was more for Cola (for expressing the indie sate of mind better than i've read in a long time) and not against anything you said.

Funny thing is I have just sold my RED camera. Truth. Made money shooting and renting and then decided I didn't enjoy working with the camera . So I sold it for a significant profit .

Did a shoot with my EX1 last week and got paid the same that I did for RED. And everyone was happy with the quality and the easier workflow. I should let you read the emails the company sent. I've also done several shoots with the 5D. No complaints.

Now I've just got a EX1, a 5D, 2 canon HF11's,( because I like what they do) a 7D coming and an iphone too. I will keep them all for a long while becasue I like what they all do and their ease of use that even the 7D can't replace. When I feel I want a different camera I will sell them off for one that I like whether it be a scarlet or a point and shoot. The way I feel, Its my choice not some one else's idea of what a quality image is.

[sblfilms]

The Scarlet 2/3" will not compare favorably to the 7D for what I shoot, and at a price more than double what I'm paying for the 7D and that doesn't even include new lenses that I would need to purchase to accommodate the tiny 2/3" sensor.

The S35 brain is much more interesting, but at $7k before any of the other **** needed to put it to use even, I can buy a 7D and a whole slew of nice Canon glass and STILL not come close to the price.

So I can go out right now and use cash in my bank account to order a 7D and start shooting and making back my investment in a month or two....or I can get a loan for a Scarlett S35 rig...well, whenever it ships (late 2010 is my guess), and take a year or more to pay it off.

[mico]

Red is going to IBC with an Epic. No scarlets to be seen there because I think the scarlets are being rethought and no one knows if the 2/3 size will still be there. We might be all surprised with what they come up with and the price it will cost. Since it doesn't exist theres no reason to compare it favorably or not to anything.

[Nik Manning]

Hmmm well let's give this some thought. What if Red decided to not make scarlets? It seems as if the target was to always be better than the big boys. They don't really need the prosumer crowd to be profitable.

Why not just make epics?
They could just bring the epic price down to about $10k and go up to $30k. This would seem to be the smarter move. Why even compete in the prosumer market?

[John Caballero]

Can I get permission now to say I told you so later when you are desperately selling everything you own including the 7D on Ebay to buy a Scarlett before this Christmas?

Sorry but it ain't gonna happen. There won't be a Scarlet on anybody's hand by Christmas. Mark my words. Probably next year sometime but NOT IN 2009. There is no magic involved in creating a camera from scratch, especially from a company with a limited track record. I would love to get a Scarlet tomorrow if it was available but reality tells me not to wait for it this year. To deliver the anticipated level of quality in such a small package is going to take a mighty amount of work. As for the VDSLRs, as soon as they become more sophisticated on the video department, with all the bells and whistles,including RAW capture, then everybody and their brother will want to shoot with one. Including big productions. Mark my words on that one too. It must be a little sad not to understand trends and the change new technologies have brought into our business and will bring for years to come. I know is hard for some people to accept change but is happening at a furious pace here. All you have to remember is how a few years back professional photographers said that digital photography would never replace traditional film. And we all know what happened with that one.

BTW: Video on the new DSLRs never happened by accident. All the big companies started their video and still programs with point and shoot digital cameras a long time ago. It just evolve naturally into bigger sensor cameras. There are a lot of hurdles for video on these cameras that are now being fixed. The big Japanese camera companies don't do anything by accident. They know how to plan and deliver, improve and then deliver again better.

[Ian-T]

I'm telling you it's Jannard and OMG I think he just confirmed a Scarlet release date!!!!!! :love4:Ha ha....the more you say it, the more it's starting to ring true.

[Barry_Green]

Big Budget players are using the RED
And the F950 and the F35 and the F23 and the VariCam and ... oh, yeah, 35mm film...


Barry is missleading not to encourage people in this oportunity at this time.
Are you serious? Misleading?

Okay, here's the big question to answer yourself: what PERCENTAGE of those films' budgets goes to the camera? And, once you answer that, then decide whether using the same camera as them is going to result in the same look as them. Where did all the rest of that money go? Hmmm... maybe there's something more to the "filmic" look than buying a DSLR?

We've heard this "the playing field is now level, the revolution is here" kind of talk for decades. It started with 16mm film, around 1940-something. The cheap alternative to 35mm. Then we heard about it with 8mm and, most especially, with Super8 film. (Back in 1980, all I wanted was a Chinon Pacific 200/8XL Super8 movie camera... man, if I just had that, I'd be a "real" filmmaker. Sound familiar?) Then it was all about video, when video first started (all Robert Rodriguez' short films were shot on VHS.) Then, oh, the big one, 1997, with DV, how component digital video was now going to be the ultimate revolutionizer, now the means of production were in the end user's hands, now you could edit on a desktop computer with a cheap firewire card, THE REVOLUTION IS HERE! Yay! Except... I guess we need more "revolution" because in 2002 when the DVX came out, that was the big revolutionizer and the final nail in the coffin of why anyone couldn't succeed. But, wait, in 2003 it was the JVC GH-HD1 camera... now the consumer had HD! Surely the gates of Hollywood were going to fal..l. Then in 2005 we got 24p HD, with the HD100 and the HVX200, and with the HVX we also got 4:2:2 color sampling and slow motion! So now, the revolution is secure, who needs anything more? Ah, but in 2006 the real revolution arrived, because we got the Redrock M2 and other lens adapters... surely that was all anyone needed to make their opus! The revolution is finally complete! Oh, but wait -- in 2007 we got the Red One. NOW the revolution is here, now we can get started. Oh, I guess not, because in 2008 we got the full-raster EX1 with half-inch chips! Yay! Revolution! Er... but we also got the D90 and the EOS 5D Mark II -- so NOW the revolution is here. Who can deny it? NOW we can make something filmic, right? Except, of course, that it wasn't the real revolution, because in 2009 we got the GH1 and (soon) the 7D, with true 1080/24p at unheard of price points. So Now can we have our revolution? Please? Or will it all be thrown out in six months when the Scarlet comes out -- will that be the real revolution? Or what about the oft-rumored Canon XL-H2... surely that will be the revolution? Can I make filmlooking stuff on that?

The fact is, you could have made film-looking stuff on that 1940's-era 16mm Filmo. I know, because I've got one, and I've done it.

Look long and hard in the mirror, folks. It ain't the lack of equipment that's holding anyone back.

Jack and I got a film in Slamdance this year, shot on a 3-year-old HVX200. And last year James Longley got 2 academy award nominations shot on a seven-year-old DVX100, and Chris Kentis got a theatrical release with "Open Water" shot on a VX2000. Maybe we all should have waited for the 7D or the Scarlet?

Keep waiting if you want, keep looking for that "revolution". Boy, sure would have been nice if this revolution had been around when Rodriguez was shooting, maybe he could have availed himself of this great technology to shoot "El Mariachi" on.

Point is, the tools that are available today are WAY BETTER than they've ever been before, and they are WAY more than good enough. An EX3 or HPX300 can make footage that looks close enough to an F900, the camera Lucas shot Star Wars Episode II on, and you can buy 'em outright for $8,000. A GH1 can make footage that could fool people that it was shot on a Red One... for $1500. If you can't do something amazing and cinema-like with today's equipment, IT IS NOT THE EQUIPMENT'S FAULT.

The revolution is here. It's been here for sixty years. And it'll be here again and again and again.

[Barry_Green]

Go out and shoot :thumbup:
And Taylor says everything important I said, in four words...

[Rakesh Jacob]

Wow that was like the famous Charlie Chaplin speach!!!!


Viva La Revolucion-ssss

[NoxNoctus]

Well said, Barry! Pixel Peeping is only fun for so long, shooting's more fun and productive. I fully hope this forum to be empty by October 9th, and the User Films section to blossom forth

[Taylor Rudd]

It's easy for all of us to get caught up in cutting edge technology, and even easier to forget that technology is always cutting edge and will always be better tomorrow.

Thanks, Barry.

[cjwolff]

So I challenge anyone to post DSLR work that can convince were are watching a movie. Here's a clip form the RED to get the ball rolling its by far the best I've seen but it furthurs my point. And yes lighting etc makes the difference but lets have some DSLR footage that is as convincing.

http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/La%20Premiere/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xWolgfF0XI&fmt=22

The live action sequences from this film were all shot on a 5d. Check.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/47696/1252303316.jpg

[ChipG]

LOL :) great previous post Barry!

Measurebators are concerned with pixels, the audience is concerned with content, too many people lose sight of that.

EDIT: If indies want to be measurebators I think they should start looking at audio, I'd enjoy an indie feature shot with great audio gear (schoeps) and a dvx100 more than I would a Red and crappy audio.

[John Caballero]

Barry Green, that was an awesome post! Right on target.

[jamesmallonuk]

Some people just can't be helped I guess. Go buy the 7D.






...............And the wise wait a few months you'll thank me later.:smile:

[Michael Olsen]

I want a RED. Badly. But when faced with the ability to purchase a surprisingly inexpensive and seemingly versatile product in the present or to wait for a product of unknown specifications to be released at an indeterminable time at an inconceivable cost, I feel strongly compelled to act in the present. It seems very likely that in the time that I could have been waiting, I will have not only paid off the purchase of the interim camera, but will have made money. The extra capital may very well put me in range of the S35 instead of the 2/3".

I understand that my situation is somewhat unique and that many others already have the equipment they need to shoot, but at the same time there seem to be quite a number of first-time buyers looking at the 7D. Perhaps I'm not quite so alone.

[NoxNoctus]

I love the finality surrounding the camera decision...haha. It's a $1700 camera that will hold its resale value for a long long time. Buy it now, if some mythical beast happens to appear out of thin air in the next few months, and said mythical beast happens to be worth the price over the $1700 camera, sell it back off for $1600. It's not complicated. I'd rather make films now than keep putting off for better and better gear.
Or just hold on to it. It's only $1700. It's half the price of a RED viewfinder.

[Richard Sutcliffe]

without a doubt Barry, one of the best pieces of writing I have had the pleasure to read. That post should be compulsory reading anywhere cameras are sold, discussed, written about, bitched about and (god forbid) used.

[ydgmdlu]

Some people just can't be helped I guess. Go buy the 7D.

...............And the wise wait a few months you'll thank me later.:smile:
I don't mean to sound harsh, but I have a feeling that nobody here is going to thank you. Your condescending attitude isn't very nice. As has been stated a number of times in this and other threads and forums, if you buy what's on the market now, or use what you already have, then you can make movies and money in the interim, instead of wasting time just waiting.

The people who are buying the DSLRs now do so for a variety of reasons, and to dismiss all of those reasons and presume that everyone does or should think like you do is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting. The most basic reason why anybody changes cameras is because something new on the market fits his/her needs far better than what he/she already has. Some people are "upgrading" from small-chip, fixed-lens rigs. Some people are looking to save money and increase rig usability by switching from DOF adapter systems. And some people can't afford what RED's promising/offering but would like to be able produce casually comparable output. What do these people gain from not buying right now and instead waiting an indeterminate number of months for the Scarlet?

