RED thoughts
- Thread starter Emanuel
- Start date
EL_STUPIDO
Active member
yeah that's the right idea re: the supposed revolution guys. Distribution & marketing is the vehicle upon which major films ride on. YouTube and what have you are totally the best challenge to that. Was reading an article in the latest article re: digital cinema in australia. Satelite is still taking up to 40 hours to down load 1.3k features.
So we will switch from shipping several reels per film to shipping one loadable hard disk or a 'data tape' or something like that seemed to be what they were saying.
And Jarred raises a point I have made before: the tools have improved the image quality... but we need to spend more time working on the story & the script before hitting record or...
yeah that was a big rant that didn't add anything. But thanks. Hello Australians. I want to see test footage when you've got your cameras.
El Stupido
So we will switch from shipping several reels per film to shipping one loadable hard disk or a 'data tape' or something like that seemed to be what they were saying.
And Jarred raises a point I have made before: the tools have improved the image quality... but we need to spend more time working on the story & the script before hitting record or...
yeah that was a big rant that didn't add anything. But thanks. Hello Australians. I want to see test footage when you've got your cameras.
El Stupido
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
I second that idea of a digital slate, though perhaps with some useability tweaks to allow it to be done on board the camera itself and not require a separate data entry person's input? With the USB slots or the SD card you could customise your own digital slate (including funky custom backdrop etc) and be able to have not only an image based slate but also filename based slate names. After all, recording to a hard drive you can basically create synced audio and video files with identical slate names (with different extensions) with zero effort. Post will be simply a case of dragging the files into your computer/editing program and off you go, ready synced rushes all neatly filed and categorised. THAT is as much a potential part of the Red Revolution as the camera itself, and should save hours of work!!
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
Hahaha... well, the Steenbeck DOES suck... badly!! 
No, my reason is mainly one of positive reinforcement of the message. To paraphrase Aldous Huxley, "42,000 repetitions make one truth".
And having edited on the Steenbeck but also from a telecined 16mm print to DVCAM with separate WAV format audio files, I can say that spending hours syncing up audio is a major pain which can be totally eliminated workflow wise by what I am suggesting.
What might also be nice (and this comes from my using a Sounddevices 722 hard drive audio recorder on several films) is to have the camera be able to link to an external recorder to set sync using its own clock and transferring the filename/take name to that recorder (though I think that perhaps it is only the higher end 744T that has the capability for an external sync clock, haven't used it).
Anything that saves the many hours of syncing audio is a good thing in my book
No, my reason is mainly one of positive reinforcement of the message. To paraphrase Aldous Huxley, "42,000 repetitions make one truth".
And having edited on the Steenbeck but also from a telecined 16mm print to DVCAM with separate WAV format audio files, I can say that spending hours syncing up audio is a major pain which can be totally eliminated workflow wise by what I am suggesting.
What might also be nice (and this comes from my using a Sounddevices 722 hard drive audio recorder on several films) is to have the camera be able to link to an external recorder to set sync using its own clock and transferring the filename/take name to that recorder (though I think that perhaps it is only the higher end 744T that has the capability for an external sync clock, haven't used it).
Anything that saves the many hours of syncing audio is a good thing in my book
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
Actually I just thought of something else too - with an electronic slate, it may still be that external audio recorders would want that sound "clap" to sync in the event that they don't link to the camera by some means. So here is my idea...
Why not have the electronic slate, if there is one, also emit via the camera a one frame sound tone on that slate frame (customisable to tail slate if you want) so that syncing in post can still be done via the audio route of syncing the "clapper" frame with the audio tone frame? That would be VERY useful to those of us syncing via an external recorder and still eliminate the need for a physical clapper
Why not have the electronic slate, if there is one, also emit via the camera a one frame sound tone on that slate frame (customisable to tail slate if you want) so that syncing in post can still be done via the audio route of syncing the "clapper" frame with the audio tone frame? That would be VERY useful to those of us syncing via an external recorder and still eliminate the need for a physical clapper
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
Thanks
It's not going to replace the sound recordist having to call out the take number for the microphone (or the camera operator if he/she can read out the digital slate info off the LCD maybe?) but it'll certainly avoid the need for the physical clapper itself.
