RED Cameras?

Mmm-yeah.

If you have a HVX-level camera + 35 adapter + appropriate lenses, that' seems to be more than enough tech-level.

I must admit that I personally desire RED because I'm greedy for perfection. :Drogar-Sick(DBG): I'm just a sinner. :)

Truth is that the most important "factor" is the DoP you're working with.

I watched a short film that was made in a workshop during the Berlinale. It was really good and on first viewing, I mistook the source for 16mm film. Then the DP told me it was shot on Canon XL-H1, even without a 35mm adapter, but capturing 4:2:2 through HD-SDI.

That coveted film-look is created mainly with good composition and good lighting. These skills are a timeless human "factor", which is irrelevant to the camera used.

I've watched some other shorts which were shot on an SD, MiniDV camcorder and they also looked very filmic.

So, the real key is to find a good DP.

If you already have the HVX+35mm adapter, then you're already there.

With this setup, you have every chance for your footage to look great.

...

But with a RED, on the other hand, your footage might look Divine. :love4:

My 2cents.
 
Last edited:
Ever try to pull a decent key with a DV camera. Yuck. Compression artifacts all over the place. Sorry but the Red is the best camera I've ever used for vfx work and it gives better results than cameras costing five times more and five times less.

This board is obviously very pre-occupied with no budget features but that only makes up one part of the production world. Companies have work to do for their clients and things are very competitive out there. Anything that can increase the quality of work without breaking the bank will be adopted.

What I will say about movie making is if you want to make a feature, then focus your energy on getting the production done. Trying to own gear is a waste of your valuable budget on something other than your primary goal.

Too many people here announce they want to make production X and want to know what to buy. Simple. Don't buy anything other than expendables, (Gels, tape, black wrap...), or something that is really cheaper to buy than it is to rent.

The production company you set up for your feature should only end up owning the finished product when its done and not anything else.

Most important: Don't self-finance your own projects.
 
Last edited:
SPZ

Regarding whether or not Juno would have been taken as seriously if shot with an HVX ?
Click to expand...
I say yes. Content is king.

Pieces of April was shot on a PD-150.

Domestic Total Gross: $2,528,664

Widest Release: 101 theaters

-

Nominated for Oscar, Golden Globe, - Best Actress in a Supporting Role Patricia Clarkson.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311648/awards

-

Is that serious enough for you ?

In other words, What I'm pushing for (and I know you get me here :) ) is for the real next generation Indie Filmmaker camera
Click to expand...

They're already here ! That's the point I think you're missing. Everyone is waiting around for the next camera, why ? The cameras are already here !

My Mantra: 28 Days Later (Canon Xl1s)
 
I'm with John on this.
We don't need to wait for the 'real next generation Indie Filmmaker camera.'
We need to wait for the real next generation Indie Filmmaker.

The tools are all here - waiting to be used.
It's the content, vision, direction, and editing skills that need to catch up now.

Just my 2 cents.
 
SPZ said:
In other words, What I'm pushing for (and I know you get me here :) ) is for the real next generation Indie Filmmaker camera. We don't need 4:4:4, or 4k for the matter. Give us a camera where we can shine in Cinematography- Expensive glass will always be expensive glass. The cameras, however, can be much cheaper! Give us a 4:2:2, Full Frame interchangeable lens camera with variable frame rates and 10/11 stops of dinamic range at below 10k. Heck, Give us a 4:2:2, 1080p, 2/3 interchangeable/fixed lens camera with 10/11 stops of dinamic range for below 10k! In a portable, handheld form!

This is what I want.
Click to expand...

And when you get it, what's the next thing you're going to wish it had?


PS-The Blair Whitch Project is terrible- This is not a "film"worth mentioning, in my book, because you can't call that movie as something with even acceptable cinematography, or cinematic composition.
Click to expand...

Yet it's the most successful indy film ever.
 
craigbowman said:
Ever try to pull a decent key with a DV camera. Yuck. Compression artifacts all over the place. Sorry but the Red is the best camera I've ever used for vfx work and it gives better results than cameras costing five times more and five times less.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't have much experience with VFX and keying, but DV will suck there, for sure.