You know, to be perfectly fair, not even RED footage looks just like film. It looks GREAT, but it's not film. Only film can look just like film. Digital cinematography will always approach the look of film but will probably never get there. DSLR footage can approximate the look of RED, so the question is, who besides you is fussy enough to claim that none of it looks "cinematic"?

And I say all of that as a RED fan who plans to buy a Scarlet ASAP and who currently has a 7D and a GH1 on the way.

[Zak Forsman]

I just deleted the last two posts. don't get personal. don't use offensive slurs. don't post in this thread unless you've got something of substance to contribute. :)

"Be excellent to each other!"

http://www.lousycanuck.ca/wp-content/uploads/billandted460.jpg

[griffin86]

Short Letter to the OP:
My name is Elijah Griffin- Long time lurker but a fan of this community here at DVXUser and the other extremely informative forums out there. I make a living and I have paid the majority of my undergrad ed working as an audio engineer and as a filmmaker. I have tracked several Grammy Nominated R&B and Pop artists and I have done a slew of work on filmsets for several years...

I am extremely young compared to a lot of my professional peers in our fields but never once has any single good quality microphone affect whether or not a vocalist would complete his/her song.
Never have I seen a DP or camera op blink about doing a lesser job provided they have any of their preferred tools.
Never has there been a true photographer that couldn't take a wonderful shot shot because they didn't have some snazzy cutting edge tech.
It has never been the paintbrush or the canvas that made the art one sees in a museum.
It is completely irrelevant what a sculptor uses to sculpt- If s/he is a true artist with talent tenacity, skill and diligence then they will still create something worth beyond its salt.
Get where this is going?

Barry has indicated numerous award winning films and projects shot with everything under the sun. I've recorded on everything between 2" analog tape on big $1 million + consoles in some of the finest studios around and also on systems with a hand built pc and a $300 protools Mbox. I've seen records from both ends of the spectrum go from scratch because that was all I had to use- %90 of these records are from people who have landed deals or already are on major labels and do very well. Not a single person after the records were released have ever approached me regarding the quality of tools necessary on any of them...

Talent is innate. Most people will want to make a film or do something at any given point in their lives. Just because one does something doesn't equate to them being "good" or they have the aesthetic sensibility and business wit to make a living- to most people all that won't even matter! The 7d is a wonderful camera, and all the hard work that is put in to all the others which the designers, architects, and engineers never are thanked for happen to also be equally good in their own way.
Let's remind ourselves that these are merely tools. If my plumber told me he couldn't plumb (lol) because he didn't have the newest wrench or whatever then he'd be outta here in a second- but any plumber half worth his salt knows it's he who is the plumber, not the tools.

A performer, recording engineer, producer, mixing and mastering engineers make a record- not just all the fancy mics, guitars, boards, whatever- a good record can nearly be made on anything created to do the job.

No need to say all that is required to make a watchable film is a vision and the tenacity required to make it- the tools all will merely be things that the filmmaker/artist will use interchangebly to realize what s/he is thinking- you will never need anything other than a brain to think/have a vision.

Much love to and yours but I leave saying that every single pro I know will choose a different tool or set thereof if given the same job- just because they can and it's not necessary to use only protools to record or 2" tape or Logic or whatever. It's not necessary to cut your film on avid or FCP if you love premiere. If you or anyone is an artist worth your salt then take whatever quality tools you have access to and make something. In the end all that matters is what you can see. Your audiences will hardly ever give you technical commentary but they will tell you if it sucked because thats the only thing that matters to a large degree.

Onto the Scarlet issue- no offense but a wiseman once said to me "don't place a bet outside the casino..." I literally said "wtf- that doesn't make sense... but I'll humor you so why such a statement?" he replied-"there are no tables..." The scarlet is a wonderful spec/measurbation piece but there are artists both neophyte and veteran that need to create freely- making films from a short to a full on feature is like gambling your time, money and life energy away... I don't think anyone wants to flush any of that on something that isn't here yet.

Even for those who would still say wait- why not simply have them both? I have 11 guitars in my house, 5 are mine and the remainder are either from friends or family; some are "better" than others but that is truly subjective as i can probably make a pleasing record with any of them and I can give them to any good recording artist to do the same. Please don't get so hung on "what the big deal is!?" and enjoy the fact that now there is a greater possibility that a guy or girl like you or me now has a little more potential to access to something similar to an experience that was truly only a privilege of the elite. According to moore's law, this arguement will be null and void when in ten years or so some enlightened manufacturer brings 4:4:4 Rec709 2k to a sub $1500 cam that has the worlds worst ergonomics...lol or maybe sooner like in january when one of these big manufacturers announce their "next big cam" at a lower price point with more features from their $100k cams and their is another forum where another version of this same "footage will suck from xxx cam vs xxx cam" discussion will show its head.

cameras have never made movies- its the people behind them and on the screen;-)

end rant
now let's make more films!

[Alan Bradley]

That's Captain Ahab, dude.
You rock, Zak!

[bwwd]

Wow so why in hollywood they dont make films on cellphones if this philosophy is so right,why all those expensive cameras and expensive films if you can do it with your cellphone having the same script and crew ?
Imagine Iron Man 3 shot on Jon Favreau cellphone.
I dont buy this philosophy cause if i see certain look of the film after watching 5 seconds then i know that its film or just regular video and then i know that its serious production or amateur video.
Blair witch project was sucessfull but i didnt watched it to the end cause acting looked fake and i hated picture,prefered to watch transporter instead and i was happy again.I like how films look,im tired of watching regular video.

[filmmaker's gang]

if someone can explain me why an innocent post #50 was swapped by this one:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1736762&postcount=50

we are fine..

btw the comment included a quote to the post #49:


You should post more. I'm keeping my DVX100b longer now!!outline: that's the idea.. upgrade to hvx if you didn't yet.. hey me wrote upgrade? :D

why??.. because of that smiley in the end?

[griffin86]

Wow so why in hollywood they dont make films on cellphones if this philosophy is so right,why all those expensive cameras and expensive films if you can do it with your cellphone having the same script and crew ?
Imagine Iron Man 3 shot on Jon Favreau cellphone.
I dont buy this philosophy cause if i see certain look of the film after watching 5 seconds then i know that its film or just regular video and then i know that its serious production or amateur video.
Blair witch project was sucessfull but i didnt watched it to the end cause acting looked fake and i hated picture,prefered to watch transporter instead and i was happy again.I like how films look,im tired of watching regular video.

I think you missed my point- it is the artist not the tools that make the film.

There is kind of no real necessity to change their proprietary format in hollywood if it isn't broken or their is no superior replacement that is as consistent so they pretty much stick to 35mm and dip a little into the higher end digital cinema acquisition formats because they can afford to sink $150 mil into a picture shot on that or a viper and the like; as well as they have facilities out of the wazoo to accommodate those requirements- Not a single one of us even with the $150 mil cash on hand would do it easily because it's a lot more than just the money on that end to bring a big production like that to life on that scale- it's more than just filmmaking on the major studio level, unfortunately they are massive engines that propel films as their bread and butter industry.

Moot point being is that Matthew Libatique (DP for Iron Man 1+2) would probably choose anything to shoot it on that would meet the standard required for the films release- horses for courses... and a cellphone camera would be silly for the job as it'd be like bringing a Prius to the Indy 500.

Robert Downey Jr. sure as hell would appear to be amazing as an on camera talent even if shot on 8mm and projected via zeotrope because he is just that good at what he does... If you as an artist can afford the big boys toys then more power to you but snobbery will not help anyone get further in their craft but harnessing/creating more within your field is what makes someone better. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell whether or not something looks good but there are lots of clips shot on all types of lower end gear that have made it to places beyond the scope of the gear itself. No one can make the call whether some oddball iphone vid will be the next youtube or sundance megasmash but if there is a vid that does why should that change the fact that you can still shoot on something higher end if you had access: two way street there it seems.

Better tools help but like you said the Blair Witch project did suck but it was a cult hit for the time being, it is by no means an end-all be all (and that is a subjective opinion). Any person who makes a living in the industry will let you know that money made doesn't constitute good art/work directly; and an artist/technician must outlive these "hit and run" fads... If something is really well done then the cream will rise to the top, point blank... How it's done will always differ;-)

[Green Hornet]

Any producer or distributor will want to know the budget.
That is where it all starts.
If it were shot on low end gear, the budget would reflect that, as would distribution.

The only way around that is if you pulled off something big at a film festival.

[Loki]

This is the asinine part of the whole premise. How many films actually get theatrical distribution? EVEN THE ONES SHOT ON FILM!!!! If anyone, as an up and coming filmmaker, is self-deluded enough to work under this premise... I don't know what to say, it's ridiculous and obtuse.

You need distribution too have your work screened at film festivals..? news to me..

just saying there are other ways to show your work on a large screen..

[Rakesh Jacob]

You need distribution too have your work screened at film festivals..? news to me..

just saying there are other ways to show your work on a large screen..
Yep and I addressed that thnx for playing

[ChipG]

For small indie films under $200k these cams are more than fine. I would rather use a 7D (with some really nice glass) and save the $30k a Red cost and put the extra money on the screen knowing it would be for dvd dist. That's just me though, the audience would notice the extra $30k on the screen more than they would the difference between a 7D and a Red (for dvd dist).

[jamesmallonuk]

The arguments that are made for not buying the 7D and saving the money for a Scarlett are flawed. What the Scarlett is, isn't a small step in technology but the first time in the history of cinema I would argue that a camera that truely you can say is the same image and technology that the mainstreem Movie Industry use in Multimillion pound Production. Its being offered for the equivalent of half a cheap car.

This arguement about tools and the artist being the most important I 100% percent agree with. My point is seperate. Look, a few years ago the revolution sterted with digital cinema with mainstream Movies being shot by Viper cameras etc, They were way out of the league of the average no budget indie-fimaker, even the Red is a bit pricey. So here we are after 100 years plus of cinema history at this point and the argument that we are making a small incremental step in technology 'availibility' is not the case, trying to relate to the step from even say SD to HD is in my honest opinion way off, they were just steps up this major point in time.

Now I do think the DSLR's are a big step but I believe they are not the huge step (3k,4k,close to film dynamic range) RED is offering properly to filmakers, and my whole reason for starting this thread is to compare footage to clarify the point that maybe you guys deserve better than just good video, but a fully equiped mini movie making camera in similar form and price, don't forget the fixed lens Scarlett will be around 4,000 dollars, less than a 5D.

I like to think to think as this thread has been read by thousands of people, that there are some readers now think yeah he's right I think I will wait for the Scarlett. Only those who are fueled to negate an arguement are posting. At least it would be useful to see my point and admit it 'might' be better for some people to prepare for the Scarlett and practice the workflow etc.

