Red: not for indie film makers

k guys. Red is not the camera you buy if you dont actually shoot. its not a hobby camera (unless your really rich).. its a tool yes, but not the kinda tool you dont put in a drawer somewhere and forget about.

This camera is meant to be the first digital camera released that does not impose restrictions and compromise onto the operator.

Lets see how far the RED team gets to that target.
 
For those without just a touch of real experience, here's a quick way to know what level of set you're on without asking the producer what the budget is:

No Budget Shoots have no Grips or Electricians
Low Budget Shoots have Grip/Electricians
Professional Shoots have Seperate Grips and Electricians

If you're on the first kind of shoot, this camera was never meant for you. Keep learning with tools like the DVX and if you've got talent, you'll soon be at a point where this camera doesn't seem so out of reach. To put this into perspective, however, take a look at some of the similar options available to people doing real low budget or professional work:

Dalsa Origin, the only other 4K acquisition I know of: Massive (MASSIVE!) camera, $3000/day RENTAL. That's 6 rental days for the price of owning the Red camera.

Thompson Viper Filmstream, limited to 2/3" chips and 1080: $1000/day rental. That's 18 days for the price of the Red camera.

Arri d20: between 2k and 4k resolution, still not available for rental, sure to be expensive

Arricam 535B: $800/day rental. 22 days for the price of Red

Arri 35-III, a relatively limited camera is still $550/day.

Even an Arri 16SR3 is $700/day.

So when you look at the economics of filmmaking right now, what Red intends to do is in fact nothing short of a revolution. Now it obviously remains to be seen if they can deliver on all of these promises. But even if they fall short a little bit, they're still creating a world where it actually makes financial sense to buy a camera instead of rent if you intend to shoot for at least 30 days with it during the time that you own it. It affords you the opportunity to shoot in a variety of formats all with one camera.

I remain skeptical, just so that I don't get disappointed. But I'm exteremly excited about what this could mean.

Will
 
Hmm, I did a no-budget shoot last year that had grips/electricians and an Arri D-20. So where do I fit in?
 
Wiyum said:
For those without just a touch of real experience, here's a quick way to know what level of set you're on without asking the producer what the budget is:

No Budget Shoots have no Grips or Electricians
Low Budget Shoots have Grip/Electricians
Professional Shoots have Seperate Grips and Electricians

If you're on the first kind of shoot, this camera was never meant for you. Keep learning with tools like the DVX and if you've got talent, you'll soon be at a point where this camera doesn't seem so out of reach. To put this into perspective, however, take a look at some of the similar options available to people doing real low budget or professional work:

Dalsa Origin, the only other 4K acquisition I know of: Massive (MASSIVE!) camera, $3000/day RENTAL. That's 6 rental days for the price of owning the Red camera.

Thompson Viper Filmstream, limited to 2/3" chips and 1080: $1000/day rental. That's 18 days for the price of the Red camera.

Arri d20: between 2k and 4k resolution, still not available for rental, sure to be expensive

Arricam 535B: $800/day rental. 22 days for the price of Red

Arri 35-III, a relatively limited camera is still $550/day.

Even an Arri 16SR3 is $700/day.

So when you look at the economics of filmmaking right now, what Red intends to do is in fact nothing short of a revolution. Now it obviously remains to be seen if they can deliver on all of these promises. But even if they fall short a little bit, they're still creating a world where it actually makes financial sense to buy a camera instead of rent if you intend to shoot for at least 30 days with it during the time that you own it. It affords you the opportunity to shoot in a variety of formats all with one camera.

I remain skeptical, just so that I don't get disappointed. But I'm exteremly excited about what this could mean.

Will
Click to expand...

I don't think your comparison of no/low/pro is correct at all, but the rest makes sense.

All of these classes are numbers based, and can ALL be considered indie. Indie is just free of all those restrictions.

No-budget filmmaking is 99,000 and below (as earlier stated).

Low/No-Budget is 100,000 to 499,000 (roughly)

Low Budget is 500,000 +

Once you get into the 10 mil bracket it's just "hollywood".
 
