so why wait for RED?

[SomewhereinLA]

Luki,
Sure, do send my best to him, here is someone that's a real genius,can't wait to see what you guys are working on and do say hi to Nacho as well. I worked at the 5D office in L.A with Colin and Peter . My name is Fabrice( I am french, it should be easy to remember).My job was primarily to help debug , suggest interface design changes to the Cyborg as well as putting together demos . Even by today's standard Cyborg was an incredible system, and like everyone at 5D, I was shocked and very much sadden by the "events". I worked closely with Fergus at the London Office. ( I hope that's enough name dropping which I still see from time to time along with David, since they have their U.S office at Universal where I work.

Chris, my background is digital media and technology. Which is why I do like to question things that are pertinent to mew technologies ... trust me I am always ready to get onto the new thing, but everything I read about RED doesn't add up. Also we need to keep in mind that in the next 2 years, other companies may come with much cheaper ways to achieve higher resolutions cheaper. I guess we will have to see.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I'm curious, SomewhereinLA... exactly what doesn't add up? Nothing RED is claiming is out there in "too good to be true" territory, tech-wise. The sensor technology is probably the biggest breakthrough, but given the advances we've seen with dSLR sensors over the last few years, it's really not too surprising. And the pricing is also quite plausible, if one assumes RED is planning for much higher sales volume than its competitors, which seems to be the case.

The only people who seem to think RED "doesn't add up" are the people who are used to paying the massively inflated prices of the traditional professional video and film worlds.

 

[Deadzone]

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?

True if you don't make your movie period, it is worthless waiting for RED. If those guys you mentioned were able to get distribution deals off of their shorts, then good for them. However, not everyone is going to get a deal off their first short. In fact, the majority of people I know don't get deals off of their shorts (I met many in film school). They end up plunking down a lot of money on something that goes nowhere. Also true, you will have to spend money after the fact of getting RED on things such as actors, lighting, crew, etc... I know a guy who shot his feature film on a Varicam and rented it for $8,000 for a month (and that's a bargain!). The idea is that on your second or third, maybe fifth attempt the cost of Red will be spread out through those productions. I imagine if successful, this camera will be around in the next fifteen years. Of course, my biggest reason for waiting for RED is still the same. I don't like the quality of the DVX or the HVX200. Both produced good imagines, but they are not up to the standards I want when I decide to shoot a feature. I waited since high school for a digital camera that could reproduce close to film quality images. I can wait a few more months.

 

[tonacidigital]

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:

Once RED lands..and it will..and at a fraction of the cost of Cinealta/thomspson/dalsa...and it is...with a data friendly 4k workflow...thanks to redcine...all a person has to do is show how much money is saved by shooting digital and it will gain the support of the producers and companies who would love to cut costs down. Digital video has never looked this good, nor has it ever been offered (for 4k shooting) at this price.

I do agree though, that the whole industry is not going to change overnight.. I do think, however, that RED will be instrumental in expediting the industry's move from film to digital.

 

[donatello]

"trust me I am always ready to get onto the new thing, but everything I read about RED doesn't add up"

so you're in the KNOW of what is possible ..and with all that "know how" you think RED isn't going to add up ...
OK - so if RED delivers and "it adds up" are you going to come back and tell us you were very wrong with your add up ? and admit that you really know very little ??

seems to me that with all these persons that claim they are in the KNOW and that RED can't deliver .. if one of these persons worked for me or was applying for a job as a tech and RED does deliver the 1st thing i would do is get rid of that tech !

 

[luki]

Luki,
Sure, do send my best to him, here is someone that's a real genius,can't wait to see what you guys are working on and do say hi to Nacho as well. I worked at the 5D office in L.A with Colin and Peter . My name is Fabrice( I am french, it should be easy to remember).My job was primarily to help debug , suggest interface design changes to the Cyborg as well as putting together demos . Even by today's standard Cyborg was an incredible system, and like everyone at 5D, I was shocked and very much sadden by the "events". I worked closely with Fergus at the London Office. ( I hope that's enough name dropping which I still see from time to time along with David, since they have their U.S office at Universal where I work.

I'll pass along your regards! Marie is also with ASSIMILATE... in the UK...

Now... what about the proposed RED workflow do you think doesn't work with the datacentric models currently in post?

Lucas

 

[acehole111]

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.

Not to sound like a total prick here.. But If you think that theHVX stills you posted are great, then you better think again. The artistic direction looks fantastic, no arguments there, but the artifacts and highlights are making my head spin.