Please if you disagree with my argument I would like to hear it. But don't disagree with what I'm not saying.

I was last night looking at some original footage form RED One and amazed at the detail and filmlike characteristics, with a flat image perfect for grading any way you want, then I looked at some 5D and 7D original files form Vimeo and I just thought great video, but contrasty HD video all the same. If we have original files shown properly I personally think we wouldn't waste our time in this conversation quite honestly and no Youtube clip is going to clarify the difference I am trying to work out for myself and clarify to you guys.IMHO.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Well James I appreciate you restating your argument in a much less condecending tone, whether you ment it that way or not is another argument, but obviously it was easily interpreted that way. And to be honest, WE the collective indie-filmmakers have BEEN WAITING on Scarlet. Had this come out anywhere close to the planned date(s) we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. Asking us to save up for something that has been proven to NOT be faithful to a release date, NOT be commited to any date, past, present or future BY COMPANY POLICY is unapreciable at this point in time. I hope the Scarlet comes out, but I also hope I win the lotto, get a magic pill that makes me thinner, taller and unbelieveably charismatic and if I could have one more wish... ok feed the all the hungry people...
At the moment I personally have no interest in waiting on anything when the 7D, GH1 and 5Dmkii are soooo damn close to the image quailty we have been striving for with 1/3'' 3ccd and lens adapters (actually surpassed).
When the Scarlet comes out I will happily find a way to buy one if it is what it's supposed to be.

I buy gear to make movies, I don't make movies to buy gear (although sometimes it may feel that way)

[griffin86]

ditto Johnny Cola

James:
when the scarlett comes out then I've got the cash ready to go(actually a swipe of the ol' visa) but first I'll get my 7d a lil after it comes out and I think you have a point which I also sorta hit on- The tech is rapidly approaching a place now where before it was merely an elite experience to produce a film with true 35mm dof, 444 colorspace, 24p with real 180º shutter capability to get the frame cadence right and all that candy. However the 5d, 7d, and gh1 are here today and the 7d with ship en mass soon whereas we are yet to get any real hard delivery on the scarlett- none of us here can shoot our projects on what is essential vaporware but on something that is here and now readily available. I don't think anyone is arguing that scarlett won't be great and exceed these HDSLRs as it will be a proper modular camcorder, we are kinda arguing for scarlett to hurry up and come on out!

We already have to labor day and night in life to make our precious films- why introduce another degree of uncertainty to our world when we have to deal with a world of it ourselves from the start of a film?

Once scarlett is here then it'd still be a different discussion btw as the package will definitely put itself in a slightly different price tier for the camera and then other expenditures may be required to accommodate the 3k RAW footage- apples to oranges it becomes at that point I believe.

[Michael Olsen]

The arguments that are made for not buying the 7D and saving the money for a Scarlett are flawed. What the Scarlett is, isn't a small step in technology but the first time in the history of cinema I would argue that a camera that truely you can say is the same image and technology that the mainstreem Movie Industry use in Multimillion pound Production. Its being offered for the equivalent of half a cheap car.

To some extent I find this true, but also realize that it has its holes. The same "image and technology" used by the "mainstream Movie Industry" at this time is, by and large...film. It is certainly changing, and RED has definitely made big pushes in that direction. It is, however, definitely not the industry standard.

Keep in mind that shooting with a Scarlet (or RED ONE) carries with it the burden of a continually evolving workflow and post-process that, again, is far from industry standard (currently). This, in my opinion, is the greatest barrier of entry to shooting RED.

To be more specific to digital acquisition, RED ONE and RED Scarlet do/will offer a lower cost entry point to the "industry standard". But the industry standard is not always best when there isn't a million pound budget. As an analogy: Having a Formula One car would be a real thrill, and it would undoubtedly perform extremely well. I, however, lack both the understanding and the finances to properly maintain the vehicle. I don't have a track to drive it on, and I haven't the skills to really use the majority of its power. Really, its no better than a decent coupe - it just costs more and I can brag about owning it.

For small independent producers, having the industry standard camera may become a hindrance as more money is diverted into the industry standard elements one is obligated to use in order to really make use of it - storage, lenses, monitoring, workstations, editing suites, etc.


This arguement about tools and the artist being the most important I 100% percent agree with. My point is seperate. Look, a few years ago the revolution sterted with digital cinema with mainstream Movies being shot by Viper cameras etc, They were way out of the league of the average no budget indie-fimaker, even the Red is a bit pricey. So here we are after 100 years plus of cinema history at this point and the argument that we are making a small incremental step in technology 'availibility' is not the case, trying to relate to the step from even say SD to HD is in my honest opinion way off, they were just steps up this major point in time.

If I understand what you are saying here, I am inclined to agree: there is a whole lot that seems like it will change in a relatively short span of time.


Now I do think the DSLR's are a big step but I believe they are not the huge step (3k,4k,close to film dynamic range) RED is offering properly to filmakers, and my whole reason for starting this thread is to compare footage to clarify the point that maybe you guys deserve better than just good video, but a fully equiped mini movie making camera in similar form and price, don't forget the fixed lens Scarlett will be around 4,000 dollars, less than a 5D.

There are a number of costs associated with shooting RED, as illustrated before, that haven't been realized here. For example...

Storing data is significantly more expensive than a 5D - $500 for a 16GB RED CF card or $900 for the 640GB RED RAID. When shooting 5D/7D/GH-1/etc. one need not spend more than that for all of their storage.

Editing has also proven difficult, with workstations that have previously been acceptable editing 720p or 1080p ProRes struggling with the large 3K/4K REDRAW files. There are definitely solutions (RED Rocket, upgrading the workstations, external post house), but these cost thousands.


I like to think to think as this thread has been read by thousands of people, that there are some readers now think yeah he's right I think I will wait for the Scarlett. Only those who are fueled to negate an arguement are posting. At least it would be useful to see my point and admit it 'might' be better for some people to prepare for the Scarlett and practice the workflow etc.

I definitely want a Scarlet. If RED sold them right now I would be on the pre-order list. However, I think the user-base requires some consideration. Many individuals looking into these DSLRs are looking for their first camera. By purchasing a DSLR now, learning to use it properly, and working, they will easily pay it off. Further earnings are simply profit which may go towards the purchase of the Scarlet when it becomes available. Had they simply waited, these individuals would have gained little to no experience and done nothing to enhance their financial situation.



I was last night looking at some original footage form RED One and amazed at the detail and filmlike characteristics, with a flat image perfect for grading any way you want, then I looked at some 5D and 7D original files form Vimeo and I just thought great video, but contrasty HD video all the same. If we have original files shown properly I personally think we wouldn't waste our time in this conversation quite honestly and no Youtube clip is going to clarify the difference I am trying to work out for myself and clarify to you guys.IMHO.

This is interesting to me, as well. Many people shooting RED are certainly shooting it so as to create the flat image to allow grading. After all, that's one of the many beauties of REDRAW. Users of the DSLRs, however, may not all have access to editing suites allowing them to grade and so forth, forcing them to bake in their desired contrast. Others may simply not have the time in to post all of their footage due to shooting schedules, requiring the looks to be acquired mostly in camera Of course, that leads to the punchier visuals. Some of the cameras, through customizable image settings, can definitely capture fairly flat images very suitable to grading. No doubt not as suitable as a 4K REDRAW file, but very workable nonetheless.

I feel that, excepting the folks who believe that no future RED product will ever see market, the majority feel rather similarly on this issue.

That DSLRs are moving in a very interesting direction and are contributing to the overall awareness of digital as a pervasive viable means of image acquisition.
That current DSLRs offer seemingly exceptional benefits for their cost.
That current DSLRs are somewhat developmental in their nature and are all, in one way or another, affected with some form of artifact whether it be rolling shutter, time limits, moire, aliasing, codec, or framerate problems.
That current DSRLs are primarily photographic tools and lack many of the features of dedicated video equipment: XLR audio, exposure or focus aids, etc.
That RED will undoubtedly produce a great product with image quality at least on par with current DSLRs.
That the costs associated with shooting RED need to be 1) fleshed out because, lets be honest, the cameras just aren't there yet and 2) considered versus the alternative.
That, bearing all of this in mind and despite its potentially excellent capabilities, shooting RED may not be the best nor most cost-effective solution for every small-budget or independent filmmaker.


With that all said...here's hoping RED completely smashes all expectations and gives us an absolutely wicked camera. :beer:

[mico]

Everyone should by a GH1 a 7D and a 5D MKII. Shoot, have fun, then when the scarlet comes out you ebay all the cams and you've got money for the scarlet. Everyones happy.

[griffin86]

cheers to Mike Olsen- better put than I could have stated;-)

[Ryan Paige]

James convinced me. I'm going to wait until Christmas when all the cool Scarlet cameras will be available for $1,700.

[ryansheffer]

Something that I believe has been missing from this conversation.

I had a meeting with a Canon rep recently and he talked about meeting with Rodney Charters about using the 5d mark II on a new show. The rep told a story about bringing the camera to set for tests. All the rep knew was that Rodney was going to test the camera against other cameras.

The rep sets the camera up. Puts it on a tripod, follow focus and all. Looks at Rodney to see where he wants the camera. Rodney smiles and says "already ready?" Rep says, "Yeah, why?" Rodney says, "The Genesis is just pulling up." He points to the huge camera truck driving up to park.

There are definitely work arounds to shoot on DSLRs, but there have always been issues with shooting with cameras that deliver top tier quality. The main issue that has existed until VDSLR cinematography has been the size of the gear.

You can shoot with these cameras anywhere. Sure, your main shots will still have the standard gear related to any film set worth its salt, but things like B unit footage has never been using. Stunt footage - never easier.

[Kholi]

Ryan, you're right. Those issues, however, aren't really issues and keep a lot of people employed. As well, this industry as enormous as it is.

The good thing is that the top tier will probably always use the best tool for the job and will have the top tier money to allow people to create or sustain life-long careers out of this. It isn't a hobby for me, I don't have a nine-to-five.

[jamesmallonuk]

Thanks Michael for explaining clearly your thoughts.


I do disagree with price though, The fixed lenses was at last check less than 4000 dollars and is ready to shot, stick a mic on it and you good to go. And people ARE editing Red footage on the new Macbooks and new Final cut which now handles RED better also my guess is a likely new imac with the new snow leopard should work great.

I also think while not an 'industry standard' as yet, its been and is being used by enough hollywood directors in big budget films to not he regarded as acceptable Industry level standard.

I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

Ps Did I mention the guy from Red who said we will 'see' if everthing goes to plan a Scarlett by late Novemeber.

[Rakesh Jacob]

I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

Ps Did I mention the guy from Red who said we will 'see' if everthing goes to plan a Scarlett by late Novemeber.

3-6 months? How are you arriving at this? And it's still not soon enough not to buy anything.

Late November? Um obviously this is prototype territory at best... right?

