I think I get The Goal of Red

Sick! The red camera is going to be sick. As for the complaints about the HVX, I just saw some footage that 5 years ago I would have thought was film. Yeah the no interchangable lens stinks, but how long before a G35 type addapter gets made? two months? Three? the bottom line is: the DVX100 changed the game for SD, the HVX is going to make HD a reality for the independant film maker on a budget, no more HDV dropped frames. I love it.
 
And the next step will be the RED if they get that sensor working at a good price!
I think the modular construction will define the price, I bet this camera comes out as a tiny black box and you decide how far you want to go. If you want to shoot in 720p add photo lenses to the front and an other box to the rear with all that electronic gear needed for compression and some slots for memory cards and you have the low end version. That would be MY RED for now. Add cine primes and a disc array and you will have something quiet different. If they make it in a really modular way you might even get the camera with a cheaper interchangeable low res sensor that can't do 4K: Who the hell needs 4K? I would be glad to get 720 with 35mm DOF! That would beat the HVX for length.
 
John_Hudson said:
Forget the Hollyowood Professionals

I just want a camera geared towards the true indiependent filmmaker.

Period.
Click to expand...

I am with you John. But I would add that I feel if this camera comes at a decent price (<20K$) and the image quality generally lives up to expectations the chasm between independent/DV filmmaker and Hollywood filmmaker will evaporate and quite possibly gives us a chance to recapture the movie business from blockbusterland...

Imagine everyone able to shoot high quality films? Then the focus will shift to content content content !!! That's the day I am yearning for....

Thanks Jannard for keeping the dream alive :grin:
 
Draccan, cameras are a small part of the filmmaking equation. if having a good camera resulted in a good movie, there wouldn't be so many lousy movies. Looking to the RED camera as some sort of magic bullet is just plain silly. (I can't believe it's even necessary to make such a statement.)
 
I don't think Draccan is looking at RED to be some save all but was illustrating the need for a professional tool that rivals the big boy's at an indie price.

But you knew that.
 
John, I think our friend Draccan's "enthusiasm" went a bit further than that. But I suppose that's no reason to be so critical. I should try to remember when i wasn't a crusty old man. I used to think silly things too. haha.
 
Greg,

Well... I think we semi agree, but RED will take one aspect out of this equation. And you cant deny independent film is on the rise? Would you say Main Stream / Hollywood has not been hurt? I think even a film like Blair With Project scared the poo poo as John would say, out of the film business.

What I see RED and the future in general is that the exclusiveness will evaporate. The studios have two things going for them: Special Effects that are expensive and timeconsuming and Star Power. But the indies will grow and it will hurt the establishment and ticket sales will drop. I hope as a side effect smaller independent cinemas will grow. Screenings of OUR films.

Of course there are tons of stuff that goes into making a good product. But can you really deny a camera like RED would at least give us a fair playing field? Or would you deny it will hurt the pocket book of the big studios?

Everyone seem to be getting their own huge 30+" screen at home which will hurt the cinemas (and indirectly the industry)....

Just my thoughts and I don't think we are really that far apart, though it is always nice with heated discussion...

LLD
 
The facts are simple. If your movie looks better than the current crop of DV movies it's another obstacle out of your way and makes it easier for a distributer (or whoever else) to say yes.

All those people willing to take a chance on DV despite the dodgy quality will have a better chance of helping the indie guy if that image looks better.

You can shoot just as good a film on a DVX but less people are going to see it.
 
Just take a look back. It's 1990. What do you need to shoot your movie and take it to the big screen?

a) An expensive 35mm camera you can't afford
b) An editing system you can't afford
c) A 35mm copy you can't afford

But in a few years from now:

a) RED camera
b) Your regular NLE on PC
c) A HD-Disc with Digital Cinema Specification

Interesting times.
 
Yea.. and within five years we will have seen our first full feature (Tarnation style) shot entirely on a cell phone.. :)
 
Draccan said:
What I see RED and the future in general is that the exclusiveness will evaporate. The studios have two things going for them: Special Effects that are expensive and timeconsuming and Star Power. But the indies will grow and it will hurt the establishment and ticket sales will drop. I hope as a side effect smaller independent cinemas will grow. Screenings of OUR films.
Click to expand...

No. A new camera isn't suddenly going to change an entire industry. And really the most powerful thing Hollywood has on it's side is marketing and distribution. And we know it. Look how many horrible films make millions of dolllars just because they are marketed right and distributed everywhere.

It doesn't matter how good your movie is and what camera you used to shoot it if no one knows it exists and there is no place for them to see it.

Hollywood exists because it works. The most RED is going to do is give us a proper tool to aquire a better image. It's not going to change anything else.
 
I think debates about the potential importance of RED fit better into the rapidly evolving digital distribution (non cinema) market. Yes, a few truly indie movies will find meaningful theatrical distribution, but going forward that's not the most exciting, realistic or even rewarding distribution model for low budget, independently-produced content. We're in a transition period. The next ten years will see more changes and opportunity for indies than the previous 50.

In that context, I think there's a very real debate about the necessity of 4K resolution for this market. There are probably 20 other features of greater importance to the indie moviemaker. I reserve judgement until I see the finished product, but right now t's difficult to imagine RED being used on major theatrical features. On the other hand, if it lives up to expectations, I would think that it could become important tool for the independent production community. If I were designing such a camera I'd rather use that big sensor for (up to) 1080p capability with bigger pixels to greatly improve dynamic range and sensitivity. Now THAT'S something that has a direct relationship to production efficiency.
 
Greg Lowry said:
If I were designing such a camera I'd rather use that big sensor for (up to) 1080p capability with bigger pixels to greatly improve dynamic range and sensitivity. Now THAT'S something that has a direct relationship to production efficiency.
Click to expand...

Interesting!

What other sensor tricks are there?

Foveon achieves greater "latitude" with dual sensors per pixel. With Red, at 2K, would it be possible to use the other 2K to achieve a simliar goal. Eg. Use the 4K pixels in a checkerboard pattern, with half the pixels sampling for less time to capture bright area detail, and then either combining signals in camera, or just output all the frames for post processing. Of course may have trouble with the pixels being spatially offset. If the bright area capture time was adjustable, effectvely would have a user variable latitude!

Just chucking wild ideas around to encourage lateral thinking! :laugh:
 
Many tricks have been tried for sensors to get better dynamic range by adding extra pixels or dark pixels or stuff like that, and although can work for still images, the interpolation needed would severely compromise motion in a video camera, as well as probably reducing resolution. You can't get more than a pint out of a pint pot, if you get my drift.

However, super-sampling, ie recording 720p or 1080p shrunk down from 4k, does give immense benefits.....

Graeme
 
The flexibility of CMOS sensors offers the potential for what amounts to double read-out of each frame to expand dynamic range. Simply described, imagine one pass reading more toward the toe end of the scale and the other the highlights. There is ongoing R&D in this area. It's very early days with respect to what can be accomplished with sensors.
 
Double readout is effectively what stills photographers do - they take multiple images of the same scene at different amounts of over and under-exposure, and then composite in Photoshop to get the best results.

To try to do this on a moving image would either result, at best, in ghostly trails and at worst, a mess, IMHO. (due to the 1/48 second or so difference in time in the exposures)

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top