Stephen W said:
Hmm, I did a no-budget shoot last year that had grips/electricians and an Arri D-20. So where do I fit in?
Click to expand...
agree...having lived in atlanta and stepped into the film scene there for a bit, I can say that different talent pool together to create stuff for film festivals.
(so you have a true crew) and for no budget.

peace

dalen
 
Kholi said:
I don't think your comparison of no/low/pro is correct at all, but the rest makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't make it clear that I was saying that in humor. Maybe a smiley would've helped? Maybe it should have *actually* been funny?

It was a failure, either way.

Will
 
vamshi said:
Martin Hill:
"If you have no plans to retire within the next decade, then RED will probably be more cost effective than a cheaper camera. RED will last for at least a decade or two, whereas cheaper cameras will be showing their age within the next 5 years."

I feel its a matter of hype..like it happened in the case of canon xl2, canon hd , dvx hvx, jvc or what ever...within one year everything changed.

vamshi
Click to expand...

True, but I doubt that everything will change within a year, or even half a decade. The prosumer market has only just begun transitioning to HD. RED will capture more than enough resolution for HD's potential replacement, 4K. The cameras you mentioned fell victim to either the transition to HD, or resolution/dynamic range/format limitations. Sure, we might see 4K prosumer cameras in the next decade, but even if we do, RED will still be able to exceed them in terms of resolution, most likely voiding the need to buy a replacement camera. If the Sony F900 drops to just $15k next year, I would still choose RED because it is much more future-proof (and flexible...and compact...).

I very much doubt that Sony/Panasonic/Canon/JVC will lower the prices of their prosumer cameras because of a $17,500 camera. The Panasonic HVX200, for example, is already over $10,000 cheaper than RED.
 
I went to NAB, went to the RED booth and well I had mixed feelings. If this camera does what it says it will do it's a great buy at 17K. More importantly it will light a fire under the other companies to start making true "film making" tools at much lower prices.

Since there has been discussion about what makes someone a film maker and not just a camera owner/operator lets think about the artistic aspect of this.

It could be said that if you make a film you are a film maker, good or bad if the film is made it's made and thus the title film maker. If you own a camera, cheap or expensive, you are a camera owner. So who really cares right? If we use Cinema release or Academy "nod" as a marker for what is a true "film" then its already been demonstrated that everything from a DV camera to a Panavision will get the job done.

Obviously if you make two great films (i.e. good story, pacing, acting, etc) and hand it over to a studio they may be more likely to release the film that has some production quality and value first. This is where camera choice might make a difference but it should never be an excuse to not make a good movie. There has been plenty of crap made with 100K cameras.

There is a very artistic and visual importance as well. I love DOF control and think it's very important to story telling. That is why I'm waiting for 35mm sized sensors and controls on a camera that make this part of the process easier and closer to what we are use to. My biggest problem with the RED camera is I'm afraid it might be to niche and to Oakley for its own good. Obviously the prototype they had there was far from finished, but I want a camera that works like the film cameras I've used before. Not an artistic master piece. I don't care what it's made out of, what shape it is, etc. but I want it to be a usuable tool. Not sure RED has this nailed down yet. When asked about a viewfinder - there was no answer. When I suggested they go and look through the Arri D20 viewfinder at the Arri booth - they said they don't want Optical. Hmmm..
 
FullRez said:
When I suggested they go and look through the Arri D20 viewfinder at the Arri booth - they said they don't want Optical. Hmmm..
Click to expand...
I guess is just a matter of personal taste. In a film camera, the optical viewfinder was/is the choice. Video assist (for crane shoots) is nothing but a framing tool (far from perfect). However, when all in all is electronic, an optical viewfinder in an electronic medium would only add other issues to sort out (such as light loss from a split prism, or...?) when you have the option to frame from a much comfortable position using a larger display. Imagine a steadicam operator using a viewfinder (instead of the monitor) for example. Camera moves a lot. Head/eye and body of the operator doesn't "need" to. I would trade anytime a viewfinder (optical or electronic) for a larger hi rez display, but... like I said, a matter of personal preference.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad they're including a flip-out LCD / OLED instead of a viewfinder. I love the WYSIWIG feel of Digital Film. Optical is not necessary for the vast majority of applications, and would have driven the price up to Arri D20 levels. No thanks.

