The Red Revolution, Now It's Official

[Verko]

First they tried to belittle us. FUD was their weapon. But when the first light of truth revealed their nakedness, they responded the only way they could: with violent treachery, like all tyrants and despots.

Red is not just a camera, or even a company. Red is an idea, and that's what makes it so dangerous.

We have banded together with Jim to pursue this idea, to remove the limitations standing in the way of telling the stories we must tell in the way they should be told. We know we are on the right track, because the resistance is intestifying.

We are with you, Jim. No stopping!

Verko
Red #508

[AshG]

The only thing I have issue with is the sentiment that many seem to share that somehow the main limitation "standing in the way of telling the stories" is related to a camera. It just isnt, plain and simple. There are a mountain of other hurdles. If you have passion and talent you can get your story finished with just about any camera. The limitations then become the Hollywood system, no camera changes that...



ash =o)

[Jay A. Kelley]

Ash you are right of course.. But the focus of this forum is the camera. So we tend to put our energy on that challenge here.

Jay

Between you and I, I find more technical challenges in sound that I do picture. But as I said, that's a different forum

[Jannard]

A writer needs a pen, a painter needs a brush. Without these tools he can only keep his art to himself.

Jim

[Jay A. Kelley]

Art you share with no one is called dream.

Jay

[AshG]

But the brush alone did not make Michelangelo, and here we are only really talking about a BETTER brush =o) I am excited for RED in my arena, what I like to call the "middlestream" of production. I will use the camera every day to make money, sometimes to make "art" but mostly to feed my babies.

Look at this and other forums and look at the movies posted. Most are fun, some are pretty decent but would they be better, more marketable, and get theatrical distribution easier if they were shot on RED?

JJ and team are solving the technical part of the hurdles but you still have to market and sell your movie, a camera does neither.



ash =o)

[omen]

From caves to canvases.

A vision to a picture.
A picture to motion,
to full expression.

No more stuff in between.

The visions reside in digital space now.
Turn the red circle on.

Time to release the dreams.

[stevesherrick]

Just as one brush doesn't cover all forms of painting, same goes for cameras,lenses, etc. Each film may need a different brush. How do you make a film that has lots of panoramic beauty shots with a hi-8 camera. Sure you can do it, but it will look quite different than 70mmm film. Bottom line is that if you can tell your story within the format that you have available to you, then by all means, you have to make the film. But there will be movies, videos, etc. that will benefit from having a camera like the Red. You tell the stories the best way you can, and you will use the tools that best convey that story.

Steve

[stevesherrick]

By the way, that's what is so intriguing about this camera. Multiple formats, extremely high resolution that can be manipulated later on, and the ability to slap on cine style lenses. That last part is what separates this camera from the DVX for example. The DVX is a wonderful tool, but it is limited somewhat by the lens and also the small chip. You can tell a damn good story with it though.

Steve

[Verko]

The only thing I have issue with is the sentiment that many seem to share that somehow the main limitation "standing in the way of telling the stories" is related to a camera. It just isnt, plain and simple. There are a mountain of other hurdles. If you have passion and talent you can get your story finished with just about any camera. The limitations then become the Hollywood system, no camera changes that...



ash =o)

We are in complete agreement on this, Ash. Didn't mean to imply that the main limitation was the camera. But it is ONE of them. And more than the camera, it's the whole system. Shooting on film has gone away from a significant part of the production world, mostly for budgetary reasons. Film stock, development, transfer, etc. You know the drill. Many projects that I would have shot on film five years ago are all now digital.

I have a 35 and two S16 cameras, as well as an HVX and a DVX. I loved the DVX, and I am really getting great results with the HVX. But I would like to shoot everything on film if I could, but can't. What I am seeing from Red so far gives me the confidence that I can give my projects the look that I want with a digital workflow and cost structure, with no image limitations. Even the Viper and the Genesis are limited visually, compared to film, and Red (so far as I can tell) is not; in fact, regarding noise, Red seems like it will be better, allowing me to push the look further in any direction that suits the story, as well as benefitting FX work.

The cost of shooting film can destroy profits of projects in certain budget ranges, making them a no-go, or more likely a shouldn't-have-done. Red makes artistic sense, and business sense. Can't beat that with a stick!

Referring to your subsequent comment: "Look at this and other forums and look at the movies posted. Most are fun, some are pretty decent but would they be better, more marketable, and get theatrical distribution easier if they were shot on RED?"