But HVX is DVCPRO HD 100 Mbits and 4:2:2 color, and from what I've heard and read here, it will be just fine for such purposes.

RED will be bliss, tough. :engel017:

Most important: Don't self-finance your own projects.
Click to expand...

100 % true. Don't do this to yourself. At least not until you're someone like Coppola or Mel Gibson.

My 2+2 = 4 cents. :)
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I'm with John on this.
We don't need to wait for the 'real next generation Indie Filmmaker camera.'
We need to wait for the real next generation Indie Filmmaker.

The tools are all here - waiting to be used.
It's the content, vision, direction, and editing skills that need to catch up now.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Quoted.

You know, knowing the limitations of your gear is important. I wouldn't try to do a green screen feature with my HVX but people have (Prodigi Pictures did his short all green screen and now has funding for a feature last we heard. All HVX). Apply the camera to things that it can handle, then from there move on to what you can afford. It's not exactly an easy concept to live by but people are doing it.
 
Last edited:
SPZ said:
Change my example of the "Wedding Crashers" to Juno. Do you think Juno, shot with an HVX, would get the attention it has now?
Click to expand...
Of course.

If I did a "Juno" with an HVX, and a fellow brought out a similar movie but shot on 35mm or Red, which one would be picked for distribution?
Click to expand...
The better film. Well, more specifically, the more marketable film. Distribution is all about who's going to fill seats in the theater, and that's all it's about. If one is more marketable than the other, it will be the one that gets picked.

But in this particular place, the reality is much different to what you have in the United States.
Click to expand...
Ah, well, I have indeed been US-centric in my comments. It's entirely possible that your mileage may vary since you're on the opposite side of the globe! :)

I made my name in this place by using low end mini-dv (by low end I'm saying first with a sony TRV900 and later with a DVX100- loved them-and still keep them! No insult intended) gear to produce material which blew away Betacam SP/Digibeta material produced by local "professionals"in the broadcast world.
Click to expand...
Then you've already proved my point, haven't you? :thumbsup:

This happened because the local industry lacked post production knowledge and cinematography and narrative sensibility. Suffice to say, my talent was recognized and now I supervise, but still shoot and direct TVC and overal video campaigns for my current local high profile employer- which I do not want to discuss here.
Click to expand...
Again, point proven. The tools you have now were good enough to defeat Digibeta products and landed you jobs with a high profile employer. That's all I'm saying.

I could, however, see the difference the Digibetas and even Beta SP's brought in quality to the captured footage. Those lenses and 2/3ccds captured much solid and noise free footage than my mini-dv gear
Click to expand...
No doubt about it. Better gear is better.

The first oportunity I had with a Digibeta and a proper lens, I was blown away: The quality of the image was spectacular-
Click to expand...
Okay, now let's drive it home: a DigiBeta with a PROPER LENS. Yes. Using the equipment the way it's designed, properly! That's what I've been talking about. Now let's put it in a different way: put a $125 ebay lens on that DigiBeta camera, try to monitor it through a composite video port on a cheap consumer TV, and use a Bogen 501 tripod head, and are you still going to be blown away?

Configure the DigiBeta properly and you'll have the finest standard-def recording system in the world. And you'll spend about $80,000 on it.

Configure the Red properly and you'll have the finest digital cinema recording system in the world (that an individual owner could buy). But you'll spend $50,000 to $60,000 on it.

I've never said don't do it. I've only said "do it right if you're going to do it."

The HVX was the first camera I owned that I felt confident to trully be able to use in a conventional narrative driven TVC. It trully is a great camera. I used it for 4 International TVC's until now, and am amazed at what it can do. (with proper grading) . However, it still loses to Digibeta in places - not because of the recording, but because of the small CCD's and built in Lens. The gap, however, is much, much smaler.
Click to expand...
And that's the point. If you can close that gap (which you can) and your talent takes you the rest of the way, just how much better is spending $60,000 going to get you? In terms of the final product? And could that extra $50,000 be spent in other ways to give you a more marketable final product? That's the question. I'm not giving you the answer, but I'm telling you to seriously consider the question.

