so why wait for RED?

ernesto

ernesto

Well-known member
I'm really excited about RED just like everyone else here. But I was thinking and some of you who already have the 20-30k saved up for RED and its lenses, etc. Why not just use that money to buy/rent an HVX-M2 package, get some good professional actors, get some good dollies and cranes, grip truck, a good crew, etc. Then, shoot a feature on 1080p that looks amazing due to the great acting, and camera motion, and all that jazz.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=71299

^^ That's the kind of results one gets from that setup. So I don't really understand why spend 20-30k on just a camera setup, when you could have a finished, great-looking feature under your belt that could probably get distribution.
 
Maybe 'cause it's easier to buy a cam rather shoot a break-even movie project. :) Or with this ONE you can have more than one break-evens -- who knows?

So much appreciated that link, good stuff.
 
Who says that almost everyone here does not have access to other camera systems, grip, etc? Some of us don't want to spend another $20,000 on camera gear every 3 years and purchase thousands more on work arounds just to get a"look" but make them more awkward to the professional shooter. For the seasoned shooter, the R1 offers a no compromise solution that will allow the "owner/operator" to have the greatest level of access to across the board distro. depending on "your" content. Additional earned funds can be spent on glass, stabilasation, etc. I have been through the camera gear cycle a few times. RED will represent the greatest potential on the return of that investment.

The ability as a predator to go out and shoot something with a limited crew, edit and pitch for additional funds or distro.-- the level of finishable quality without massive expense (because of the ability to keep doing these things---over and over-- with the same package) will be unprecedented.
 
Last edited:
The answer is the word "future-proof". With a Red camera, you will not need to buy another camera for several years (decades?) to come. It is for those who are willing to wait, and are thinking of the long term.

Meanwhile, in the short-run, people like me are going to be making films with what is available, and saving the money for a future Red.
 
The problem is what if you spend 20k to 30k on a feature film that does not get distribution. People are always telling me to rent equipment and spend the money on other production costs such as locations, props, actors, crew etc. That's fine if your first feature turns out to be a great film, but you are putting all your eggs in one basket. With a Red camera, you can continually shoot other projects and not all of your finances are tied into just one film. Oh, and the most important reason I am waiting for Red is that I still don't like the look of the HVX200. It seems very "video-like" to me.
 
ernesto said:
I'm really excited about RED just like everyone else here. But I was thinking and some of you who already have the 20-30k saved up for RED and its lenses, etc. Why not just use that money to buy/rent an HVX-M2 package, get some good professional actors, get some good dollies and cranes, grip truck, a good crew, etc. Then, shoot a feature on 1080p that looks amazing due to the great acting, and camera motion, and all that jazz.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=71299

^^ That's the kind of results one gets from that setup. So I don't really understand why spend 20-30k on just a camera setup, when you could have a finished, great-looking feature under your belt that could probably get distribution.
Click to expand...

Some very good points... (hope the below gets in qoute marks)

Maybe 'cause it's easier to buy a cam rather shoot a break-even movie project. Or with this ONE you can have more than one break-evens -- who knows?

---------

I think what he's getting at and I'll add to his idea... if you could come up with another 10k... you could get the old low budget idea of throwing in a known actor for a cameo... someone on the box cover that'll sell the film...

But it also comes down to all the things he's saying... good producton values (sound, camera, lighting, editing, etc.), good acting... and most important a good script... and with that known actor you should get a sale... not saying you're profits will allow you to complete against the studios... but you can show investors that you made a profit... they'll pr new investors will be more willing to invest on the next film.

For example a friend's friend made a horror film for $25,000.. made a profit... then shot the next film for $50,000... made a profit and is now making his third horror film for $250,000 and who knows at the rate he's going if things keep working out... he'll be in the millions soon...
 
Deadzone said:
The problem is what if you spend 20k to 30k on a feature film that does not get distribution. People are always telling me to rent equipment and spend the money on other production costs such as locations, props, actors, crew etc. That's fine if your first feature turns out to be a great film, but you are putting all your eggs in one basket. With a Red camera, you can continually shoot other projects and not all of your finances are tied into just one film.
Click to expand...
Well this is going to be the issue with any film you make despite what camera you use. Once you have the RED, you're still going to have to put like 20k into the feature for the actors, lights, sound, crew, etc. So it's not like after you get this camera you can make unlimited, great-looking features for free.