You make a good point, but having seen the distribution dance through the eyes of my clients, for a good project, it CAN make a real difference. Certainly can't hurt. And even more importantly, it can make the difference between profitable and non-profitable for the "middlestream". Profitable means that we can continue to tell our (or our clients') stories, and feed our babies as well.

Sound good? But really, I just want the best toys, the fastest cars, the loudest music!

Verko
Red #508

[Gibby]

Here's my "Four T's" approach to the imaging industry and RED:

Four essential elements to top-level professional cinematography, videography, and photography: Talent, Training (experience), Tenacity, and Tools – the Four T’s.

Talent you're born with, training you pay time and dues to acquire, tenacity you’re either born with or learn, and tools you must acquire. If you have all four T’s, you'll have a decent chance of doing exceptional work. If Talent is missing, you should definitely think about choosing a different profession. If Training is the only thing missing, pay your dues and you may get to your goals. If Tenacity is missing, concentrate on learning to persevere. If Tools are the only things missing, find ways to get your hands on good tools and you may get to your goals. Talent is the one critical element that you must have or you're chasing an elusive butterfly that will undoubtedly elude you...

All these said, let’s analyze what RED can and can’t do for you.

RED can’t increase your Talent. You’re either born with that, or you’re not born with that.

RED can help increase your Training and experience level, simply by the fact that previously unaffordable technology and resolutions will now be available and accessible for you to use, thus increasing your production knowledge base. If you haven’t been able to buy or rent top-level digital cinema cameras because of affordability, you now may be able to afford to use top-level digital cinema equipment – thus increasing your Training level.

RED can’t teach you Tenacity. If you don’t have Tenacity, only you can choose to learn it. An inanimate object won’t help you in the process.

RED can represent a significant change in your Tools. If you analyze the range of lens formats and image formats, and RED succeeds in producing the features and capabilities that they have proposed, RED could be another valuable Tool in your tool chest.

Bottom line: Because someone buys a pen, does that automatically make them Shakespeare? Obviously not. Because someone buys a paintbrush, does that instantly transform them into Picasso? Obviously not. Talent and Tenacity must combine with Training and Tools for someone to even have a chance to realize their maximum potential in any creative pursuit.

I’ve reserved two RED cameras, the 300mm lens, and the 18-85mm zoom for my business. I'll also be picking up many accessories for my RED systems. I’m a longtime veteran director, cinematographer, videographer, and photographer. I was born with Talent, paid extensive dues in Training, and have a lot of Tenacity. It’s the final “T” that is my motivating factor in acquiring the REDs – Tools. If RED delivers what they’ve proposed, I see it as a valuable and capable new Tool for my business. I own and/or use Tools from many other manufacturers. I’ll still use them when it makes the best sense – and I’ll definitely use my REDs when that makes the best sense.

No magic wand - just a real capable new "T" in my toolbox.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

[Verko]

I like where this thread is going, because it speaks to why we on this forum are passionate about Red. I like the fact that we are talking about the context of our tools and what role they play.

I started this thread as a way to say that the break-in is really a badge of honor (assuming it is industrial espionage, which I do). In any case, Red is a force to be reckoned with and I know eyes were popping when the 4K still was posted. There is so much positive energy on this forum; Jim and the team bring this energy, and I believe they feed off it too. I hope so!


Verko
Red #508

[omen]

After Gibby I have no further comments. You said it all, man.

[donatello]

i have yet to meet a filmmaker that didn't want their project to look the BEST ... i have yet to meet a filmmaker that didn't think their script was excellent ... nobody sets out to make/write a bad project...
we all believe that our idea/script/project are excellent & will be the one that might break thru the barriers ... at some point you decide to GO for it ! and you put your heart/soul/passion/time/$$ into it .. you get the best actors available, you get the best crew , bottom line is you try to get the BEST available of/in everything ! ...

[Clint Johnson]

After Gibby I have no further comments. You said it all, man.

Yeah, I was going to write this big long analogy with chains and weak links and... ah hell Gibby said it better anyway.

[AshG]

Gibby gets it... I agree on all points. Even if RED is (and it looks to be) revolutionary technology, that does not mean the gates of Hollywood will swing open. Oddly, it will be people like us that prove the cameras viability.