Each to his own aesthetic though, this is an artistic choice and sometimes a production one.

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

Just got to comment about proprietaryness:

Tape formats - all proprietary - you've got to buy the deck that matches the format, all from the same manufacturer: there are no 3rd party HDCAM decks etc. Ok - with DV you had a few choices, but even with HDV you're locked into a single vendor for the most part.

Codecs - If the manufacturer doesn't give out their codec, it's up to 3rd parties to reverse engineer it. And with new formats you're waiting and waiting for your NLE to get up to date.

RED is not using tape, and we're writing our codecs for as many systems as we can, and for everyone else (probably not that many at all really, but you never know) REDCINE will convert to practically anything. This has got to be about the least proprietary and most open approach their is. We want everyone to be able to use RED footage and will do what we can to put the tools out there to allow people to do this.

Graeme

 

[SomewhereinLA]

Donatello, no need to be personal here, and I am not claiming to be in the "know how" and yes, yes and yes, if I am wrong, I will be the first to say I was wrong, Actually I did state in my first post (maybe you read it) that I could possibly be wrong, trust me it won't be the first time. And who knows, I probably even get one (a red camera, of course)

The thing is, I am not trying to dismiss an idea, or a new product. I like what RED is trying to do, and I am a huge fan of the RAW format since I deal a lot with color grading, RAW would be a dream. But a bit of critical thinking can not be a bad thing, is it.

now,let me explain what I meant by "not adding up" and workflow:

Workflow: A new format is always a pain as far as post production is concern, even HD is still a problem, and still very confusing for a lot of people (clients). I think most of you will agree with that... Furthermore, it take a very long time for software developers to implement a new format within their software pipeline, and that can be very challenging for the company that create that "new product" but also for the client. It can be very costly as well. Then there is the learning curve, engineers and digital artist need to be trained in the new format. I still meet engineers that still don't get HD. But most importantly there is the "Indy" aspect of the RED camera. Handling the post production side for a bigger budget movie can always be handle by a post production house, even if it is costly to get there. But what I am (here goes the not adding up part) cautious about is the claim that RED is geared toward indy film makers. I have a hard time imagining anyone at home editing and color grading the 4k movie they just shot, the way we do it with let's say the HVX on FCP. It would require as stated in my previous post a substantial investment that doesn't exist for most INDY's movies. For 17k you get the basic recording device, but once you add the lenses, the FF, field monitor, matte box, storage (4k you'll need a lot), and all the Post gears, sounds like the final picture will be more like a 100k, which is still not bad(actually not bad at all), but not something most DVX/HVX user can afford... I could go on and on, but won't, I feel this is turning into a contest (not my intention) which I don't care to win...
No one knows much except the The RED team and what they choose to let us know, which obviously is only going to be the positive. There isn't such thing as the Holy Grail.

 

[Graeme_Nattress]

Sure HD is confusing, but there are 11 million different HD formats, so no wonder. If you're shooting 4k with RED, there's 1 format to worry about, and we're a company that you can actually speak to and get answers to questions. Also, there's no legacy support for SD or interlace to worry about, no silly NTSC set up etc. You don't need a deck, and hence can't get "capture settings" wrong.

If you've got a hard time thinking that colour grading 4k at home will be as easy as if you'd shot a HVX 200, you may be in for a suprise. Ok - no 4k monitor, so you'll be viewing a downconvert (realtime or proxy), but it should be do-able.

For 4k you don't need much storage. It's ~ 27 MB/s for REDCODE, which is around what uncompressed SD runs at.

I wouldn't say that RED is aimed at Indy filmmakers, although the price certainly makes it much more affordable for them. RED is aimed at digital filmmakers, or filmmakers who want the best quality digital cinema camera. The camera is something we're selling on quality, and the price is just the cherry on the cake

Graeme

 

[ernesto]

Well this thread has certainly deviated from my original post. I'm not talking about RED's specs, or whether it's real or not, etc. That's being discussed in a bunch of other threads right now, but what I was talking about here is whether it's worth to save up 20-30k for one camera, when with that kind of money one could make a (potentially) great feature film.

Sure, the HVX image isn't as good as the RED image, but so what? It's good enough. Jackass 2 was at the top of the box office for a while, filmed with DV & HD carelessly. It was right there over all the Super 35mm films. Why? Because what people want to see is a movie that entertains them, not a movie that makes them say "Hey, that shot had no artefacting." or "Hey, check out that rack focus."