I just find it sad that barely any filmmakers ever really make their own feature, and I think it is because we spend too much time focusing on what equipment we have, and waiting for this or for that. Take a look at Brandon Rice on this board, he's almost done with his feature, shot with the DVX with no adapter. Well, he's already looking for distribution and according to him has a foot in the door at a distributor already, plus he has Smuggler's Ransom 2 and 3 scripts down already. Take a look at the guys who shot the short Broken, they took $8,000 of their own money and made a great looking spec short with the DVX that got them a deal to make their own feature. Then, take a look at a lot of people here who don't have a feature and are spending 20-30k on an awesome camera. Well...If what you want to do is make movies, why not take that money and actually make a movie or two?
 
ernesto said:
Well this is going to be the issue with any film you make despite what camera you use. Once you have the RED, you're still going to have to put like 20k into the feature for the actors, lights, sound, crew, etc. So it's not like after you get this camera you can make unlimited, great-looking features for free.
Click to expand...

Again you make some good points... its like the people you talked about in your post... its drive that'll get you there as well as talent... but you have to have the drive...

I have a friend who's a great writer... had the same script picked up by two different producers... the crazy think is... its five years later and he's thinking about rewriting the same script again for the 100th time...

And its been six months since he's thought about the rewrite... he keeps telling me "got to have it all worked out in my head before I rewrite it"... like I said its the drive... if he had the drive he'd be done with that and be on to his fourth script by now... and maybe one of those scripts could of sold by now...
 
ernesto said:
I'm really excited about RED just like everyone else here. But I was thinking and some of you who already have the 20-30k saved up for RED and its lenses, etc. Why not just use that money to buy/rent an HVX-M2 package, get some good professional actors, get some good dollies and cranes, grip truck, a good crew, etc. Then, shoot a feature on 1080p that looks amazing due to the great acting, and camera motion, and all that jazz.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=71299

^^ That's the kind of results one gets from that setup. So I don't really understand why spend 20-30k on just a camera setup, when you could have a finished, great-looking feature under your belt that could probably get distribution.
Click to expand...
I definitely hear what you're saying. Personally, I'm considering making documentaries, and those require an extended time with the camera... not cost effective for package rentals.
 
ernesto said:
I'm really excited about RED just like everyone else here. But I was thinking and some of you who already have the 20-30k saved up for RED and its lenses, etc. Why not just use that money to buy/rent an HVX-M2 package, get some good professional actors, get some good dollies and cranes, grip truck, a good crew, etc. Then, shoot a feature on 1080p that looks amazing due to the great acting, and camera motion, and all that jazz.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=71299

^^ That's the kind of results one gets from that setup. So I don't really understand why spend 20-30k on just a camera setup, when you could have a finished, great-looking feature under your belt that could probably get distribution.
Click to expand...

I paid for an HVX blowup to film out (with some partners) and it wasn't good enough, IMHO.I don't want to HVX bash here (there's been enough of that) but it ain't good enough, for what I want to do.

The HVX package you spoke about will make some undoubtedly promising movies, but it doesn't fit in with my aesthetic choices, with distributor preferences, or the needed quality for film out.

Besides being future proof, RED can deliver an image closer to what my artistic needs are, and closer to what my business needs are.

There's no contest.

If this camera delivers to spec, there are going to be a lot of people who will spend the extra $ to get RED for the same reasons.

BTW - show me the footage from the stills. Yup, those stills rock, but having been on DVXuser for awhile, stills mean sh*yte. Believe me. I've seen amazing stills that turn to "less than" when you see the footage...


RED # rebels with a clue
 
I question whether Red is really future proof or not. With it's current body shape, it's not future-proof.
 
ernesto said:
So I don't really understand why spend 20-30k on just a camera setup, when you could have a finished, great-looking feature under your belt that could probably get distribution.
Click to expand...
If you think you can make your money back, then of course it's foolish to wait 5 or 7 months or so. You could buy the gear you mention, make your project, make some money with it, sell off the gear you bought, and use the proceeds to buy a Red with (if you decide that's what you want after you're done with your project).

They are business tools. Put 'em to work. If the products that are available now are good enough for you to accomplish your goals, then why wait? Especially since you could sell 'em on ebay if you decide to upgrade.
 