It is a camera that is portable, light, allows for inexpensive support gear, ownable, has excelent color reproduction and gamma, as well as acceptable resolution and dinamic range.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And I'm telling you, as a Red owner, that the Red doesn't meet many of those criteria. It is not very portable or light, its support gear is extraordinarily expensive (again, the cheapest real tripod costs more than an EX1!) and is not "ownable" for probably 98% of DVXUser members. It has outstanding picture quality, extraordinary resolution and superb dynamic range too, yes. You do get a lot for your money.

All I'm saying is: is it the best place for you to spend what money you have? If you have to cripple the Red by stripping it down to a barely-functional package, then I say that's a bad move. If you can afford to properly trim it, then you're in great shape. If you have to cripple it, you probably could do much better for your overall project to just save that money and spend it somewhere else. Heck, instead of spending $30,000 on a stripped-down, marginally-functional Red, spend $10,000 on a fully pimped-out HVX setup and give Macgregor $10,000 to shoot your project for you. You'll still have $10,000 in your pocket, and I dare say that Macgregor on an HVX is going to beat most anybody on a stripped down Red, any day, for DVD release.

Give us a 4:2:2, Full Frame interchangeable lens camera with variable frame rates and 10/11 stops of dinamic range at below 10k. Heck, Give us a 4:2:2, 1080p, 2/3 interchangeable/fixed lens camera with 10/11 stops of dinamic range for below 10k! In a portable, handheld form!

This is what I want.
Click to expand...
Okay, read what you wrote, and see how a Red One applies. It doesn't. It's almost exactly, entirely what you DON'T want. What you want (from Red) would be the Scarlet. It's going to be a lot less expensive and a lot more portable and probably 2K res. And the smaller it is, the cheaper the support gear will be, and on and on.

Get what you need -- just be sure you need it. That's all I'm saying!

PS-The Blair Whitch Project is terrible- This is not a "film"worth mentioning, in my book, because you can't call that movie as something with even acceptable cinematography, or cinematic composition.
Click to expand...
Yet it did more box office business and is more profitable (on a revenues-to-expenses basis) than any indie film, perhaps moreso than any film ever.

El Mariachi, on the other hand, may not even have broken even, it did maybe $2,000,000 at the box office.

The proof to that is that I can't remember anyone that remembers this movie if not for the massive online viral marketing and its "shacky cam"- no one remembers it for its fantastic story, or acting, or cinematography. Its a piece of cinema history for its marketing success.
Click to expand...
Correct. And "success" in the movie business is determined by marketing.

El Mariachi was an action blockbuster geniously executed with practicaly no budget.
Click to expand...
"blockbuster"? It was, by any rational measure, a box office flop. It also benefited from an aggressive and brilliant marketing campaign (Rodriguez locked himself up in a drug testing lab, turning himself into a human guinea pig for a month to raise half the money to make the film!) but it was hardly a business success.

It was, however, much more like the kind of film that most new filmmakers aspire to make, no doubt. Blair Witch was a hideous experience in all ways except one, which was marketing success.

EDIT- And I know I'll probably get my short film some exposure not because of its technical quality but because of the subject matter. This is normaly how independent films get attention-
Click to expand...
Exactly. Brilliant execution of mediocre subject matter = getting ignored. Mediocre execution of brilliant subject matter = attention and success. Put your energy into your subject matter, and you could shoot it on a handycam and still achieve "success". (of course, brilliant execution of brilliant subject matter = Oscars).

but, as an aspiring fiilmmaker, or a cinematographer, with current bellow 10k cameras, its frustrating that you still need to be fairly wealthy to allow yourself the ability to explore the visual art of your film- at least in a conventional sense...
Click to expand...
You definitely do. If you want to make "What Dreams May Come" you're not going to do that on a $20,000 budget and using a PD150. You need 35mm film with proper lenses and proper support gear, or a Red... but you also need a huge lighting package and, more importantly, a genius production designer who's got the proper budget to give you something gorgeous to shoot. And that all takes money. And that is, indeed, the breaks, and even as camera equipment becomes more affordable, all the necessary people, time, art direction, etc. isn't going to become cheaper.