This happened in broadcast with DV, I was in on DAY ONE of DV and most people, well, ALL people, thought it was a joke. Myself and others put in the sweat to show it was a viable alternative to Beta and within 2 years you could see DV footage on almost all networks in one capacity or another.




ash =o)

[vandeha]

The analogy of tools as a brush for the painter and a camera for the filmmaker is a very important point. It does matter the type of a brush or a camera as a tool for the creator to has. Taking in all factors of production such as actors/actress, location, lighting, ect., the camera alone does not qualify a filmmaker to be a good storyteller. However, a camera like RED will expand the horizon of creativity; and that is a paradigm shifting.
Case in point: I started out as an Eastern artist creating work of calligraphy and ink brush painting. Most of Eastern art works yield the images of flat, some perspective, mostly abstract. The beauty of Eastern art is its simplicity, elegant, and the meaning is within. Now If just say history did not happen and East never meet West, I would probably only paint a story in style reflecting that simplicity of black and white and develop my creativities within this paradigm. As I latter become an oil painter creating works in Realism and Impresionism, where color, shade, shadow, and textures take form. In this case, I still use a brush as a tool but add the new element of color pigment. The result is more flexibilities and dimesions for the artist to explore. This art form take on a different path. By no mean that I say the Western art style is better than Eastern style. Each has its own dictinstive beauty. However, I must admit the introduction of oil pigment to painting had changed the whole world of Western art. This analogy reflects the case of influence of technology on art. If RED lives up to its promise, then that border or box that hold our creativities will be shattered.

[CVB]

I think the key aspect of RED is the idea that you don't need to price gouge customers. The industry is plagued with over priced monopolistic equipment. Our company is going down the same path as RED and are pricing our equipment to reach the biggest audience possible. There might be 1000 people willing to pay $17K for a camera but only 50 willing to pay $100,000. It seems to me that Jim is trying to make a statement and lower the cover charge to get into the hollywood club. Soon you will be able to make the same quality movies that the big studios do.

[Jay A. Kelley]

Gibby's lucky while I, on the other hand, have no talent, was not even potty trained until a junior in highschool. sleep most of the time, but think RED looks cool and will enjoy making others out here feel like incompetent boobs when faced with my new vastly superior toy.

:cheesy:

Jay

Don't laugh too hard, I would not be surprised if a few potential RED buyers met this description someday.

[stevesherrick]

And it makes you wonder what this will do to the whole distribution chain. Actually, even if you exclude the Red camera from the equation, it's going to be interesting to see where things go in a few years. Will theatres evolve and invest in all-digital distribution? Will internet technology and on-demand services improve to the point where hi-definition distribution is feasable? Lots of food for thought. I'm sure a lot of us have been through the trials and tribulations of getting a film or video distributed.

Steve

[Emanuel]

Red is an idea, and that's what makes it so dangerous.I believe that's the point indeed!


We are with you, Jim. No stopping!

Verko
Red #508Jim,

The RED customers are your army, the dvxuser.com is your navy, and your friends that are posting -- we are your air force!

«We are with you, Jim. No stopping!»
our motto

Emanuel :)

[AshG]

The analogy of tools as a brush for the painter and a camera for the filmmaker is a very important point. It does matter the type of a brush or a camera as a tool for the creator to has. Taking in all factors of production such as actors/actress, location, lighting, ect., the camera alone does not qualify a filmmaker to be a good storyteller. However, a camera like RED will expand the horizon of creativity; and that is a paradigm shifting.
Case in point: If RED lives up to its promise, then that border or box that hold our creativities will be shattered.


This, I do not agree with... look at digital audio, are the songs better now? Or has the market been flooded with mediocre music that is more marketable than good on the retail side and a ton of indie bands that just arent very good on the grass roots side? Just because you open the borders of creativity does not mean that media gets better. I would argue the reverse, many of the best, most creative albums and films have come from artists who were very limited in resources that creativity is all they had. Sometimes, too much tech and to many resources can inhibit creation. Sorry, I just dont buy that resolution and DOF are creative boundaries... technical boundaries, but not creative.



ash =o)

[yagfxg33k]

When Synthesizers became affordable - Especially sampling keyboards, the hue and cry became "musicians are obsolete". Every 10 year old could get a computer, sequencer and a synth and make the next Dark side of the moon. Orchestras would no longer have a place in society.

Certainly, this has not come to fruition. The only real impact is that acoustic pianos have fallen down in terms of sales. When I watch a lot of indie shorts shot on Mom's handicam and listen to the score, I know that it's been done on a computer with MIDI. It sounds like it.