So Red team, if you decide to implement my suggestion perhaps also have the slate number display on the LCD for the operator to read off to the soundie? Would be beneficial to others as well who may be marking off the various sheets to have the camera slate info called out.
It's not going to replace the sound recordist having to call out the take number for the microphone (or the camera operator if he/she can read out the digital slate info off the LCD maybe?) but it'll certainly avoid the need for the physical clapper itself.
So Red team, if you decide to implement my suggestion perhaps also have the slate number display on the LCD for the operator to read off to the soundie? Would be beneficial to others as well who may be marking off the various sheets to have the camera slate info called out.
Thomas Mathai
Active member
joelnet said:
It's always amusing for me to hear about how they saved 1/2 an hour from a 12-16 hour day or $2 million from a $160 million budget.
I was at the DGA for their Digital Day event, where Fincher and a few other directors were talking about how they are going digital and staying digital.
Now I see it as a creative choice to stick with digital or film. I personally like both.
In fact I really love the look of Miami Vice, Michael Mann just made it look unique and engaging. I really wish they had released it digitally.
I predict images from RED will lean closer to what the Genesis puts out than 35mm. Higher dynamic range and really clean. Sorta like what Superman Returns looked like, though not as plastic looking.
Hollywood may not seem as to be embracing new technology, but it was only 14 years ago when post production began switching to digital.
Going digital in post saved a lot of money and shaved a lot of time off a production schedule.
Shooting digital isn't as big a cost savings on a big studio film, where all film costs are nominal compared to the budget. These days it all ends up digital anyways.
I see RED having more of an affect on worldwide film production where budgets average in the $1-5 million range.
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
I guess hassle isn't really the right word, it's just something that the advent of a hard drive based workflow has the potential to make a thing of the past. In five years it would be great to have people laugh at the time when people used to have to manually sync separated audio and video elements in a computer (or on a Steenbeck!).
My biggest issue I experienced with syncing audio was with a Steenbeck workflow with the mag tape being dubbed to from a digital recording, and having the audio framerate incorrectly set at dub time... (film was at 25fps, audio 24fps, now that was pain until I figured out what the problem was and re-dubbed it).
I just think that the Red camera has the potential to be the first camera to deal with the audio workflow path in a way that eliminates the tedium of external syncing forever. My suggestion for the audio beep with the digital slate idea realises that potential if Red decide to implement it and could be one of those things where everyone says "Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?" I'd be glad just to have contributed that to Red since I have a stake in seeing it succeed.
I guess the other reason I make a lot of mention about sound is that that's where my main skill area in film is (well, beyond my nascent directing career!) - I am a passionate sound recordist/boom operator/sound designer who would love to see the workflow process of sound combine better with the camera side of the equation. Since Red is starting with no preconceptions I have a unique opportunity to possibly influence the course of that through giving lots of good ideas and hoping that some make it into the camera so everyone can benefit.
My biggest issue I experienced with syncing audio was with a Steenbeck workflow with the mag tape being dubbed to from a digital recording, and having the audio framerate incorrectly set at dub time... (film was at 25fps, audio 24fps, now that was pain until I figured out what the problem was and re-dubbed it).
I just think that the Red camera has the potential to be the first camera to deal with the audio workflow path in a way that eliminates the tedium of external syncing forever. My suggestion for the audio beep with the digital slate idea realises that potential if Red decide to implement it and could be one of those things where everyone says "Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?"
I'd be glad just to have contributed that to Red since I have a stake in seeing it succeed.I guess the other reason I make a lot of mention about sound is that that's where my main skill area in film is (well, beyond my nascent directing career!) - I am a passionate sound recordist/boom operator/sound designer who would love to see the workflow process of sound combine better with the camera side of the equation. Since Red is starting with no preconceptions I have a unique opportunity to possibly influence the course of that through giving lots of good ideas and hoping that some make it into the camera so everyone can benefit.
Last edited:
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
We hope so!visceralpsyche said:
And it's interesting to read a sound man like you having an open mind on the subject and not -- as someone already posted it, a corporatist one.My suggestion for the audio beep with the digital slate idea realises that potential if Red decide to implement it and could be one of those things where everyone says "Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?"