So instead of trying to make that picture on no money, why not do "following" or "memento". Something clever, new, and different. Do "Run, Lola, Run." Things that don't require genius cinematography and expensive camera equipment and expensive support gear and huge budgets for production design and art direction.
 
Last edited:
And, lest *anyone* think I'm knocking the Red One (after spending about $40,000 on it) let me quote from Ferris Bueller's Day Off:
It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.
Click to expand...
 
David Jimerson said:
And when you get it, what's the next thing you're going to wish it had?




Yet it's the most successful indy film ever.
Click to expand...

Answering your first ( i know rethorical question), I would probably be ranting by the lack of good actors, a good team, more supportive local authority for shooting, etc. But I wouldn't have an excuse to rant on my camera!

2- Can't argue with numbers. If filmmaking is all about making money, I'm sure I could be very "successful" with an HVX. But is Blair Witch a film worth watching? It was a money making vehicle, pure and simple. A movie with mediocre content, poor cinematography, with absolutely nothing to say. This is not what I personaly want to achieve. And I believe its also something that's not the absolute priority for someone that loves filmmaking.

I want to make movies that mean something, that entertain. I want to tell stories the way I see them, and I want people to enjoy them. And if it makes money, and people pay to see it, it means they did enjoy it. And they would probably want to see more. I do not want to rip-off my audience. In America, you have a popular saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."

Honestly ( I know, he's probably a billionaire) what other notable work as the director of "Blair Witch" ever done? Or, in other words, would you ever see, if not only for cheer curiosity, a movie with the tagline on the trailer "From the director of the Blair Witch Project"?

EDIT- Barry, I see your point. The RED probably is not the camera for me at the moment. Lets hope the Scarlet is... Or, seriously hoping... The next HVX?
 
Last edited:
But BWitch wasn't made with nigh the capacity of an HVX; it was shot with shinny, on a stick.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. As much as I'd love to make films like 28 Days Later or some other (insert action horror spectacle) I want to make something of substance; Sideways, Munich, Michael Clayton ...

I want to make movies that mean something, that entertain. I want to tell stories the way I see them, and I want people to enjoy them. And if it makes money, and people pay to see it, it means they did enjoy it. And they would probably want to see more. I do not want to rip-off my audience. In America, you have a popular saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."
Click to expand...

I'm with you again

But I assure you; the technology is already here. It isn't Red, no matter how gnarly that camera is ...

It's here

DVX's, HVX's, the Sony's ..............

Luis Caffesse said it greatly; we're not waiting on the next ......

see my signature for the quote.

=

There is NOTHING holding anyone back right now except talent and doing.

Period.

Films that could have been done on out current cameras ?

Babel comes to mind.
 
SPZ said:
Answering your first ( i know rethorical question), I would probably be ranting by the lack of good actors, a good team, more supportive local authority for shooting, etc. But I wouldn't have an excuse to rant on my camera!
Click to expand...

Rants always start below the top......
 
craigbowman said:
Ever try to pull a decent key with a DV camera. Yuck. Compression artifacts all over the place. Sorry but the Red is the best camera I've ever used for vfx work and it gives better results than cameras costing five times more and five times less.

This board is obviously very pre-occupied with no budget features but that only makes up one part of the production world. Companies have work to do for their clients and things are very competitive out there. Anything that can increase the quality of work without breaking the bank will be adopted.

What I will say about movie making is if you want to make a feature, then focus your energy on getting the production done. Trying to own gear is a waste of your valuable budget on something other than your primary goal.

Too many people here announce they want to make production X and want to know what to buy. Simple. Don't buy anything other than expendables, (Gels, tape, black wrap...), or something that is really cheaper to buy than it is to rent.

The production company you set up for your feature should only end up owning the finished product when its done and not anything else.

Most important: Don't self-finance your own projects.
Click to expand...

I agree the 4:4:4 would be perfect for Green screen work and Dv is very jaggedly but I've pulled some pretty tight keys from the HVX. I do agree though it depends on what project your filming and production/client costs.