EDIT: You have been making unqualified statements, in other words you keep saying things about Scarlet and Red as if they were facts... so this really has me curious.
1) Do you work for Red?
2) Do you have inside sources at Red?
Since you extol unrelentingly the superiority of Red cameras and systems in a Canon forum, and champion their cause, obviously you have 1st hand experience with Red in some way
3) Where can we see something you have shot, directed or edited using Red products?

[ydgmdlu]

The fixed lenses was at last check less than 4000 dollars and is ready to shot, stick a mic on it and you good to go.
But to be fair, the fixed-lens Scarlet doesn't appeal to many users here who want or have DSLRs. The reason is precisely because the sensor is 2/3", and the lens is fixed.


I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.
And we're back into condescending territory again.

1) The contrast can be dialed-down on the 7D and 5D to create an acceptably flat image. The vast majority of DSLR videos out there right now simply weren't shot that way. It doesn't mean that the cameras are incapable.

2) Whether or not the quality of any DSLR footage is too "video-like" is a subjective evaluation. You're talking as if everyone does or should think exactly like you do. And then you go on about whether the quality of the footage is worth "wasting time" to get. Plenty of people here think the quality IS worth the time, effort, and money. Plenty of people here not only think that the quality is acceptably "film-like" but also think that it's acceptably "RED-like." Just go read the "Scarlet dreams" thread. So stop trying to speak for everyone here. I'd love to see you debate f64manray. I'd pay to see that.

3) You know what? I happen to have seen footage from the RED One that looks shockingly, distractingly "video-like." You know how that happened? It was because it wasn't shot the way that a professional film production is shot. And let's not forget that the vast majority of RED footage that you see has been properly, professionally graded, while the vast majority of DSLR footage has not. If you take any one of these DSLRs and shoot the way that film professionals shoot and grade the way that film professionals grade, then it will look almost as close to film as RED footage does.

[jamesmallonuk]

But to be fair, the fixed-lens Scarlet doesn't appeal to many users here who want or have DSLRs. The reason is precisely because the sensor is 2/3", and the lens is fixed


.......................... So stop trying to speak for everyone here.:grin:



Like I said I'm just suggesting the RED could be a better bet at this point, Not condesending just IMHO.

[jamesmallonuk]

I'm personally amused by the fact a couple of months ago I got it in the neck from posters after I tried to suggest the GH1 was flawed and we should wait for the next round of DSLR's from Nikon and Canon. My posts got moved to Cafe DVX where no-one ever read them again. Back then I hoped myself a DSLR would do the job of a scarlett, particularly Nikon.


Hands up who's signing their GH1 onto Ebay now after a 'productive' couple of months trying learn how to use it and get a decent wide lens to work with it. People were saying its footage was like RED. :huh:

[daveswan]

Um projected 2/3" fixed Scarlet is $3750 after exchange rate conversion and allowing for import duty and VAT I came up with aguess of £3000-3500.
Currently a 5DII goes for £2000 body only (Use dirt-cheap M42 lenses if you don't alreafy have Canon) and the 7D is projected at £1650 with a very likely drop.
Both these are also pretty damn good stills cameras which the 2/3" Scarlet isn't, err won't be, you'll need the s35 minimum for that at £7000 without anything but the sensor.
IF you can afford them when / if they emerge, fine but don't patronise those of us on a tight budget, trying to do the best we can with what we have / can afford.
Dave

[pveal]

Sorry to hijack this tortuous thread but i promise i will post this only once seeing as Kholi, Zak, and the big guns so to speak will probably read this: can i use my Krasnogorsk-3 17-69mm f1.9 zoom Zenit Lens on the GH1? Maybe Squig has some ideas?

I shot a short thing in Seoul which some of you guys liked and I used a curve preset that mattsand made available for my (pariah) d90 which allowed me in my limited capacity (oh i'm so humble) to process some pretty un-videofied looking stuff. I was using a pd170 for four years so maybe I think my stuff is more filmic than i should, But it don't look like video to me, just bad low bit rate mjpeg compressed D90 footage, mutton dressed as lamb via magic bullet, but not video video. cheers, on with the show

[Barry_Green]

Ooh, interesting... well... hmm. Is your K-3 an M42 mount? Most of them are, but a few were Bayonet mount. If it's bayonet mount, I find it doubtful that you'll find a mount converter. But if it is an M42 mount, then you should be able to get an M42->M4/3 lens adapter. It might fit; it's been a while since I had a K-3 so I don't remember what the back of the lens looks like, I think it protrudes pretty deep past the mount, but there should be lots of cavernous space in the GH1 with an M42 mount, so... it might fit.

But, how usable will it be? Probably will wok as a 2:1 zoom, from 35mm to 69mm, but I don't know how much of the wider range you'll be able to use.

[pveal]

thanks Sir Barry Green, it's an M42 mount. The wider range will be compromised by the size of the Gh1 sensor; that the lens is designed for 16mm filmcamera? Can get my hands on a mount and will test maybe next week and will post the results in the d90 forum. The wider range is desirable but...oh well. Going to shoot a river between china and north korea where women try to cross and drown so actually long range is need in these circumstances. Barry thanks for your reply and your previous inspiring post. Woohoo! back to the 7D guys, cheers.

[jamesmallonuk]

IF you can afford them when / if they emerge, fine but don't patronise those of us on a tight budget, trying to do the best we can with what we have / can afford.
Dave

You are aware your location is West London the most expensive part of London, any house there would be 1,000,000 dollars and then some. My points were made to save money long term for poor people with a financial decision.

[Eddy Robinson]

I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

I'm not convinced. Have you looked at the Phil Bloom 'Dublin People' piece yet? That looks pretty filmic to me, even playing back full res...

Edit: OF COURSE I expect better results from the RED, and from the Scarlet when it (eventually) debuts. But the fixed lens Scarlet will be about 2x the price of the 7d, while the s35 brain (interchangeable lenses) will be about 5x. And you know what - I think it will be worth those extra dollars. I love what can be done with RED.

But as pointed out, it can also look like video. If in doubt, go see Gamer, a movie which has just opened. Shot on RED, it's a sci-fi movie about a future where socializing and shoot-em-up video games are played using real people instead of computer-generated characters (and it's considerably better than i anticipated - clever script, very imaginative visuals, superb editing). A lot of it 'looks like video' because the story calls for it to do so - indeed there are several instances where it switches between a filmic look and a video look multiple times in the same scene in order to establish different points of view. Although it's wholly deliberate here, it's not hard to imagine what could go wrong in less experienced hands.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Cool I loved Gamer, I wasn't expecting much but it turned out to be a well thought out concept!!! GO RED! But holy crap the CMOS Skew! Wow, that's the next big issue to tackle for this whole class of cameras to be honest. Seriously media has evolved into an immersive first person medium because of video games and I would love to go back to when I was just whipping my DVX around and the world didnt turn to a fun house mirror.

[Barry_Green]

thanks Sir Barry Green, it's an M42 mount. The wider range will be compromised by the size of the Gh1 sensor; that the lens is designed for 16mm filmcamera?
Yes, that lens is only designed to cover a Super16 frame size, which is about 1/3 as big as the GH1's sensor, so you can expect some serious vignetting on the wide end.


The wider range is desirable but...oh well. Going to shoot a river between china and north korea where women try to cross and drown so actually long range is need in these circumstances.
Okay, but -- do you not have the GH1's stock lens? It's both wider, and way more telephoto, than the K-3's lens... 14-140 is a way bigger range than 17-69! :)

[Eddy Robinson]

Maybe it was the sci-fi context of the film, but I completely failed to notice that while I was watching it last night. I did see a lot of strobing on some segments, but took that as a deliberate choice for the segments which were meant to have a synthetic, unnatural feel.

[Barry_Green]

Edit: OF COURSE I expect better results from the RED, and from the Scarlet when it (eventually) debuts.
Darn straight. I expect better results from any product that costs more than another product. :thumbsup:


But the fixed lens Scarlet will be about 2x the price of the 7d, while the s35 brain (interchangeable lenses) will be about 5x.
Well... again, we don't know that. That's what Red said back in December of 2008, yes, but that's really, really old info by now. We simply have no idea what the actual specs and actual configurations and actual prices will be. IINM, they had at least one announcement where they said "everything just changed completely again, all for the better" (or something like that). That's why I'm optimistic about what the actual Scarlet will be.

[jamesmallonuk]

I'm not convinced. Have you looked at the Phil Bloom 'Dublin People' piece yet? That looks pretty filmic to me, even playing back full res...


Actually it made me even more sure the 7D is a long way from Red Footage. Instead of arguments have a look at some 2K red files http://www.bealecorner.org/red/

and tell me what you think, not pixel counting just what the average viewer might think compared to seeing a 7D clip, the ungraded leaves clip shows how flat an ungraded image Red is unlike the Canon look.

[Michael Olsen]

Actually it made me even more sure the 7D is a long way from Red Footage. Instead of arguments have a look at some 2K red files http://www.bealecorner.org/red/

and tell me what you think, not pixel counting just what the average viewer might think compared to seeing a 7D clip, the ungraded leaves clip shows how flat an ungraded image Red is unlike the Canon look.

:huh:

We've got to compare things 1:1. Until we see footage from a 7D configured to produce a flat image shooting the same subject right next to a RED ONE, there's not really any certainty.

So far, unless I'm very wrong, the only footage shot by a DP on the 7D has been M. Bloom's, none of which was shot to be flat for grading later.

Of course the 7D image will be lower quality than the RED ONE. There is roughly a $15,000 difference, not even accounting for lenses, eyepieces, or storage. The RED image had better be higher quality. The question remains: what people are willing to pay the price (monetary or temporal) for RED given that other technology continues to improve. It is no longer so mind-numbingly amazing compared to the other players offerings.

[sblfilms]

My points were made to save money long term for poor people with a financial decision.


You have yet to address this point, but I'll post it again, people can go out in a month and shoot 7D work and make that money back pretty damn quick. I know as a guy who shoots weddings to pay for my gear fund my narrative work, the $1700 I spent on the 7D body will be paid back in less than 2 months time as wedding season here in Texas really heats up towards the end of the year (the only time it is at all cool!).

Why should I wait for a camera that has no announced release date, no announced specs, (because everything changed, again) and in fact doesn't even have the most important part, its ASIC, built....all when I can go out and buy a 7D and make some money in the mean time. Hell, I will probably be able to get 70 cents on the dollar a year from now if I sell.

[bwwd]

Actually it made me even more sure the 7D is a long way from Red Footage. Instead of arguments have a look at some 2K red files http://www.bealecorner.org/red/

and tell me what you think, not pixel counting just what the average viewer might think compared to seeing a 7D clip, the ungraded leaves clip shows how flat an ungraded image Red is unlike the Canon look.

+1
7D footage wasnt filmic for my eye even for 1 second,might be shutter speed "problem"

[Barry_Green]

all when I can go out and buy a 7D and make some money in the mean time. Hell, I will probably be able to get 70 cents on the dollar a year from now if I sell.
Amen.