At the risk to be unpopular, I think the RED camera is a fairy tale at best.

Here are a few reasons.

1/ The whole TV industry is going HD, it is costing all the network billions of dollars to do so. So that industry is not going to adopt yet a new system anytime soon.
2/ Red, if it works, is a proprietary format, which means you can't use the footage in any popular telecine, compositing, vfx (such as 3d) or editing systems.
3/ Where are you going to store hours of uncompressed 4k files. Trust me I have work with 4k files on an inferno, which is by far the fastest compositing sytem in the world, and it's painfully slow. 4k is very, very big, I think a lot of people talk about 4k but don't really understand what it means as far as efficient workflow.
4/How are you going to play it. A 4k monitor is very, very expensive.
5/ Lenses: there are no good film(4k) lenses for less than 20k a pop, and that's for a regular prime lens. A Good HD lens cost over 10K, And I don't know any DP/Cam op./owner that owns only one .
6/ It's unproven, nobody has use it, it has never been used in public, many of the people I work with( I work for a major studio in Studio city), think it's a lot of P.R but nothing to show for. Sure we have all seen the "body" at NAB or IBC, but nobody has seen it in action.
All the people that went to IBC ( last month) told me RED didn't show anything, meaning any hands on stuff"

I could go on forever... And even if it is all they say it is, who is going to use it. The rental of a camera is negligible in the budget of a studio movie.

And no one could possibly afford all the post equipment for the RED. It's like the HVX, it's about 6K but the you need a good field monitor, a good system HD monitor for color grading, enough storage, 35mm adapter, matte box, etc... when I am all done this camera will have cost me at least 20k and that's only a prosumer camera, and only HD.... 4K I don't think so.

My opinion of course, I could be completely wrong.

But if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

P.S: I am not trying to put the RED down, but be more realistic about working with 4k files. I think that if the RED ever comes out, and once people start discover the good and the bad, it will become a much more expensive camera.
 
SomewhereinLA said:
At the risk to be unpopular, I think the RED camera is a fairy tale at best.
Click to expand...

Go on then, I'll have a crack at this one...

1/ The whole TV industry is going HD, it is costing all the network billions of dollars to do so. So that industry is not going to adopt yet a new system anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Red does HD too y'know? 4.5k, 4k, 2k, 1080p, 1080i, 720p AND it's cheaper than any other "proper" HD camera.

2/ Red, if it works, is a proprietary format, which means you can't use the footage in any popular telecine, compositing, vfx (such as 3d) or editing systems.
Click to expand...

You're talking about Redcode of course, which is the compression format. However in Redcine you can easily convert to any other format, so there's really not a problem here. Plus, the argument only holds even partly true if Redcode doesn't make its way into the systems you mention.

3/ Where are you going to store hours of uncompressed 4k files. Trust me I have work with 4k files on an inferno, which is by far the fastest compositing sytem in the world, and it's painfully slow. 4k is very, very big, I think a lot of people talk about 4k but don't really understand what it means as far as efficient workflow.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about uncompressed? Stuart and Graeme keep promising us amazing quality pictures, perfectly suited to post-production work, compressed using Redcode. Comes out at about the same data-rate as Uncompressed SD, don't y'know.

4/How are you going to play it. A 4k monitor is very, very expensive.
Click to expand...

There are actually some on the way as we speak (though how long it'll take 'em to get to market, and at a reasonable price, is unknown). Playback on a 4k monitor is more an aspiration than an absolute necessity though.

5/ Lenses: there are no good film(4k) lenses for less than 20k a pop, and that's for a regular prime lens. A Good HD lens cost over 10K, And I don't know any DP/Cam op./owner that owns only one .
Click to expand...

Except the Red Zoom at $9500? Their first prime (300mm) is listed at $4995. Or you could always go for a nice second-hand Cooke/Zeiss/Angenieux...

6/ It's unproven, nobody has use it, it has never been used in public, many of the people I work with( I work for a major studio in Studio city), think it's a lot of P.R but nothing to show for. Sure we have all seen the "body" at NAB or IBC, but nobody has seen it in action.
All the people that went to IBC ( last month) told me RED didn't show anything, meaning any hands on stuff"
Click to expand...