So again, I still don't understand why people who want to be filmmakers, who want to make movies for a living, would save 20-30k for a single camera, instead of actually making movies with that money. If the HVX + M2 or other such combos are good enough to make your movie look professional to 99.9% of moviegoers, then why not do that?

I'm broke, so I don't have the money to do either. However, if I had 20-30k in my pocket I wouldn't go buy a camera with it. I'd make a damn good film. I just don't understand it.

 

[Jannard]

ernesto... good news is you can do whatever you want with your money. No one is forcing you to even consider the RED camera. We are building a 4k camera that can shoot REDCODE RAW at 27MB/sec and be converted to just about anything with REDCINE. The main advantage is 35mm DOF, great noise (lack of) properties and a price that seems a bargain for what you get. Plus a system behind it for just about any style of shooting you can imagine. If it is not for you, no problem. No arm twisting here. DVXuser.com has a tremendous HVX200 forum.

Jim

 

[ernesto]

ernesto... good news is you can do whatever you want with your money. No one is forcing you to even consider the RED camera. We are building a 4k camera that can shoot REDCODE RAW at 27MB/sec and be converted to just about anything with REDCINE. The main advantage is 35mm DOF, great noise (lack of) properties and a price that seems a bargain for what you get. Plus a system behind it for just about any style of shooting you can imagine. If it is not for you, no problem. No arm twisting here. DVXuser.com has a tremendous HVX200 forum.

Jim

Jim, thanks for replying. What you guys are doing at RED is a great accomplishment. I don't mean to make the RED camera look bad, I do believe that it is real, and I do believe that this is going to be really good for digital cinema overall. Also, I am sorry for mentioning the HVX so much, I'm not trying to advertise that camera, I was just using it as an example. I'll refrain from doing that from now on.

However, I just brought this up because I wanted to hear the opinions of people who are planning to buy RED cameras on why they are planning to buy a camera instead of making a movie with that money. I just want to know out of curiosity, and out of wanting to be more informed. I think RED will be a major milestone for digital cinema, and I hope that someday I get to shoot a feature with one. On the other hand, I still think people get carried away with drooling over the tools, to the point where they forget they are simply tools, and simply a means to get to an end. So I still wonder why people who want to make movies for a living choose to purchase a camera with what is enough money to actually make movies.

 

[Jannard]

ernesto... when you say making movies, I can't help but think that a shallow depth of field helps tell a story. It is possible with an HVX200 (or other HDV camcorder) but by the time you pay for a P+S or other convertor, you are almost to the RED price. And it is an uprezzed 1/3" sensor to HD. I'm just not sure that if you looked closely at the specs and the price you would be asking the question. Now a really good question is renting vs. buying. The only thing I can say to that is the the RED is upgradeable. So you won't get stuck buying a new camera every other year to stay current. And with a real S35mm size sensor and 4k, it will take a long time to be "out-performed".

Jim

 

[ernesto]

Jim, you make good points, and I have realized that my arguement isn't against the RED camera. It is more towards the whole mentality of spending so much money on owning equipment and leaving the actual making of the movies on the side. So like you said, the debate I was bringing up relates more directly to renting vs. buying.

So RED reservation holders, why buy instead of rent? Unless you are buying to start a renting business.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Ernesto...

If you can make a movie with 20,000 dollars and be guaranteed to make money off it, please please let me know the secret. Chances are very high that you will end up with no money AND no camera. This is a professional tool. I will be able to do almost ANY job in the film or video world with this tool. I will demand top dollar for the jobs I do. (ok, now I'm talkin' out my aperature) That's all folks.


RED #258

 

[tonacidigital]

"Sure, the HVX image isn't as good as the RED image, but so what? It's good enough."

This statement is relative to YOUR opinion. I own the HVX200 and although it produces nice images.. the image is still too soft. It falls very short to the quality of 35mm film and it can output only true 720p and has to up-rez to 1080p. RED will allow me to shoot 4k and "down-rez" to the sweetest 2k/1080p.

"jackass 2 was at the top of the box office for a while, filmed with DV & HD carelessly."

different movies will require different tools. for action movies..or movies that require some cgi work..you will benefit from having the best quality video image possible. No one hear is going to argue to you that a movie like Jackass needs to be shot in 4k.

