visceralpsyche
Well-known member
What I like about Red is that it is a new player and therefore not constrained by existing boundaries. It is, as someone put it, a disruptive technology, in that its aim is to shake up the existing system to enable a new class of filmmaker to have tools that are at least equal to what Hollywood productions have access to. This is good because once the tools are effectively commoditised, what matters then is storytelling. If anything, THAT is what Hollywood should be scared of 
It also means that with digital cinema becoming inevitable as the primary projection technology, cinemas will have access to far more non-studio features and therefore potentially have a new means of making money that doesn't take 100% of box office in the busiest part of the film's theatrical run. As an example, if I made a feature independently I could then negotiate to feed a digital copy of my film to lots of cinema chains without much cost to myself or them, in exchange for a decent cut of the profits and cutting out the traditional middle man distributors. That is the true disruptive element of having such an affordable, cinema quality camera.
My prediction (for what it's worth!) is that large blockbusters will become more of a rarity as more and more cinemas transition to digital and can therefore begin to show unique and interesting films without relying on a small subset of big players to give them the content.
Personally I am aiming for this type of distribution style because it is here that I think the vanguard of 21st century cinema will reside before long.
Red is one part of making that achievable, so thankyou Jim Jannard et al for having the vision to kick start it into high gear!
It also means that with digital cinema becoming inevitable as the primary projection technology, cinemas will have access to far more non-studio features and therefore potentially have a new means of making money that doesn't take 100% of box office in the busiest part of the film's theatrical run. As an example, if I made a feature independently I could then negotiate to feed a digital copy of my film to lots of cinema chains without much cost to myself or them, in exchange for a decent cut of the profits and cutting out the traditional middle man distributors. That is the true disruptive element of having such an affordable, cinema quality camera.
My prediction (for what it's worth!) is that large blockbusters will become more of a rarity as more and more cinemas transition to digital and can therefore begin to show unique and interesting films without relying on a small subset of big players to give them the content.
Personally I am aiming for this type of distribution style because it is here that I think the vanguard of 21st century cinema will reside before long.
Red is one part of making that achievable, so thankyou Jim Jannard et al for having the vision to kick start it into high gear!
If I owned a $70,000 Varicam, I would feel a little unsettled about the fact that a $17,500 RED will do everything it can and more. But unless you have a real issue with the ergonomics of RED, there isn't a whole lot of reason to hold on to all of those other rigs. At least from my perspective, anyway. Given that a topic exists that's called "Red competition running scared," it's pretty clear that I'm not the only one who feels this way.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG) 