Get what you need, and put it to work. If you want to upgrade later, sell what you've got and upgrade.

If you can't pay off a GH1 or a 7D in a couple of weeks, you're doing something *seriously* wrong.

[jamesmallonuk]

You have yet to address this point, but I'll post it again, people can go out in a month and shoot 7D work and make that money back pretty damn quick. I know as a guy who shoots weddings to pay for my gear fund my narrative work, the $1700 I spent on the 7D body will be paid back in less than 2 months time as wedding season here in Texas really heats up towards the end of the year (the only time it is at all cool!).

Why should I wait for a camera that has no announced release date, no announced specs, (because everything changed, again) and in fact doesn't even have the most important part, its ASIC, built....all when I can go out and buy a 7D and make some money in the mean time. Hell, I will probably be able to get 70 cents on the dollar a year from now if I sell.

I'm talking about the 7D's validity as a movie making tool compared to Scarlett. How you make money is non of my buisness and irrelevent to my point.

[sblfilms]

The 7D (And GH1, and D90, and 5D, and etc.) can all be used as effective tools for filmmaking in the time between now and whenever something better comes along. People can wait for the Scarlet to ship, and then people like you would say "Why bother with a 2/3" Scarlet when Christmas 2010 you can have an S35 Scarlet" then Christmas 2010 rolls around and you would be saying "Hey stupid, don't bother with a 12bit sensor like that, a real filmmaker would wait until the 16bit monstro sensor is available".

People can wait and wait and wait until the perfect tool is available, or they can go out and buy something right now and MAKE something. Your argument is the crutch of the less talented people who continually say "If only the camera did THIS, I would be getting the invite to the DGA the next day!". You will never be a good filmmaker if you continue to sit on your ass and wait for the right tool to come along.

[vic777]

The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.

[Kholi]

The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.

Silliest statement in this thread.

[Ryan Paige]

I'm talking about the 7D's validity as a movie making tool compared to Scarlett. How you make money is non of my buisness and irrelevent to my point.

There's always something better lurking over the horizon.

For all we know, by the time any Scarlet is available to the general public, there will have been another Canon or Nikon DSLR release or some new Canon DSLR in a video camera form factor that offers much of what the current DSLRs are, apparently, missing.

You'll wait forever waiting for perfection.

There's so much that's unknown about the Scarlet, including whether we'll see it within our lifetimes.

[Barry_Green]

Kodak has stopped making film
I think even the tiniest bit of fact-checking would prove this statement to be 100% wrong.

[Rakesh Jacob]

I'm talking about the 7D's validity as a movie making tool compared to Scarlett. How you make money is non of my buisness and irrelevent to my point.
7D's vialidity compared to the Scarlet???? 7D, GH1, 5Dmkii and hell even the D300s at the moment are waaay ahead of the Scarlet, you wanna know why? Oh I bet you allready know the answer to that one since it's a rhetorical question.

But here are some not as rhetorical questions you ignored so I'll repost them, maybe you missed it while you replied all the other posts around them. I really wanna know man!




I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

Ps Did I mention the guy from Red who said we will 'see' if everthing goes to plan a Scarlett by late Novemeber.3-6 months? How are you arriving at this? And it's still not soon enough not to buy anything.

Late November? Um obviously this is prototype territory at best... right?

EDIT: You have been making unqualified statements, in other words you keep saying things about Scarlet and Red as if they were facts... so this really has me curious.
1) Do you work for Red?
2) Do you have inside sources at Red?
Since you extol unrelentingly the superiority of Red cameras and systems in a Canon forum, and champion their cause, obviously you have 1st hand experience with Red in some way
3) Where can we see something you have shot, directed or edited using Red products?

[Rakesh Jacob]

The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.

Man come on, we allready have James swinging off the raffters in one direction, lets not start losing our minds in the other, that's not the way to balance things out. :grin:

[Eddy Robinson]

Actually it made me even more sure the 7D is a long way from Red Footage. Instead of arguments have a look at some 2K red files http://www.bealecorner.org/red/

I think it's fabulous as it should be, for the price. Barry rightly points out above that Scarlet's prices and specs are a movable feast - Jim Jannard is no fool, he has built a great company, and I'm sure he is sufficiently attuned to both business and the needs of cheapskate filmmakers to deliver a great balance of quality and value, and I'm sure he's looking at the new offerings and thinking 'bring it!' rather than 'oh shit!'.

I've seen two films in the last few weeks shot on RED (District 9 and Gamer) which looked fabulous and are great advertisements for his products, and one shot on mainly on a Sony F23 (Public Enemies) which came out looking like shit. I I had the financial freedom to do so, I would run out and buy one right now, and I firmly believe that Scarlet is likely to destroy the competition around the $5000 price point - the Sony EX, Canon XL/H and Panasonic HPX lines are all living on borrowed time. Please do not mistake my disagreement with you for dismissal of RED's current or future products.


and tell me what you think, not pixel counting just what the average viewer might think compared to seeing a 7D clip, the ungraded leaves clip shows how flat an ungraded image Red is unlike the Canon look.

Ah, the average viewer (FX: screeching brakes as the discussion takes a 90 degree turn).

Honestly, the average viewer, knowing nothing of cameras and caring less, will like the 7d footage just fine. It's rich and punchy. You and I know how desirable a flat image is - and I'm sure you know that the 7d footage from Philip is well contrasty - I don't know whether this was on the default setting, or whether this was as smooth as the camera can go; I suspect the former and look forward to hearing from him later. But the average viewer is not attuned to the demands of post and the idea of maximizing dynamic range at the expense of immediate impact, for later optimization in post.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 7d footage out there is as good as it gets, that the camera was pushed to its very limits and will never do better without the aid of a lighting truck. Let's say that the faults in that footage - the yellow cast from the practical lights, the blown-out highlights and purple fringes around them - are just the facts of life for that camera.

What I'm saying is that it's still very good for the price. I am a real hack when it comes to grading (I like directing and shooting is a means to an end rather than a vocation for me), and yet even my ham-fisted efforts were able to recover pleasing skin tones and pull back the most offensive highlight ugliness with little effort. By pushing settings too far (because I am a hack) I can easily see the sins of the codec and the Bad Things that happen when I pull brightness more than a stop or two away from the raw footage. Just looking at the histogram, the blacks are off the chart on numerous shots. And yet, with all its faults, it's easy to get a nice image.

So what this really gets down to is: is the camera good value for someone on a budget who hopes to be able to sell what they shoot with it? And let's assume we're trying to sell an indie movie to a distributor - not for megabucks, but just enough to get it a tiny release and pay back your cost of production, which is what counts as success for a first time filmmaker.

I think the answer is yes (in fact I could say this about a bunch of cameras including the GH1, but...). It's in the same price range as a lightly used DVX for god's sake - and while Philip has a tasty lens on this 90% of people don't care about lens characteristics, they just want the subject to be in focus. The kit lens is adequate and you can rent lenses - this will be just as true for the Scarlet. Aliasing is pretty minimal - zoom in on the glasses and eye of the man at 0:44 and tell me that doesn't look good. The only thing I've found not to like so far is the inability to set custom gamma curves. The only reason I can see not to shoot with it tomorrow is that it won't hit the streets until October.

[Rakesh Jacob]

I've seen two films in the last few weeks shot on RED (District 9 and Gamer) which looked fabulous and are great advertisements for his products, and one shot on mainly on a Sony F23 (Public Enemies) which came out looking like shi*.

COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!
Gamer looked amazing and had several distinct looks depending on the story environment that were super fabulous in their own way!!!
Of course this was written and directed by the same guys that did Crank2 which was shot on HDV (XHA1) and AVCHD (HF100); the story of Crank2 is way beyond over the top, and not for everyone, but I just watched it on BlueRay and it looks f-ing good. Anyone who has shot on a 1/3" cam or a small camcorder in the last couple years should really see this movie in HD, I was amazed at what they were able to do.
Obviously I think everyone on these boards should go see Gamer and D9!

[jamesmallonuk]

Mr Cola I am very qualified to have an opinion between 5D/7D footage and RED footage because I have two eyes.

Even If I was Peter Jackson it wouldn't have any relevence to the OP and question. I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Mr Cola I am very qualified to have an opinion between 5D/7D footage and RED footage because I have two eyes.

Even If I was Peter Jackson it wouldn't have any relevence to the OP and question. I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.

That's what I thought. So why do you keep giving advice and timelines as if you know what's going on? It's disingenuous - at best! And the condescending tone you take towards people who have experience like Barry, who is giving out advice based on the actual facts and his extensive knowledge base is abhorrent. What did they tell you on the Red forums when you kept playing 21 questions? That the camera doesn't exist yet and they don't know when it's coming out and they couldn't tell you the specs or how it performed until it did. THAT's on the Red forums! So why are you taking nonexistent information and degrading people on this forum? Are really that starved for attention? If you need a platform to feel important, go do something, anything and come back and tell us about it, we'll gladly listen to your experience.

[John Caballero]

Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.

Won't happen. It will take until sometime next year, if life doesn't make things change. In the meantime I have the GH1 and is looking better everyday that goes by.

[griffin86]

The whole effort to look like film is absurd, film is dead, Kodak has stopped making film, did I say film was dead. We are in a transition period, where small minds are confused about what they like.
Get used to it, film is dead, video is where it's at. If you're hung up on a certain depth of field, that's ok, but it just means you're not open minded and flexible to all the options and the world will pass you by. Oh, by the way, film is dead ... but you can still use 35mm lenses if you want.

This is the silliest staement in this thread by a mile- Nearly EVERY single innovation in the field of motion picture technology uses film as the base scale for visual quality; because after 100 years or so of making films we (as a world of filmmakers) are now just able to match that same quality with an alternative digital process within these past few iterations of the RED, Viper, F23/35 and now the blooming HDSLR/VDSLRs.

The elusive "film-look" is part of the major reason why this forum and many others like it exist- so anyone with a connection to the internet can connect and find a place to share and collect tips on making their work more "filmic" with video or even how to take their physical 35/16mm film to the next level.

You are outta line on both sides of the discussion here because the OP is concerned with the comparison of the RED systems to everything else and is arguing day and night because he believes that aside from film itself- Scarlett would be the answer for budget-conscious individuals. (i may be off as i am representing someone elses opinion in an abridged form so you must read to get their perspective if you are new the forum)


There will be over 200 (or waaay more) major film releases by the bigger film studios in the next 24 months and countless comercials that glaze past your eyes daily shot on 35mm or other film formats- while there are wonderful examples of this new inclusion of non-film acquistion across the board; do your research and you will find a majority of the films you will buy a ticket to see on the big screen will still be shot either with a series of 35mm prints from Kodak or Fujifilm. Film is the standard that movies have been shot on since the beginning and like all other things we cannot know where to go without knowing where have we come from;-)

Film will be around for time to come as well as the digital world will grow grow like wildfire so its a matter of choosing what you can afford or gain access to and making it the best.