When I hear a score done on actual instruments, it's a world of difference. The next Paganini that was waiting in the wings only to be freed by technology does not exist. The next Paganini's genius is not determined by technology. It's inate.

I have yet to see the film that supplants masterworks like Goodfellas or Citizen Kane that were shot on mom's Handicam. Is that because of the limitations of Mom's Handicam? Most certainly, that is not the case.

I do find it amusing that when Citizen Kane came out everyone was OOOing and AHHing over the use of deep focus. About how the viewer had to be alert and watching each shot carefuly because they did not have a director using DOF to focus their attention to whatever they wanted in a scene. Now, with small sensor DV cameras, everyone jumps through hoops to go the opposite direction using M35 or any number of other devices...

La Jetee could have been shot with a Kodak Instamatic camera. The use of such a camera would not have diminished the genius of the work. Someone around here has a quote that there can be no art without limitations. I think there is a lot of truth in that.

Look at a lot of low budget films and how the film makers had to get creative to overcome budget limitations and ended up with a better product. We don't see the shark in Jaws for a good portion of the beginning of the film because the shark was broken. That made for a better film.

[J.R. Hudson]

I am with Ash in this thread. Great points made.

-

Technology does make the artist or the art. Creativity is best served by limitation (as put by Welles). Red is not going to make or break any film careers here. If anyone is counting on Red to be the end all to their dreams then they've already failed.

-

What makes a film suceed ?

Actors -
The singulary first ingredient that will sink your ship when that actor opens their mouth and just cannot act.

Story/Content -
The second ingredient where the audience looks up and realizes they are no longer interested and they start looking at thier watch or thinking of that errand list

Cinematography - and not the quality of the image; but the compositions, the framing, the cuts, the lighting, the mis-en-scene .... the manner in which the captured images tell the story.

(See Pieces of April and 28 Days Later, shot on the PD-150 and the Xl1, respectively ... )

Sound - From foley, to FX to the recording of the talent's voices. The Audio track imerses our audience into our world and creates that sensory experience.

Camera - This particalur item may be the farthest requirement on the list.

[Darkline]

well said john

you know for years my friend and I have been saying 'yeh we'll make the good scripts when we have better equipment'... but it's a load of old crap.

I wish it was 10 years ago and I knew now what I did then. I'd just be out there making stuff on anything I could find.... true VHS-C didnt enitrely cut it; but as soon as 24p mini-dv came around we were all out of excuses.

I think Red will just a) make me get my ass into gear as I'll have spent ALL my money on it and panic for every day that passes without using it...

b) maybe make other people such as actors take it all a bit more seriously as you can say you're shooting at feature film quality (if you have the supporting kit). The amount of clients I've seen say "Is that what you're shooting on?" Drives me mad. But I'd rather a DVX over an interlaced betacam.

True about sound. Our eyes adjust and accept poor quality footage as a stylistic choice in a film. Our ears do not accept poor quality sound and will quickly label it as an amateur production.

I personally dont see Red making a revolution in the terms of the quality of films available. As DV didn't. It just means the rising indie filmaker has more options than before. But it does mean longer download times for really badly made films that you turn off after 20 seconds (some of mine included Im sure:-))...... i cant wait.

[Stephen W]

What makes a film suceed ?

Actors -
The singulary first ingredient that will sink your ship when that actor opens their mouth and just cannot act.

But you can work around a bad actor. OK, so if they're all rubbish you're screwed, but if it's just the odd one you can cope (Ryan's Daughter?)


Story/Content -
The second ingredient where the audience looks up and realizes they are no longer interested and they start looking at thier watch or thinking of that errand list

I'd promote this to top of the list, A1, single most important thing from the get go. Without a great story you've got nothing.


Cinematography - and not the quality of the image; but the compositions, the framing, the cuts, the lighting, the mis-en-scene .... the manner in which the captured images tell the story.

But you can make a great film with mediocre Cinematography. Great Cinematography cannot make a rubbish film any good (but best to have both).


Sound - From foley, to FX to the recording of the talent's voices.

My comments about Cinematography would apply here too.


Camera - This particalur item may be the farthest requirement on the list.

IMVHO the camera you use and how you use it is part of the art of cinematography, not a separate item. But the general point about what camera you use not determining whether your film is any good I accept. But I also think that what Red does is a) Give you the opportunity of making something far better than you otherwise could afford and b) Give you a better opportunity of your film being succesful if it is good.