For TV advertisements, shows movies and a lot of music videos a HD camera is more then enough but if your looking for a film out for cinema use then cameras like the RED are by all means what you would be using.

Michael Freudenberg
 
IMHO, Blair Witch conceptually allows the use of such cameras. The key is in the story. But I'm afraid that it's probably one-of-a-kind.

If the story allows it, even an VHS camera will do. The story is the hard part...

I'm trying hard now to find a DV-friendly story.. for budgetary reasons. :)

It's not easy...

Blair Witch is brilliant, scariest movie I ever saw! The very way I saw it was ominous and freaked me out for decades :).
 
Some issues I've heard about via an audio friend of mine re: the Red...can any Red owners comment on this?

"> Timecode still isnt stable, use a clockit box, the timecode is still
> input only and doesnt display the TC until camera goes into record,
> for the units that the four TA3 audio connectors are actually
> connected to the motherboard the audio sounds terrible for 24b 48k and
> overloads if you go over 0, if you can figure out where zero is since
> there are no scale meters, camera over heats very easily and there are
> no user controls for the cooling fan. It will come on when ever it
> needs to, usually when in standby mode but often during record and
> sounds like a 747 taking off.
>
> Treat the Red One like a film camera, slate and separate audio
> recorder required"
 
SPZ said:
2- Can't argue with numbers. If filmmaking is all about making money, I'm sure I could be very "successful" with an HVX.
Click to expand...

That is what the business of filmmaking is. That is what Hollywood -- and Bollywood -- are about.


But is Blair Witch a film worth watching?
Click to expand...
Scared the willies out of me the first time I watched, particularly when they found all the twig sculptures in the trees, and when they found the bloody handkerchief right outside their tent. I also appreciated the biting commentary about "Gilligan's Island."


It was a money making vehicle, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
I don't think the fillmmakers saw it that way at all. I'm certain they saw it in exactly the way indy filmmakers see their films.



A movie with mediocre content, poor cinematography
Click to expand...
The "cinematography" was absolutely appropriate for the film. It was supposed to be a string of home movie content shot by complete amateurs. If it had been gussied up, it wouldn't have fit the film. What else do you want?


with absolutely nothing to say.
Click to expand...
It had plenty to say about how people react in a given situation. Maybe you didn't get it -- I dunno -- but it made perfect sense to me. Besides, sometimes the point is just to pop out and say "boo."


This is not what I personaly want to achieve.
Click to expand...
And that's your personal preference. But don't confuse your personal preference with What A Film Should Be.


And I believe its also something that's not the absolute priority for someone that loves filmmaking.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely certain that the people who made it would say they love filmmaking and would vehemently disagree with you -- as to what their film what was about, as to what their priorities WERE, and as to what their priorities SHOULD be.


I want to make movies that mean something, that entertain.
Click to expand...
There are many who took meaning out of, and were entertained by, Blair Witch. Do I think it was the greatest movie ever made? Hardly. Did I take something from it, and was I entertained by it? Yes.


I want to tell stories the way I see them, and I want people to enjoy them.
Click to expand...
Then do it. But you don't have to bust down someone else's effort in order to do it.


And if it makes money, and people pay to see it, it means they did enjoy it. And they would probably want to see more. I do not want to rip-off my audience. In America, you have a popular saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."
Click to expand...
Whom do you think was "fooled"?

Look, I personally find the fawning over "Good Will Hunting" extremely annoying, because I don't see in it what other people obviously do. But I also recognize that my personal point of view isn't controlling, and is apparently very much in the minority. So, what do I do? I do my own thing.


Honestly ( I know, he's probably a billionaire) what other notable work as the director of "Blair Witch" ever done? Or, in other words, would you ever see, if not only for cheer curiosity, a movie with the tagline on the trailer "From the director of the Blair Witch Project"?
Click to expand...
So what? Meat Loaf put out one hell of an album in 1977 and hasn't done anything to match it since, but that doesn't mean "Bat Out of Hell" isn't still one hell of an album.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top