I guess the other reason I make a lot of mention about sound is that that's where my main skill area in film is (well, beyond my nascent directing career!) - I am a passionate sound recordist/boom operator/sound designer who would love to see the workflow process of sound combine better with the camera side of the equation. Since Red is starting with no preconceptions I have a unique opportunity to possibly influence the course of that through giving lots of good ideas and hoping that some make it into the camera so everyone can benefit.
Gibby
Red Savant
Excellent thread and some well-placed input!
This thread has been essentially feature “film” centric, with a lot of indie “film” suggestions, and only a few “other uses” remarks. If you analyze the image formats, lens formats, lens options, and other proposed features of RED it is quit evident that RED is being designed for use in multiple genres of production, both cine-style and ENG-style.
Everyone has heard the timeworn cliché “Think outside the box”. Well, bear with me as we “Think outside the feature/indie box”.
For my business I view the RED One camera as a multi-tool device, like a digital motion media Swiss Army knife. To develop the analogy, simple knives have just one blade, and thus limited usefulness. Other knives have two or three blades, and then can be used for a lot more things. A top-level Swiss Army knife features as many as 30 or 35 different blades and tools. Lets go back to RED. The RED camera body is analogous to the Swiss Army knife body, with many of the “blades” inside it in the form of the CMOS sensor and the other chipsets that enable the multiple image formats and lens formats, and HDD or Flash. The other “blades and tools” are exterior add-ons in the form of lenses, braces, screen, EVF, rails, follow focus, lights, wireless mics, etc.
Follow me here: No matter what corner of the motion media business you work in, it’s just that – a business. We buy tools to make us money and help us realize our professional goals. That said, the more versatile our toolset, the more opportunity it affords us to make money. That is assuming that your skill sets match your toolset! Why would someone buy a full-featured Swiss Army knife if all they ever want to do were whittle with one of its knife blades? If you buy a full-featured Swiss Army knife use all those cool spoons, scissors, corkscrews, etc.!! In the case of RED, knowing how to use all the available “blades” will make you infinitely more money than just using a few. Beyond the added income you’ll generate, it is professionally elating to learn new skill sets and genres of production. Think horizontal in terms of your production genre skill sets – and vertical in your knowledge quotient for each of those skill sets. If you do this you will make more money, and you’ll realize more self-fulfillment in your work.
A specialist is usually someone who learns more and more about less and less – until they know everything about nothing. I view media convergence as being a proactive, skill set broadening exercise – not an opportunity to just apply new technology to a narrow niche of production skills. If you can be a versatile generalist who has deep skills in multiple genres of footage acquisition, you’re a perfect match for the RED Swiss Army knife of a camera. Even if our dream is to produce features or wide-distribution indie “films” (though they may never see film in their workflow or distribution), why should we ignore the many potential production genres, revenue streams, and distribution models that will leverage out the revenue-generating potential of this a multi-niche capable camera system? The added revenue from learning to work in other genres of production might very well finance your pet projects in the production niche that is closest to your heart! Will professional pride and prejudice keep you from using your camera system to its full potential? If you “lower” yourself to learn other production genres won’t that increase your revenue, thus getting you closer to your pet projects?
I’ve made a conscious choice to not be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. I broadened my production skill sets long before RED came on the scene. I’ve been waiting for a camera to match my skill sets, with maximum earning potential, which will also give me an opportunity to learn new skills.
If RED delivers the features they’ve announced, I may have finally found the Swiss Army knife I’ve been looking for…
Again - great thread! Open your minds to the creative possibilities and you'll probably enjoy the rewards of doing so...
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
This thread has been essentially feature “film” centric, with a lot of indie “film” suggestions, and only a few “other uses” remarks. If you analyze the image formats, lens formats, lens options, and other proposed features of RED it is quit evident that RED is being designed for use in multiple genres of production, both cine-style and ENG-style.
Everyone has heard the timeworn cliché “Think outside the box”. Well, bear with me as we “Think outside the feature/indie box”.
For my business I view the RED One camera as a multi-tool device, like a digital motion media Swiss Army knife. To develop the analogy, simple knives have just one blade, and thus limited usefulness. Other knives have two or three blades, and then can be used for a lot more things. A top-level Swiss Army knife features as many as 30 or 35 different blades and tools. Lets go back to RED. The RED camera body is analogous to the Swiss Army knife body, with many of the “blades” inside it in the form of the CMOS sensor and the other chipsets that enable the multiple image formats and lens formats, and HDD or Flash. The other “blades and tools” are exterior add-ons in the form of lenses, braces, screen, EVF, rails, follow focus, lights, wireless mics, etc.