7" Hi-Res LCD w/focus assist should work great. Plus, they've already said the display would show an image larger than the recorded footage, so you can see what's outside of the frame, just like an optical viewfinder. You get the benefits without the drawbacks.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the high res LCD. But there are just times when you want to shoot with your eye up against something. There are plenty of long time DP's that will want a viewfinder like they are use to. If you have never experienced ARRI UltraBright viewfinders you should.

Having that extra glass in there could hurt so I'm not sure it's the answer but they shoudn't rule out an eye piece.
 
in case it wasn't mentioned yet in this thread (can't remember) I read that you can use third party viewfinders for those who want it, this way it keeps the cost down for those who dont
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
in case it wasn't mentioned yet in this thread (can't remember) I read that you can use third party viewfinders for those who want it, this way it keeps the cost down for those who dont
Click to expand...

I believe I read that as well. Probably in the interview with Jannard on Monday. I imagine there will be some sort of work-around for those who are determined.
 
FullRez said:
Don't get me wrong, there are just times when you want to shoot with your eye up against something. There are plenty of long time DP's that will want a viewfinder like they are use to. If you have never experienced ARRI UltraBright viewfinders you should.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you are saying and you are right (sadly, I know the feeling and the difference) but..., as the technology changes, so do the generations of shooters. I remember 6 years ago, when the first "buz" was out for digital cameras and such.... ""Whooooat a pain!!!!!!!! Noooo... I'll die shooting FILM"", and so on. What's left from all that struggle today? A new DP and a DIT. From adjusting light brightness and color temps with a light meter in hand and “a certain look” in mind to adjusting curves on vectorscope and checking the desired look on a monitor..... is quite a trip (not a walk in the park). Some adapt and adopt, others struggle with change and manage to cope or loose grounds (as in any other field). Hmmm...I guess I didn't say anything new.:)

<<<Having that extra glass in there could hurt so I'm not sure it's the answer but they shoudn't rule out an eye piece.>>>

I agree. They should leave the option open as an add-on for extra $. I only fear that making it available (from a technological POV) would imply extra work and cost to the product. You can't just putty stick an optical viewfinder to a finished product, they would have to provide the means to allow the add-on (and that could be an expensive option or raise the cost). I am just guessing here like everybody else.
 
It would be great to have an optical viewfinder, but a little unpractical...

For instance, Why would you want to add a reflex system with a mecanical shutter to an electronic device? So you can have mechanical failure in addition to IT bugs? Would you really want to oil your digital camera every month?

Besides, for a film POV, I understand that the optical VF is the closest the DP has to seeing what it's going to look like. But in digital, the monitors are going to show a much more accurate image. The monitors are going to show you grain, blowouts, color shifts, much better than the viewfinder. If we can have overscan on the LCD (great score for RED), really what else do we need?
 
taubkin said:
Besides, for a film POV, I understand that the optical VF is the closest the DP has to seeing what it's going to look like. But in digital, the monitors are going to show a much more accurate image. The monitors are going to show you grain, blowouts, color shifts, much better than the viewfinder.
Click to expand...

the mans got a point
 
All great points...

From a fillm POV - It's not always the DP looking through the camera. Most of the time there are camera operators (Camera A, B, etc). They don't care what it looks like they just want to make sure they can frame it and focus it.

There is no doubt that a DP and Director are better served by looking at a high res display of exactly what will be shot. However, this is not always going to be the best way to lens something. Do your own experiment. Try to capture some fast action and careful timing by looking at your LCD flip out and then try it again with your eye in the eye piece. Isolating your image and removing background distractions is very important. For anyone who has shot footage with a geared head and comfortable viewfinder you know what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying this should be the out of the box arrangement of the RED camera, but this should be an option. My main concern about the RED camera is that it needs to be usable, not just look cool using it.
 
taubkin said:
For instance, Why would you want to add a reflex system with a mecanical shutter to an electronic device?
...But in digital, the monitors are going to show a much more accurate image.
Click to expand...
There could be a mechanical shutter that is used only when optical viewfinder is necessary.
The camera records and optical viewfinder shows more resolution than any monitor or electronical viewfinder can show.
Why do you think dslr's have optical viewfinders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top