To the long life of film- sincerely yours,
elijah

[ydgmdlu]

This thread is probably the most disingenuous one on the entire site (that hasn't been closed by mods). As far as I'm concerned, James has thrown his credibility out the window, and I think that everyone should just ignore him from this point forward.

There are two main problems (aside from all of the quibbling in details so far) with everything that James has said.

1) The thread is based on the premise of what looks acceptably "cinematic" or "film-like" to James. We can spend all day debating with him and providing him with examples, but the truth is that to his eyes and mind, nothing that we present might be good enough for him. And it's not even necessarily that he's so narrow-minded. It's that, at the end of the day, such an evaluation is highly subjective. What looks like film to one person might look like video to another person. And to the average and casual moviegover, and even to most film critics, the distinction probably doesn't even matter. All of that is what I've been trying to get James to understand.

This is why his so-called "advice" is utterly useless. I don't think that any of us here would have a problem if he didn't want to get anything less than a RED for himself but also didn't care about what anybody else used. The problem is that he's insisting that we all wait for the Scarlet and that we're idiots for buying DSLRs in the interim. He might not have used the word "idiot," "stupid," or "moron," but that's clearly what he means when he says that the wise people are the ones who will wait for RED and that DSLRs are a waste of time and money.

2) He confuses himself on what exactly he's trying to recommend. At first, it was about what looks acceptably "cinematic" or "film-like": That was the original point of this thread. Then he started talking about owning a piece of "industry-standard" technology. These are clearly two separate issues, but I'm not sure that he understands that they are. And if he does understand, then he's employing sophistry in his arguments. If his ultimate point is about the technology, then of course nothing less than RED could possibly compare. I think that we all have shown that there is no disagreement there.

If, instead, it's about the "look," then I don't know why we're debating. It's subjective. If you don't like the look that a camera does for you, then don't buy it. Debating about "looks" is kind of pointless. And yet, "looks" are still a part (though a thankfully waning part) of debates between 5D, GH1, and D90 users. Discussing usability issues is way more objective, but still rather subjective, than the aesthetics of a camera's image. Some people don't like the way that 5D footage looks; others love it. Same goes for the GH1 and the D90/D5000/D300.

Note to James: Just because you don't think that any given footage looks like film doesn't mean that anybody else agrees with you, and just because we disagree with you over the look of any given footage doesn't mean that we're "idiots" or "blind." We have just as much a right to our own opinion as you do yours. So how dare you talk about the image quality that we "deserve" when we, as autonomous, thinking adults, can decide for ourselves what we deserve!

In that light, the original post seems like trolling to me. I vote that this thread be closed, because I don't see the potential for any more productive discussion on this topic.

But since the discussion has veered away from providing examples like James originally wanted, I'd like to throw one more in there. The teaser trailer for "Casulo" is one of the best, most "filmic" DSLR samples that I've ever seen: http://www.vimeo.com/5133770

I think that I have a very discerning eye when it comes to the film look, and for me there's definitely an "uncanny valley" thing going on with most well-done video footage that looks close, but not close enough, to film. To my eyes, "Casulo" looks just like film. If that doesn't convince James, then I think that nothing will. Now, shall I try to dig up some RED footage that looks like video?

[griffin86]

Mr Cola I am very qualified to have an opinion between 5D/7D footage and RED footage because I have two eyes.

Even If I was Peter Jackson it wouldn't have any relevence to the OP and question. I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.

at this point I would like to see where this is going because i'm not understanding what your grounds of argument is- based on the premise that what you are saying consistently is that something that doesn't exist yet will defeat something that does...

the Scarlett spec sheet will not be able to shoot my next feature but anything between a 5dmkii, 7d, gh1, hv20, pd170, arri 435, si 2k mini, hvx or genisis will get the ball rolling alot further than the light that bounces off my screen as i look at only proposed 3d images of a wonderful camera (ahem, which is scarlett).

I completely agree once again with everyone else here that IF/WHEN it comes that the RED Scarlett in nearly all of its incarnations will more than likely be the best bet proper camera in beating the niche market now being smashed by dslr's and a certain share of pro shooters... I think this issue should be best left alone until the things come out then we can compare the apples to oranges and watermelons (because essentially that'd describe what this all is anyway;-)

[jamesmallonuk]

But since the discussion has veered away from providing examples like James originally wanted, I'd like to throw one more in there. The teaser trailer for "Casulo" is one of the best, most "filmic" DSLR samples that I've ever seen: http://www.vimeo.com/5133770


I found this discussion threw up a lot of passionate opinions, never been insulted so much for giving my personal opinion on a camera. :grin:

This is my honest opinion and with no agenda I find that clip is just TOO video looking to my eyes and I'm brave enough to have that opinion even if the world thinks it is, its just my opinion. Sure its quite clean and has some pleasing bokeh but my brain at no point believes it is a movie. I started this thread to pose the question among all the sudden frenzy of everyone saying they will buy a 7D. My reason was to maybe save people from the effort to buy and equip the 7D to be patient for the Scarlett thats all. My target was not hobbyists or just video production workers but Indie-filmakers wanting to produce a serious short/Documentary and wanted to give it the best chance of success commercially.I have no furthur thing to add to this discussion, if you agree with my point maybe you'll wait for the Scarlett and if not I wish you you all the luck in the world using the 7D. Many of you guys are awesome.......and your work deserves a camera that will convince others of that.:beer:

[fates]

Jeebus guys, with all the effort you've put into this thread we could have had 24p and no auto audio gain on the 5D mk2 firmware twice over... :beer:

The 5D is the available, closest to usable camera a budget minded shooter (that is actually shooting NOW & not typing) needs support for. Maybe we can direct some of this anger into calling Canon to request the firmware updates we desperately need: 1-800-828-4040 (http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=4990)

Thanks, and don't take all this so seriously. Film is fun. Make some.... after you call Canon.

[Jean Dantes]

Film will never die. Digital will always be digital, film will always be film. Simple as that.

[jamesmallonuk]

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/07/08/nikon-roadmap-leaked.aspx


October 15th..............................Oh so I'm a RED obsessive am I?

[Taylor Rudd]

...you're saving face by posting a link to a rumors site?

[Ryan Paige]

I have no inside information but Jannard has said they are behind schedule by a few months due to cost effectiveness of paying overtime at this point. Jannards publicity guy Ted whathisname has said late Autumn we hopefully will see a Scarlett and an Epic, the fixed lens is been said to be the likely Scarlett.

He said IF everything goes to plan, we'll (no explanation of who "we" is) get "our first look at" Epic and fixed-lense Scarlet in October/November."

Who knows what the hell "our first look" means. For all we know, it could be our first look at an updated brochure.

[Taylor Rudd]

p.s. james, can you shoot some of your work my way? i want to put it side by side with other videos posted here to see how you made yours look more filmic

[Ryan Paige]

My target was not hobbyists or just video production workers but Indie-filmakers wanting to produce a serious short/Documentary and wanted to give it the best chance of success commercially.I have no furthur thing to add to this discussion, if you agree with my point maybe you'll wait for the Scarlet.

I don't know how not shooting a movie will give a better chance of success than shooting a movie. I can't think of a single time when that equation has produced the best results.

And I've certainly never heard of a movie shot with a brochure.

[jls4]

I don't know how not shooting a movie will give a better chance of success than shooting a movie. I can't think of a single time when that equation has produced the best results.

And I've certainly never heard of a movie shot with a brochure.

Agreed - and have we forgotten that 28 Days Later, and other movies were shot with a freakin MiniDV Camera. So now a camera with almost 4 times the data rate, a better codec, multiple framrates AND 5 times the resolution isn't good enough.

Goodness. Movies first and formost are about the people behind the camera, not the camera itself. It doesn't matter if you put a 1 Million dollar Panavision Camera in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it, the movie will not be better than someone with a MiniDV camera that knows how to get the best out of it.

And I'm a huge RED fan, but we waited on the RED One for over a year and it's been about that for the Epic and Scarlett and the RED folks are still saying they need more time. I had my money ready in June when the Scarlett was supposed to be released. I want to shoot in October, not next June. LOL

[sblfilms]

Sure its quite clean and has some pleasing bokeh but my brain at no point believes it is a movie.

And this here is the problem, you seem to have a pretty narrow view of what is an acceptable look for "movies". As has been said a million times before, your view is the crutch of people who aren't good filmmakers. I'm not a good filmmaker and I will likely never be one...but I can be absolutely sure that I never will if I never start shooting because I'm always waiting for the next big jump in technology that will finally "level" the playing field.

Anybody who is still waiting for a Scarlet instead of picking up what they can now (and that doesn't have to be a 7D, there are tons of great options) and shooting is setting themselves up for failure. There is far more than goes into making a good looking movie than the acquisition device. For an indie director, you're probably also going to need to learn a lot about lighting your scene, you need to learn about blocking, you need to learn about lenses and focal lengths and apertures, you need to learn how to DIRECT your actors.

You can't do that if you're not out shooting. Period.


And damn, if THIS isn't good enough image quality for a documentary....**** me.

http://vimeo.com/6487566

[William_Robinette]

And I've certainly never heard of a movie shot with a brochure.

+1

This is the most absurd thread I have read on DVXuser in a long while, and there have been some strange ones. It has been said and said by many over the past few months, but it isn't sinking in for some reason.

If you cannot create a film that is engrossing and engages the viewer with the tools we all now have available, you are in the wrong business.

I for one have seen a crap-load of "my kid in the backyard" and "this is my living room" and "here is something that I almost nailed focus on" pieces coming out since the introduction of VDSLRs but it's all (actually most isn't) this kind of faux eye candy. I have not seen anything of real substance (story line, character arc, conflict/resolution) yet made with one of these save for one or two pieces.

And I ask my self, why? Is it because the people buying these don't want to shoot things of that nature and just want to film the aforementioned events? That's fine by me, but then why the blanket statements on what camera everyone needs to wait for, that you cannot use this as a professional tool, that it has x,y,z shortcoming, etc. Why do you need >12 minute record times if you are filming random stuff around your city (and to imagine how they do it with 35mm, oh my!), why do you need a RAW acquisition codec of you are filming your cat or shining a flashlight into a jury-rigged anamorphic adapter hanging off the front of your lens? What I am getting at here is everyone talks about the short coming and flaws of these new cameras as if they are be-alls and end-alls of whether you can make a film or not with them, but I don't see anyone actually trying to do it.

And you know what the best part is? The first person to do it is going to shut a lot of people up. Because when that happens, everyone else is going to realize it is their skill and talent and not their equipment that is holding them back, but people don't like dump on themselves if they can find another scape goat.