An issue that will no doubt be settled once the 700-or-so reservation holders (which I understand includes some fairly impressive names) get their cameras in a few months time. If the camera does deliver all that's promised for the price, I don't think take up will be much of an issue.

I could go on forever... And even if it is all they say it is, who is going to use it. The rental of a camera is negligible in the budget of a studio movie.
Click to expand...

The cheaper rental alone may not sway them, but the massive savings in post-production costs and the dramatic hike in quality over rubbish like the CineAlta might do though.

But if it's too good to be true, it probably is.
Click to expand...

Possibly.

:beer:
 
SomewhereinLA said:
At the risk to be unpopular, I think the RED camera is a fairy tale at best.

Here are a few reasons.

1/ The whole TV industry is going HD, it is costing all the network billions of dollars to do so. So that industry is not going to adopt yet a new system anytime soon.
2/ Red, if it works, is a proprietary format, which means you can't use the footage in any popular telecine, compositing, vfx (such as 3d) or editing systems.
3/ Where are you going to store hours of uncompressed 4k files. Trust me I have work with 4k files on an inferno, which is by far the fastest compositing sytem in the world, and it's painfully slow. 4k is very, very big, I think a lot of people talk about 4k but don't really understand what it means as far as efficient workflow.
4/How are you going to play it. A 4k monitor is very, very expensive.
5/ Lenses: there are no good film(4k) lenses for less than 20k a pop, and that's for a regular prime lens. A Good HD lens cost over 10K, And I don't know any DP/Cam op./owner that owns only one .
6/ It's unproven, nobody has use it, it has never been used in public, many of the people I work with( I work for a major studio in Studio city), think it's a lot of P.R but nothing to show for. Sure we have all seen the "body" at NAB or IBC, but nobody has seen it in action.
All the people that went to IBC ( last month) told me RED didn't show anything, meaning any hands on stuff"

I could go on forever... And even if it is all they say it is, who is going to use it. The rental of a camera is negligible in the budget of a studio movie.

And no one could possibly afford all the post equipment for the RED. It's like the HVX, it's about 6K but the you need a good field monitor, a good system HD monitor for color grading, enough storage, 35mm adapter, matte box, etc... when I am all done this camera will have cost me at least 20k and that's only a prosumer camera, and only HD.... 4K I don't think so.

My opinion of course, I could be completely wrong.

But if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

P.S: I am not trying to put the RED down, but be more realistic about working with 4k files. I think that if the RED ever comes out, and once people start discover the good and the bad, it will become a much more expensive camera.
Click to expand...

Frankly, you haven't done your homework here.

1. RED's market is primarily independent cimena, not, as far as I can see, TV studios.

2. REDCINE will allow RED's RAW footage to be converted to whatever you want. There will probably be a REDCODE codec for QuickTime, allowing the footage to be used in Shake, Final Cut Pro, AfterEffects, etc. If non-RAW REDCODE doesn't pan out as a reasonable editing format, use CineForm's stuff. If you need to finish on some tape format, rent a deck for a day and do output.

3. Most people aren't going to store hours of uncompressed 4K footage. REDCODE RAW at 4K, 24 fps is 27.5 MB/s. Convert to REDCODE or CineForm for editing. There's no reason you actually need to go uncompressed anywhere in the workflow. It should be possible to store all the footage for a 4K feature on a couple thousand bucks worth of hard drives.

4. Working with 4K footage doesn't require viewing 100% of the image at 4K. Yes, that would be ideal, but working at 2K shows you enough to be reasonably certain things are coming out OK most of the time. If you want to check for softness, or see if a key is coming out properly, you can do that by showing a portion of the 4K image at 100% and panning around. Note that still photographers don't seem to have much trouble working with images that are higher resolution that what their screens can display.

5. Lenses can be rented. Compare the cost of renting a nice set of primes for a week vs. renting a nice set of primes plus a DALSA Origin for a week... there's still a huge savings, over a relatively short time period, buying a RED ONE. RED will also have Canon and Nikon lens mounts. Yes, there as disadvantages to using photo lenses for motion pictures, but it has been done practically forever. The raw optical quality is there.

6. Yes, at present, nobody outside of the company has used RED. My understanding is that at the moment, the camera is more like a sensor in a box. But RED plans to assemble 20-30 full prototypes by the end of the year, and have them worked over. By the time the camera hits the market, we'll know one way or the other.
 