Follow me here: No matter what corner of the motion media business you work in, it’s just that – a business. We buy tools to make us money and help us realize our professional goals. That said, the more versatile our toolset, the more opportunity it affords us to make money. That is assuming that your skill sets match your toolset! Why would someone buy a full-featured Swiss Army knife if all they ever want to do were whittle with one of its knife blades? If you buy a full-featured Swiss Army knife use all those cool spoons, scissors, corkscrews, etc.!! In the case of RED, knowing how to use all the available “blades” will make you infinitely more money than just using a few. Beyond the added income you’ll generate, it is professionally elating to learn new skill sets and genres of production. Think horizontal in terms of your production genre skill sets – and vertical in your knowledge quotient for each of those skill sets. If you do this you will make more money, and you’ll realize more self-fulfillment in your work.
A specialist is usually someone who learns more and more about less and less – until they know everything about nothing. I view media convergence as being a proactive, skill set broadening exercise – not an opportunity to just apply new technology to a narrow niche of production skills. If you can be a versatile generalist who has deep skills in multiple genres of footage acquisition, you’re a perfect match for the RED Swiss Army knife of a camera. Even if our dream is to produce features or wide-distribution indie “films” (though they may never see film in their workflow or distribution), why should we ignore the many potential production genres, revenue streams, and distribution models that will leverage out the revenue-generating potential of this a multi-niche capable camera system? The added revenue from learning to work in other genres of production might very well finance your pet projects in the production niche that is closest to your heart! Will professional pride and prejudice keep you from using your camera system to its full potential? If you “lower” yourself to learn other production genres won’t that increase your revenue, thus getting you closer to your pet projects?
I’ve made a conscious choice to not be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. I broadened my production skill sets long before RED came on the scene. I’ve been waiting for a camera to match my skill sets, with maximum earning potential, which will also give me an opportunity to learn new skills.
If RED delivers the features they’ve announced, I may have finally found the Swiss Army knife I’ve been looking for…
Again - great thread! Open your minds to the creative possibilities and you'll probably enjoy the rewards of doing so...
Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
visceralpsyche
Well-known member
Definitely! Thanks to your posts I am already beginning to think about doing some television shows to sell to the networks here - they are all screaming for HD content and I can see myself making a small series of half hour shows to fill that niche quite nicely. Ditto on the advertising side and stock footage (something I never thought of at all until you mentioned it).
Of course my main focus is on my goal of making a feature length movie (got to get away from calling them "films" since they most likely won't have celluloid film anywhere in the process) and hopefully carrying it forward to more if it is successful. But as you say, to dismiss the other work you can do with this camera would be to unnecessarily deny yourself many opportunities.
I'm really looking forward to catching up in person when you come and visit us down under!
Of course my main focus is on my goal of making a feature length movie (got to get away from calling them "films" since they most likely won't have celluloid film anywhere in the process) and hopefully carrying it forward to more if it is successful. But as you say, to dismiss the other work you can do with this camera would be to unnecessarily deny yourself many opportunities.
I'm really looking forward to catching up in person when you come and visit us down under!
Gibby
Red Savant
Just to stoke this fire a little... =o) I was reading some stuff about Kodak cutting more jobs and restructuring due to digital migrating and while the article pointed out that Kodak for the first year (in 2005) had more sales in the digital realm, it also pointed out that in 2005 they sold over 10 billion feet of movie film stock, the most ever in their history. So... film is dead? Not for acquisition... not for a while...
ash =o)
ash =o)
Gordon Prince
Well-known member
Can the first part of your post solve the mystery?
AshG said:
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
thx for your support.. but will it be possible after this ?..:im.thatoneguy said:
Emanuel I'm with your synthesisEmanuel said:
and the best i could read.. are you working for him? 
Gordon Prince said:
Mystery? Everyone knows the direction everything is headed but the more important thing was the SECOND part of my post. The fact that Kodak sold more feet of motion picture FILM, than in any year in their entire history. The assertion that digital is taking over is dead wrong for acquisition. It has merely cracked the door open. Will it take over? Yes, but it is not remotely close and well further off than most everyone seems to think.
ash =o)