I'm not a RED fanboy, but Scarlet will be better then the 5d/7d. It has to be. If you have worked with RED before you know this. Problem is it might not cost as little as either of those cameras, and why should it? If something has more features and it overall a better image acquisition device, why shouldn't you have to pay more for it? Like Barry said, if you cannot make back what you spent on a 7D kit in a job or two you are doing something wrong. If you cannot make a film with the 7D then you are doing something wrong. Hell, remember the little old DVX? 720x480 (less for 16:9) still makes me good money, and I and many others still make films with it that are well recieved.

This isn't directed at anyone here, and I love numbers as much as the next guy, but if you are going to talk about the impossible nature of making a film on any of these cameras, I'm calling bullshit.

There are people on this very board shooting narrative and professional jobs with these cameras (Zak, Kholi, Elton, others) right now. I promise you, it can be done.

/rant

[Isaac_Brody]

Amen Will. On that note.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=182929

People need to be doing more of this instead of staring in the corner of their screens for aliasing and noise.

[Ryan Paige]

"This is my living room" is actually the title of my next short film.

[Rakesh Jacob]

"This is my living room" is actually the title of my next short film.

LOL My next one is called "Kittens, Trains and Flowers at f1.4 - An Ode to Focus"

[Isaac_Brody]

I'm working on "Out My Bedroom Window Into The Dark Night - One Man's Journey Into Noise."

[Rakesh Jacob]

I'm working on "Out My Bedroom Window Into The Dark Night - One Man's Journey Into Noise."

LOL Isaac I have about 5 of those from when I was building a static adapter for the HF100, we should do a compilation DVD, with special features on close ups of car parts and kitchen appliances :grin:

Oh and the unrated version of "This is My Girlfriend/Wife: ANGRY!"

[Isaac_Brody]

Did anyone else see the trailer to "My Girlfriend's Hot And She Doesn't Know I'm Pimping Her Out On Vimeo?"

:)

[Zim]

28 Days Later would have sucked with the 7D. The 7D is not going to work with everything. To me it is still looking like great HD video. I'm just not getting the "film" look from it.

Like the D300s the pros and others put out great looking video. Others not so good. I'm would guess the 7D will be the same. Only really seeing pro stuff now.

I'm still probably getting the Nikon because the photography side will blow away the Canon. Still up in the air on the video from either camera. But I still have my DVX100b.

[Rakesh Jacob]

Did anyone else see the trailer to "My Girlfriend's Hot And She Doesn't Know I'm Pimping Her Out On Vimeo?"

:)
LINKS!


28 Days Later would have sucked with the 7D. The 7D is not going to work with everything. To me it is still looking like great HD video. I'm just not getting the "film" look from it.


WTF 28 Days Later is mediocre looking SD video!!!! LOL

[jamesmallonuk]

Some of you guys are a little strange whipping yourself up into a frenzy arguing against opinions I didn't ever say.

1.I never said the 7D couldn't be used for a movie.

2. Never said the tool is more important than the filmaker.

3. Never said its impossible to make a movie with a cheap DV camera.

4. Never said the 7D can't be great camera for doc work, I actually think its great for it.

etc....

Just said the Scarlett might be BETTER than the 7D and it might be BETTER to wait a relatively short time if you have invested a lot of planning etc in a Short etc.

Its feels like some of you have strong feelings about equipment vs talent thing, It wasn't my point.

I guess its the nature of forums people take responses to questions and what other people wrongly think was said etc and start to see something that was never said. I'm guessing there is some learning disabilities in the mix here. :)

funny thing is everyone ends up agreeing with me that the Scarlett will probably be better than the 7D. But you want to shot in the meantime with a 7D, sure why not. never said you shouldn't just suggested that interim period might be short and not worth the bother. And if its about the filmker not the tool then why are you scambling for the 7D anyway? use your GODDAMN IPHONE and back your opinion up with action.

[jls4]

28 Days Later would have sucked with the 7D. The 7D is not going to work with everything. To me it is still looking like great HD video. I'm just not getting the "film" look from it.

Film look in my opinion doesn't exist anyway. Just media hype. I just shot with a Sony V1U and the movie came out pretty good. I've seen things shot with everything from the DVX to the XL-1 to the XA1 to the EX1 to the RED to the super high end Sony. It's all opinion based anyway. If the 7D is not for you, then it's not for you.

I had in my mind to go for an EX1 + SGBlade + Nano Flash Combo, but this little 7D trumps this combo. I couldn't sell my current camera because I was finishing up two projects, so I needed the camera - good thing I waited. While the 7D doesn't replace my "Scarlett Dreams" it does give me a camera I can use for the next 9 to 12 months while the RED folks firstly - get the Scarlett of the drawing board and into reality and then give all the "first owners" plenty of time to debug the d&mn thing. LOL

[Rakesh Jacob]

Some of you guys are a little strange whipping yourself up into a frenzy arguing against opinions I didn't ever say.

1.I never said the 7D couldn't be used for a movie.

2. Never said the tool is more important than the filmaker.

3. Never said its impossible to make a movie with a cheap DV camera.

4. Never said the 7D can't be great camera for doc work, I actually think its great for it.

etc....

Just said the Scarlett might be BETTER than the 7D and it might be BETTER to wait a relatively short time if you have invested a lot of planning etc in a Short etc.

Its feels like some of you have strong feelings about equipment vs talent thing, It wasn't my point.

I guess its the nature of forums people take responses to questions and what other people wrongly think was said etc and start to see something that was never said. I'm guessing there is some learning disabilities in the mix here. :)

funny thing is everyone ends up agreeing with me that the Scarlett will probably be better than the 7D. But you want to shot in the meantime with a 7D, sure why not. never said you shouldn't just suggested that interim period might be short and not worth the bother. And if its about the filmker not the tool then why are you scambling for the 7D anyway? use your GODDAMN IPHONE and back your opinion up with action.
Learning disabilities? Really, this is your come back? Thnx for backtracking on your points BTW. " I said it MIGHT be this, it MIGHT be that"
Well at least you are consistently condescending.

[Zim]

That is one of the things that made it good. The director could have used any camera or film stock he wanted to at the time. He had the money.
I don't want to see 28 Days Later looking like Planet Earth


LINKS!



WTF 28 Days Later is mediocre looking SD video!!!! LOL

[Rakesh Jacob]

I don't want to see 28 Days Later looking like Planet Earth

:grin: True

[Zim]

Really just media hype? People have been talking about how to get that on the DVX board for years. That is what the DVX100 was all about I thought!!


Film look in my opinion doesn't exist anyway. Just media hype. I just shot with a Sony V1U and the movie came out pretty good. I've seen things shot with everything from the DVX to the XL-1 to the XA1 to the EX1 to the RED to the super high end Sony. It's all opinion based anyway. If the 7D is not for you, then it's not for you.

I had in my mind to go for an EX1 + SGBlade + Nano Flash Combo, but this little 7D trumps this combo. I couldn't sell my current camera because I was finishing up two projects, so I needed the camera - good thing I waited. While the 7D doesn't replace my "Scarlett Dreams" it does give me a camera I can use for the next 9 to 12 months while the RED folks firstly - get the Scarlett of the drawing board and into reality and then give all the "first owners" plenty of time to debug the d&mn thing. LOL

[Isaac_Brody]

Just said the Scarlett might be BETTER than the 7D and it might be BETTER to wait a relatively short time if you have invested a lot of planning etc in a Short etc.

funny thing is everyone ends up agreeing with me that the Scarlett will probably be better than the 7D. But you want to shot in the meantime with a 7D, sure why not. never said you shouldn't just suggested that interim period might be short and not worth the bother. And if its about the filmker not the tool then why are you scambling for the 7D anyway? use your GODDAMN IPHONE and back your opinion up with action.

Great, if waiting works for you then wait. We've been waiting two years for Scarlet, and if you have nothing to shoot and can wait for the tech train to catch up to your expectations by all means do so. However, a camera that exists and you can look at footage from and with preproduction models in shooters hands will always beat a camera that is unreleased and only exists in PDF's. You have no idea what the Red timetable is and as they've made abundantly clear "Specifications, prices and delivery dates are subject to change. Count on it" Red says that for a reason, they say that so people don't make shooting plans around their unreleased cameras and unfixed timetable. They say that as a warning to the people sitting on the fence that they could be sitting for a long time.

It's now Fall, there is only one camera from Red that is released. I'm excited for what they have in store but with all the changes they've made I am not going to sit around for an unknown camera that I don't know what the specs are and I don't even know what the pricepoint is. I do know this though, Red makes professional cameras and with that comes a price that reflects that value. That price is actually more expensive than it appears on paper when you factor in all the accessories and the post costs required to maximize your image and deliver to clients on time. They are really out of the pricerange for those people picking up 7D's and GH1's. If I'm wrong and Red has totally scrapped their plans and is geared towards the lower end market then I'll be very surprised. The 2/3 Scarlet that was originally announced would have been great a year ago, but the market changed and there's no way the S35 Scarlet would be priced near the bargain price of a 7D or GH1. That would totally gut the Red One and Epic market. That would make zero sense from a business perspective. I have no idea what they have planned but the original plan doesn't seem as attractive when you think of what the GH1, 7D, and 5D offer.

Anyway, you've made your point, you've riled some feathers, so please give it a rest.

[John Caballero]

To me it is still looking like great HD video. I'm just not getting the "film" look from it.

Don't worry, people that truly know what they are doing are going to have no problem getting the most out of the 7D. All the elements for great imagery are there, but as usual only the very talented don't complain but go out and make things happen for themselves. Is a great time for real creative individuals.

[Ryan Paige]

Just said the Scarlett might be BETTER than the 7D and it might be BETTER to wait a relatively short time if you have invested a lot of planning etc in a Short etc.

funny thing is everyone ends up agreeing with me that the Scarlet will probably be better than the 7D. But you want to shot in the meantime with a 7D, sure why not. never said you shouldn't just suggested that interim period might be short and not worth the bother. And if its about the filmker not the tool then why are you scambling for the 7D anyway? use your GODDAMN IPHONE and back your opinion up with action.

You didn't say the interim might be short but if you want to shoot on a 7D in the meantime, why not. You said that a wise person would wait the indefinite amount of time for the Scarlet.

It seems that you believe that the "first look" comments mean the camera is going to be out and available for anybody who wants one within a month or so of the 7D's availability.

If there was any indication that the "IF everything goes right" that an undefined "we" will get a "first look" at the camera within a couple of months meant that I could have the camera in my hands by the end of November, then it would make sense to wait.

But, to me anyway, it looks like the best case is that the camera will be shipping around March or so with the thousands of current Red owners getting first dibs. So, even in the best case scenario, a guy like me is probably looking at July or August before being able to actually lay hands on a Scarlet. And that's BEST CASE.

A person can get a lot accomplished in the ten months or so between deliveries. With the 7D only running about $1,700, even a four or five month spread is probably not worth waiting for.

In my opinion, Red would have to have Scarlets shipping to non-current Red customers no later than Thanksgiving to before I would consider the wait to be trivial, and given the statements that the company has made, it seems extremely unlikely that I could have a Scarlet in my hands by then.