[J.R. Hudson]

But you can work around a bad actor. OK, so if they're all rubbish you're screwed, but if it's just the odd one you can cope (Ryan's Daughter?)
I wish this was true. I'm cutting something as we speak and there just is not a work-around. Acting just kills a project from the get go. I am referring to this in linear terms:
Curtain opens, movie starts, actor opens mouth ....... story comes later (See below).


I'd promote this to top of the list, A1, single most important thing from the get go. Without a great story you've got nothing.
Thousands of films are out ther right now with stories that do not make it past the first act. The story is the last thing that holds up before the audience realizes they're wasting their time. While the story is the first thing that propells a film to greatness at the end of the day, it will keep it afloat the longest.


But you can make a great film with mediocre Cinematography. Great Cinematography cannot make a rubbish film any good (but best to have both).
I agree. No but's about it and exactly why it's not on the top of the list.


My comments about Cinematography would apply here too.
I can't even think of a film with poor sound/audio. Can you ?


IMVHO the camera you use and how you use it is part of the art of cinematography, not a separate item. But the general point about what camera you use not determining whether your film is any good I accept. But I also think that what Red does is a) Give you the opportunity of making something far better than you otherwise could afford and b) Give you a better opportunity of your film being succesful if it is good.
I think a quality camera is important but when throwing names around like Arri, Panivision, Aaton, Viper, Genesis, Cinealta, (and the subsequent Red ?) it's neglible. Any of these choices would tell the majority of stories out there.

IMO always

-

Darkline ...

Also well put !

[Brandon Rice]

I am with Ash in this thread. Great points made.

-

Technology does make the artist or the art. Creativity is best served by limitation (as put by Welles). Red is not going to make or break any film careers here. If anyone is counting on Red to be the end all to their dreams then they've already failed.

-

What makes a film suceed ?

Actors -
The singulary first ingredient that will sink your ship when that actor opens their mouth and just cannot act.

Story/Content -
The second ingredient where the audience looks up and realizes they are no longer interested and they start looking at thier watch or thinking of that errand list

Cinematography - and not the quality of the image; but the compositions, the framing, the cuts, the lighting, the mis-en-scene .... the manner in which the captured images tell the story.

(See Pieces of April and 28 Days Later, shot on the PD-150 and the Xl1, respectively ... )

Sound - From foley, to FX to the recording of the talent's voices. The Audio track imerses our audience into our world and creates that sensory experience.

Camera - This particalur item may be the farthest requirement on the list.

Great list John, I would agree with it 100%! :thumbsup:

[wigby]

What makes a film suceed ?

Actors -
The singulary first ingredient that will sink your ship when that actor opens their mouth and just cannot act.

Story/Content -
The second ingredient where the audience looks up and realizes they are no longer interested and they start looking at thier watch or thinking of that errand list

Cinematography - and not the quality of the image; but the compositions, the framing, the cuts, the lighting, the mis-en-scene .... the manner in which the captured images tell the story.

(See Pieces of April and 28 Days Later, shot on the PD-150 and the Xl1, respectively ... )

Sound - From foley, to FX to the recording of the talent's voices. The Audio track imerses our audience into our world and creates that sensory experience.

Camera - This particalur item may be the farthest requirement on the list.

we are talking about motion picture here so i would not only include editing but put it up there with cinematography. after all, if you're speaking purely of composition, you might as well be talking about still photography. film/digital cinema and all storytelling is about the pacing, timing and juxtaposition of images and sound. and you could arguably remove sound. you don't need it for 99% of all visual-based storytelling. sorry to get all film school.

#121

[D_and_G]

Haha. Acrochordon actually deleted the first post I actually had a clue to as to the point he was making.
I kinda' agree with him - this is an oft repeated topic. Too often, IMHO.

Gibby, don't forget to copy and pate that nice post of yours, cause you'll need to dust it off more than once ;)

For me, it just comes down to choice - mine and the marketplaces.

Also, acting is the conveyance of story, so I don't see how you can separate them. If a director is shooting something that is clearly bad, then it's their duty to intervene in whatever way necessary - recast, reshoots, creative editing, voice over, shut down production, rewrites and on and on. Really bad acting is really bad directing...which is why you rarely see bad acting in indies and studio flicks, but merely mediocre acting.

In that case the imperatives of story beat out mediocre acting every single time. Story is the most illusive and the most challenging element in film making today, IMHO. And what is clearly lacking in the marketplace today... Of course, I have a special regard for writing, so I may be biased. :beer:





Digital cinema. Learn it. Kick a$$.