1/ The whole TV industry is going HD, it is costing all the network billions of dollars to do so. So that industry is not going to adopt yet a new system anytime soon.

But they could perhaps purchase RED cameras for the same price they are spending on current HD cams in the market. You can't ignore how well priced RED is.

2/ Red, if it works, is a proprietary format, which means you can't use the footage in any popular telecine, compositing, vfx (such as 3d) or editing systems.

says who?
http://red.com/download/redcine.jpg


4/How are you going to play it. A 4k monitor is very, very expensive.

A member of the RED TEAM stated that 4k monitors are coming around the corner. So this situation will change by end of next year. For now I will be certainly content shooting 4k and converting to some fantastic quality 2k.

5/ Lenses: there are no good film(4k) lenses for less than 20k a pop, and that's for a regular prime lens. A Good HD lens cost over 10K, And I don't know any DP/Cam op./owner that owns only one .

I see this as an advantage..the ability to put on any film camera lens..not to mention the plethora of used super 16mm lenses or HD b3 lenses. It's all about options. Heck, alot of users on this board will be getting the Nikon mounts to use still lenses. and who says you have to buy the lens when you can rent? Most people I know just rent them.

6/ It's unproven, nobody has use it, it has never been used in public, many of the people I work with( I work for a major studio in Studio city), think it's a lot of P.R but nothing to show for. Sure we have all seen the "body" at NAB or IBC, but nobody has seen it in action.

They are moving from..announcement of camera to shipping a camera in less than two years..you can't expect them to move any faster. They have goals set for them...and given the genius and drive of this team..I would never doubt them for a second.

And even if it is all they say it is, who is going to use it.
We will find out next year.. but 700 people who have reserved the camera will be using it.

And no one could possibly afford all the post equipment for the RED. It's like the HVX, it's about 6K but the you need a good field monitor, a good system HD monitor for color grading, enough storage, 35mm adapter, matte box, etc... when I am all done this camera will have cost me at least 20k and that's only a prosumer camera, and only HD.... 4K I don't think so.


the onyl other camera that even does 4k is the DALSA..and that thing probbaly costs as much as a house (it's only rental so we can only speculate how much it costs). The thomspon viper which does not do 4k..i read costs almost 500,000 to buy.

4k package for less than 30,000? (including lenses and accessories) = amazing.

IF you are concerned about the 4k workflow..go check out:
http://red.com/download/redcine.jpg
 
Again, RED would be very nice, but all I am reading here is "the RED team "stated this", the RED team "promised" that...

I have seen a lot of "revolutionary products" in my career, as well as helping design some (5D cyborg and 5D colossus (now known as discreet Lustre)google it if you don't know what it is)and I know first hand that you can't do it all, you need the support of the industry, support I have yet to see for the RED. They do have a great P.R, the fact that everybody is so passionate about RED shows that much.

I guess there isn't much point talking about it (speaking for myself of course) until a working product comes out with a working work flow, and the support of at least the post production industry which is key to the success of RED.

cheers,

:beer:
 
SomewhereinLA said:
I have seen a lot of "revolutionary products" in my career, as well as helping design some (5D cyborg and 5D colossus (now known as discreet Lustre)
Click to expand...

Really? If you tell us your name, I'll say hello to Gerk for you... ;)

SomewhereinLA said:
...and the support of at least the post production industry which is key to the success of RED.
Click to expand...

From what I can see, the RED workflow fits into a fairly standard datacentric model, which the post community has already embraced. What strikes you as so different about the RED datacentric model that makes it unworkable in current post infrastructures?

Lucas Wilson
------------
Assimilate, Inc.
Los Angeles
 
Honestly, I think this is another example of a phenomenon I've pointed out several times before. People with a significant background in the traditional film/video industry tend to think RED can't possibly deliver at that price, finishing 4K on a reasonably priced workstation will be impossible, etc.

People who have backgrounds in digital media or technology, on the other hand, aren't really too surprised by or skeptical about what RED is claiming. We've been seeing rapid innovation for years, small companies that upset industries, dramatic price shifts, etc. It's just the way the industry works.

The traditional film/video equipment industry is about to intersect (better word might be 'collide') with technology emerging from a much larger, richer, more dynamic market. A lot of folks from the traditional film/video world haven't caught up with this reality yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top