[Isaac_Brody]

Jim's words from just under a month ago.


We have said that much of the delivery dates rely on a successful ASIC spin. We have also indicated that we are not going to rush to release given market conditions and the overwhelming opinion of our customers to put out a finished product and not a prototype. I wouldn't expect any type of update for a couple of months. The schedule should be more clear by then...

Jim

Take it how you will. They are not going to put out a rushed product that is beta, so I don't expect another release like the Red One. That means more of a delay, but on the good side that hopefully means when it's finally released you won't be dealing with the bugs like the Red One release and everything should work. That could take awhile.

[Ian-T]

You know….among all the comments I have been reading here and there in regards to Red Scarlet I have yet to see anyone mention the possibility that it may never materialize or come to fruition. This economy is a very peculiar thing.

[Barry_Green]

I am certain that if there was any doubt about the Scarlet coming to fruition, Red would have said so. They have been astonishingly open about every phase of development. Given that there has been no indication whatsoever of anything other than a recession-induced delay, I have no doubt that the Scarlet program is still fully on track.

From Isaac's post above, it sounds like we won't know anything for at least another month. That post from Jim was made a month ago, and Jim said "I wouldn't expect any type of update for a couple of months". So we may find out something around the beginning of October.

[tnle2]

You know….among all the comments I have been reading here and there in regards to Red Scarlet I have yet to see anyone mention the possibility that it may never materialize or come to fruition. This economy is a very peculiar thing.

I don't think Scarlet will be scrapped but that's because it's not Jannard's style. He doesn't seem like the type of guy that likes to lose. But then again he's a businessman so he must understand the odds stacked up against him:


Scarlet's very existence depends on selling a boat load of them.
Much of the Scarlet market has probably evaporated and moved to the lower price point HDSLRs.
The still camera guys are a huge threat to Scarlet. Canon, Nikon and eventually Sony will continually improve video in DSLRs. There is no doubt all DSLRs will eventually have video. It will be interesting what Sony does because their Alpha DSLRs could be a threat to their own high end cinema cameras.
Compact digital camera sales are stagnant right now because of the economy. Only DSLR sales are growing. They are also more profitable so it's reasonable to expect camera companies will put even more effort in developing DSLRs. In 2008, Canon spent about $500 million in R&D just for the camera division!
It will be very hard to compete with the still camera guys on price, volume, sales distribution and time to market.

It's going to be a hell of a fight for Scarlet. Personally, I don't see how it can exist in its current form and price and still sell in volume. Something needs to change since the market has changed.

For example, I use to be in the market for the $3K Scarlet, but no more because I'm not willing to pay that much for a camera anymore. It use to be that $3K for a good video camera was a given. Now with this economy and seeing how fast this stuff improves, it makes no sense for me (not being a professional--just an enthusiast who wants to shoot nice footage and practice) to drop that much dough on an ever improving technology.

Of course, if are making money with this equipment, that's another story. But I wonder how many other people out there are like me--just an enthusiast? I know on the still camera side, the vast majority of DSLR owners are simply enthusiasts. At some point you have to jump in, but I say do it at a price point that won't kill you in depreciation. And definitely don't go into debt to buy this stuff.

Less than $2K for a camera that does "good enough" video but also stills works for me. RED claims Scarlet will also work for stills, but no way in hell it's going to work better than a Canon or Nikon when you consider AF, metering, optical VF, system of lenses and flashes, etc.

[xmephestox]

sorry to join in on this thread late but the initial statement, i have to put in my two cents, probably argued to death already. but to say a vdslr won't look like a "movie" is really a rough statement.

you have plenty of hollywood feature films intermix prosumer cameras with 35 mm, high end digital cameras, etc. and they all just work, they still look great and hold up fine on a filmout.

a lot of parts of district 9 was shot on ex1, letters of iwo jima and flags of our fathers, a lot of the beach stuff was done with hvx200. cloverfield a lot of hvx200.

so a 7d that can give u the quality of a prosumer camera, with the ease of compact size and price. it may never be widly used in hollywood to shoot an entire film on it (i believe there is a new disney move coming out entirely shot on 5d) but it's just another option out there, another tool to accomplish the tasks you need. if u have to be in a cramped area or have a type of shot that needs a very light camera, 7d is probably gonna be great for that. it's a whole separate market for a whole different tool set.

one screwdriver will never fit all your screws, u need a whole set. this is just gonna be another weapon in the whole arsenal of filmmaking and i think it's great.

[jls4]

Really just media hype? People have been talking about how to get that on the DVX board for years. That is what the DVX100 was all about I thought!!

I used to be that way too. Until I realized that there are too many "film looks." Run Lola Run looks more like High Def and was shot on film. Star Wars: Ep 3 looks like greenscreen and not anything, while most of the movies from the 80s to me look like 35mm. LOL I learned it's not about a look, it's about getting a "look" that fits your movie. You wouldn't want your coming of age drama to look like District 9 or Transformers, yet those are looks. I think it's media hype or maybe dvx hype because indies are more concerned with hwo they "think" people will see their movie instead of just making a good movie. Those who figure out it's about making a good movie, IMO will stop worrying about a look.

But this is my opinion - not fact. After 3 indie films I only concern myself with the issues of Rolling Shutter, multi frame rates and depth of field - the coloring - i.e. "look" can be manipulated in post.

[mico]

And introducing Harmony Korines new movie shot on on on on wait for it .......................................VHS.

Yes my friends throw away your antiquated beliefs of what a real cinema camera is and embrace the VHS.


http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/2009/09/fortyseven_seco.html

[jamesmallonuk]

90% of the examples given to suggest DV and low end HD cameras are misleading as video was used actually to look like video giving a sense of reality/documantary feel to the scenes or movie. 28 days, blair witch, district 9, cloverfield, Dogma movies etc

all were trying to create that feeling. Video takes you out of the fictional feeling and makes the viewer believe they are seeing is in fact reality.

Digital movies that really don't do this are ones like Benjamin Button and Knowing and they used high end HD and RED respectively.

[Ryan Paige]

And James is the final arbiter on what does and doesn't look like "video" and he says the 7D doesn't and the brochure that hasn't produced any footage does.

So there.

I was watching a movie on DVD the other day, and I said to myself "this is pretty decent looking video, I wonder what they used." So, I looked it up and the answer was 35mm film. Somehow, they had managed to spend a fortune shooting 35mm and still had not been able to get the "film look".

[Rakesh Jacob]

Somehow, they had managed to spend a fortune shooting 35mm and still had not been able to get the "film look".
LOL I owe this smile to you :grin:
:dankk2:

[Taylor Rudd]

90% of the examples given to suggest DV and low end HD cameras are misleading as video was used actually to look like video giving a sense of reality/documantary feel to the scenes or movie. 28 days, blair witch, district 9, cloverfield, Dogma movies etc

all were trying to create that feeling. Video takes you out of the fictional feeling and makes the viewer believe they are seeing is in fact reality.

Digital movies that really don't do this are ones like Benjamin Button and Knowing and they used high end HD and RED respectively.

They used RED on District 9 to achieve that video look.

..how is the Scarlet going to be different?

[jamesmallonuk]

And James is the final arbiter on what does and doesn't look like "video" and he says the 7D doesn't and the brochure that hasn't produced any footage does.

So there.



And Ryan is the final Arbiter on what does look like film and he says the 7D does and that the Red sensors won't.

Thanks for thinking my opinions are facts by the way.....I'm touched. So which movie do you disagree looks like video, Cloverfield or Is it Blairwitch.

Here's the thing to disagree you have to actually have the opposite or different opinion, otherwise your Just venting your personal life onto a filmaking forum. I'm a qualified therapist by the way. give me a call anytime your ready.

[Taylor Rudd]

this thread should have been closed 100 posts ago. no new information, no new friends. only bullshit and loads of it.

[jamesmallonuk]

They used RED on District 9 to achieve that video look.

..how is the Scarlet going to be different?



Someone on the thread just said they used an ex1 for parts of the movie. There new information.

[Rakesh Jacob]

I'm a qualified therapist by the way. give me a call anytime your ready.

LOL that's just freaking awesome!!!!!!
Thank you James Mallon, you made my day :)

[Rakesh Jacob]

Someone on the thread just said they used an ex1 for parts of the movie. There new information.
They used EX1 and HF100 (the little Canon AVCHD camcorders)
Obviously it was mostly R1

[jamesmallonuk]

So we may find out something around the beginning of October.



Exactly about 4 weeks after the 7D ships, and no-one here thinks its good advice to maybe wait to see what they announce and then make an informed descision. And if the roadmap for the Nikons again proves to be spot on then a first look at the 700x. Oh I forgot most of you will be busy shooting the next Harry Potter movie in October so you'll be super busy those few weeks and must have the 7D for it.

[NoxNoctus]

Edit: Was chipping in about the EX1s being used for Security Cam footage. Already covered. This is what I get for reading a hot thread without refreshing :-p

[sblfilms]

Why can you not accept that your situation may not be the same as mine or anybody elses for that matter? There are people who want to create and the 7D may very well be the best tool for them right now. Months down the road when Red finally releases the Scarlet, it might be an even better option for some....but not for all. I have no desire to get a 2/3" camera as in addition to the camera body and all the other bells and whistles, I would need to buy all new glass to go with it. Instead of that, I can get a 7D and make money with it as well as improve my filmmaking skills by shooting instead of waiting and I can set aside money for the S35 Scarlet which will be significantly better than the 2/3" and not make me have to go out and buy a bunch of new lenses to replace the ones I already own and like.

I could not care less if somebody on the board wants to pass on the 7D and wait indefinitely for Red to release their camera (and hopefully for it to actually work) and you shouldn't care if people want to buy a camera right now so they can work right now.

[Taylor Rudd]

A few notes/observations...

1) You're trying to convince people in the 7D forum not to get a 7D

2) One source says Nikon will release a camera in the future that will do something, therefore I shouldn't buy a 7D


I'm a qualified therapist by the way. give me a call anytime your ready.

3) You don't do production work for a living? This explains a lot.


Oh I forgot most of you will be busy shooting the next Harry Potter movie in October so you'll be super busy those few weeks and must have the 7D for it.

4) Why must you be so condescending? It's rude and offensive.

5) I think this is the third time I've asked, but please, PLEASE send some of your work my way. Or just tell us what kind of work you do. Or post a poser shot of you with a camera. Or a picture you find of a camera from google.

I find it hard for someone who has any kind of production experience to be this thick.

[Rakesh Jacob]

5) I think this is the third time I've asked, but please, PLEASE send some of your work my way. Or just tell us what kind of work you do. Or post a poser shot of you with a camera. Or a picture you find of a camera from google.

I find it hard for someone who has any kind of production experience to be this thick.

I'll cosign that request and statement.

[Luis Caffesse]

this thread should have been closed 100 posts ago. no new information, no new friends. only bullshi* and loads of it.

Agreed.