RED # rebel with a clue

[J.R. Hudson]

we are talking about motion picture here so i would not only include editing but put it up there with cinematography. after all, if you're speaking purely of composition, you might as well be talking about still photography. film/digital cinema and all storytelling is about the pacing, timing and juxtaposition of images and sound. and you could arguably remove sound. you don't need it for 99% of all visual-based storytelling. sorry to get all film school.

#121

:beer: Of course. Editing is my favorite part of the filmmaking experience.

My list was a general assesmment of course, but no one is watching silent films anymore, are they ?

[Verko]

I like to think of the tools I use as musical instruments. Each instrument has a tone all of its own, and each instrument has characteristics that lead me down certain roads. Duplicating what's possible with a trumpet on a keyboard with sampler and keyboard is a daunting task; nowadays it's possible to get close, especially with a "horn section", but you'll never get the full range of what you can do with a trumpet using samplers and keyboards.

And within an instrument class, comparing violins to violins, there is a real difference between cheapos and a Stradivarius, when in the right hands. A virtuoso can make a cheapo sound great, but the same virtuoso WILL be able to noticeably improve on the performance with a higher-end violin. A novice will be limited either way, and only training, talent, tenacity (see Gibby's earlier post) will allow the novice to improve their results.

You can't make Citizen Kane or Barry Lyndon with grandma's handycam. For Barry Lyndon, lens speed, stock speed, development, etc. was critical for the candlelit scenes, for example, and the candlelit scenes were important in portraying that world. You couldn't convey the scale shown in Citizen Kane with a Handycam. The Handycam would detract from the story and make it laughable in certain scenes. You CAN make an equally impactful and artistic work with the Handycam, provided you use it's tone and flavor to further the story. Eraserhead was not technically state of the art at the time, hehe, but the look was integral with the story, in my opinion.

The DVX had a distinctive look that opened doors for many people, because of its progressive imagers, size, and price. It had it's own tone and flavor, and it could be put into some really tight spaces - car interiors for example. The only thing that could compare to it at the time was the a-Minima, if the budget allowed. The HVX takes it further, with more resolution and latitude, albeit with less sensitivity. The HVX also has it's own tone. Red will be like a new instrument, and it's up to us to see what music we can make with it.

The nice thing about Red is its versatility. If we want shallow DOF, no problem. If a shot calls for deeper focus, go with 2K windowed, as well as the usual iris and focal length adjustments. If we want a clean image, no problem. If we want more grit, set it to a higher ISO, add ND, and if needed, add grain in post. Look at how Battlestar Galactica is using HD. They push the look in terms of color and grain to support the story, not trying to duplicate film necessarily, but to see what new things they can do with the tools.

The introduction of MIDI and sampling in the later 80's did lead to a deluge of truly horrible music. It also enabled great innovation by great artists. Desktop publishing led to perhaps an overall lowering of layout and design at first, but who would say that Photoshop is a negative thing? It's a tool that has expanded what an artist can do. It was the same with DV.

If you're playing (or creating) honkey-tonk, an old upright in need of some tuning will fit the bill. Put some tacks on the hammers to add an edge if you like. But don't use that piano for Chopin, get on a Steinway if you can. If your movie is introspective, Handycam can work fine. If you want the audience to gasp when your character reaches the top of the mountain and looks out over the sweeping vista, go with the best resolution and latitude you can get. HVX will be preferable and more effective than DVX, Red over HVX, for example.

I got an HVX in early March, and have been spending the time necessary to see what music I can make with it. I could (and will) spend years getting to know what I can do with it, as I try to do with every other aspect of the art and business we are in. The same will be true with Red; let's see what we can do with it. And with Red, unlike any other camera, we are being involved in it's direction. Les Paul pushed his tools in new directions so that he could innovate musically. As a group and as individuals, let's do the same.

Verko
Red One #508

(I really appreciate everyone's contribution on this forum; thanks everyone)

[Verko]

we are talking about motion picture here so i would not only include editing but put it up there with cinematography. after all, if you're speaking purely of composition, you might as well be talking about still photography. film/digital cinema and all storytelling is about the pacing, timing and juxtaposition of images and sound. and you could arguably remove sound. you don't need it for 99% of all visual-based storytelling. sorry to get all film school.

#121

Whooooaaaa. Watch anything, a film, a commercial, a sitcom without sound and notice the diference. Sound goes directly to the subconscious, and is therefore extremely powerful. It depends on the scene, but sound could be as much as 95% of the impact. Sound validates the image. Sound defines the space that the image resides in.

Respectfully,

Verko
Red One #508

[Stephen W]

I wish this was true. I'm cutting something as we speak and there just is not a work-around. Acting just kills a project from the get go. I am referring to this in linear terms:
Curtain opens, movie starts, actor opens mouth ....... story comes later (See below).

Actually, bad acting is something you need to catch early on (preferably before casting, in which case it fails to be a problem!) - by the time you're editing it's too late. But if you've got a naff actor on set the cinematographer and composer become your new best friends :beer:


I can't even think of a film with poor sound/audio. Can you ?

I was actually thinking of "mediocre" in creative terms - if it's bad technically than yes, you're stuffed. But if it's just dull and uninspiring (this goes for the cinematography too) you can still make a great movie.


I think a quality camera is important but when throwing names around like Arri, Panivision, Aaton, Viper, Genesis, Cinealta, (and the subsequent Red ?) it's neglible. Any of these choices would tell the majority of stories out there.

Kinda the point - for many the only option in that list is Red!

[Stephen W]

And within an instrument class, comparing violins to violins, there is a real difference between cheapos and a Stradivarius, when in the right hands. A virtuoso can make a cheapo sound great, but the same virtuoso WILL be able to noticeably improve on the performance with a higher-end violin.

So what you're saying is, once I have a Red, it will fully demonstrate my genius to the world?

I can live with that :)

[Verko]

So what you're saying is, once I have a Red, it will fully demonstrate my genius to the world?

I can live with that :)

Something like that. When I started playing the trumpet in the 7th grade, I had a cheapo. Worked fine for getting started. Once I reached a certain point, my teacher pushed me to get a better trumpet, as my fingers could go faster accurately than the valves could physically move, and the tone was dull, even though I was capable of something better. He had me try his trumpet, and the difference was dramatic. With the more capable trumpet, I was able to further refine my ability; the cheapo was masking growth in my technique. Imagine shooting with auto-iris as your only option. Sure, you could get creative in tricking the auto-iris to do what you want, but it's better to move on to more control as we are ready for it.

As far as getting the world to see your genius, it's all about promotion and exploitation, isn't it?

Verko
Red One #508

[vandeha]

I totally agree. It is given that whether the 35 mm or digital camera exists, there will always be great amount of bad films and only a few good films produced. This premise will hold even a thousand years from now.
However, we should not equate creativity to producing a good film. A masterpiece takes into many factors. Similar to a puzzle, each piece represents script, actors/actresses, execution, theme, and etc. and each must work perfectly to produce a good film. Also, taking into the considerations of subjective value, relativity reference, historical context, and cultural sensitivity, judgment can vary at a wide spectrum. For instance, relativity factor can influence such as that part of the Lord of the Ring may look mediocre to our next generation. On other hand, art can be ahead of its time. For instance, people treated Van Gogh’s paintings like trashes until few years ago.
We all agree RED will not make a good filmmaker. However, its affordability, flexibility, and timing enable the filmmaker in taking a bigger step and the risk to explore and to take filmmaking to another realm or genre. There is a style, which the filmmaker wants to take the viewers on a slow pace through the storyline. The elements of color depth, organic image, and DOF are very crucial in order to hold the viewer’s interest to the end. If Vertical Ray of the Sun, a film made in this slow style, was shot in video, then viewers would give up early and never finish watching the film because video lacks the rich image in helping to carry the story.
There are many ways to tell a story and RED gives an independent filmmaker the capability to explore more ways to tell that story.

[J.R. Hudson]

Actually, bad acting is something you need to catch early on (preferably before casting, in which case it fails to be a problem!) - by the time you're editing it's too late. But if you've got a naff actor on set the cinematographer and composer become your new best friends :beer:

You have no idea. :beer:


I was actually thinking of "mediocre" in creative terms - if it's bad technically than yes, you're stuffed. But if it's just dull and uninspiring (this goes for the cinematography too) you can still make a great movie.

Agreed !



Kinda the point - for many the only option in that list is Red!

And therein lies the myopia which brings us right back to the start :)

[esp]

"A writer needs a pen, a painter needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army"

Orson Welles

The Red camera maybe your gun but its not an army.

[J.R. Hudson]

I like that