"So again, I still don't understand why people who want to be filmmakers, who want to make movies for a living, would save 20-30k for a single camera, instead of actually making movies with that money. "

You have to consider that other people will have different needs than you. As stated a million times in any indie forum... a fancy camera isn't going to bring you instant success. Everyone knows this.

With RED, it is leveling the playing field. It is within reach for me. I can afford to take out a loan for 17,500. I can't afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Viper or Dalsa..nor could I afford to rent them for 4,000 dollars a day..or afford to hire the camera operator to operate those specialty cameras.

Another smoking gun reason why i will NEVER be content with an HVX, or SONY HDV..is that fact that they keep on coming out with so many new models. As Jim just stated in his post.. I don't want to buy a new camera that gets outdated every year.

"However, if I had 20-30k in my pocket I wouldn't go buy a camera with it. I'd make a damn good film. "

Again, your needs are different and your expectations are different. That is fine. The difference between the hvx200 vs RED..to me is like comparing the hvx200 to DV. the hvx200 is better..but do you need even that to do a movie? Following your argument here...then all those hvx200 users shouldn't have spent that 6,000 grand on them and stuck with a handycam.

so to sum things up in an attempt to answer your question from my perspective... different users=different needs=different expectation levels of quality.

 

[Barry_Green]

However, I just brought this up because I wanted to hear the opinions of people who are planning to buy RED cameras on why they are planning to buy a camera instead of making a movie with that money.

A lot of people make money with their cameras, not movies. They're freelance cameramen owner/operators who get paid $1000 to $2500 per day (or more) for them and their camera package. For someone like that, buying a Red may make a lot of sense.

If someone was just going to "make a movie" with their money, why buy a camera at all? Hire someone who owns their own camera and use that. Or buy it on credit, shoot the film, sell the camera on ebay and use the proceeds to (mostly) pay for the camera purchase.

So I still wonder why people who want to make movies for a living choose to purchase a camera with what is enough money to actually make movies.

There are all sorts of people with all sorts of motivations. Some are dreamers, some believe that the camera is the only thing standing between them and glory. And some of us just want to shoot 1080p with variable frame rates, no noise, and S35 depth-of-field. For those of us who make money with our gear, Red makes a lot of sense. For those who live in L.A. or NY and are highly paid owner/operators, Red makes a whole lot of sense. For those who are scrimping and saving to try to come up with $10k to make their "great american novel... er... movie", then I don't see how buying any camera (even a DVX) makes sense, unless you plan on selling it thereafter. There are far better places that limited amount of money could be spent.

 

[sean90291]

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.

Some very interesting points, and reading your post explains why I have heard (and been taken aback by) a few very knowledgeable cinematographers who are really skeptical about RED. But I also think these guys I refer to are very busy cinematographers who spend a lot more time shooting than lurking in web forums where the future is probably being written. As you say, it's the digital guys, rather than the camera guys per se, who are taking us to the next stage in the revolution.

 

[glenn chan]

SomewhereinLA,
Look closely at Red and I think that it might address the workflow concerns you are talking about.

New format: Yes, Redcode is a new format. However, the Redcine software takes care of that. It converts the raw footage into a format you can work with. Graeme seems to indicate that it will run on both Mac and PC (although bootcamp will solve the Mac problem anyways).
Format-wise, it will presumably support Quicktime and AVI containers with all the codec choices they offer as well as still image formats like DPX (hopefully with relevant metadata like timecode).
It may not run on Linux... so getting the footage into those systems could be a problem. However, I would think it's possible via:
A- Still image sequences. This won't work too well if your network/SAN is slow, or if you are not on the same network as the online facility.
B- Use another system to dump the data onto tape, and then re-capture from 2 tapes (with the project checkerboxed on there). Hopefully Redcine allows an easy way of doing this, where it generates 2 big movies to put on tape and a matching EDL.

Working in 4K (or not):
You don't have to finish in 4K. You can capture 4K in Redcode RAW, which is reasonably compressed. Use Redcine to make 1080p HD downconverts to finish in.
A good intermediate codec like Cineform may allow you to finish HD without needing a big RAID array.

For most indies, you probably want to work in 1080p anyways since there's economies of scale behind it. Or whatever resolution you have the budget for... and Redcode + Redcine should give you that flexibility.

2- There might be little incompatibilities in dealing with EDLs (or equivalent) from moving from proxy/offline quality to full/online quality.
But chances are, Redcine will convert to a format that works with your NLE and is still good quality (i.e. Cineform, uncompressed 4:2:2).


Although, Red doesn't do tape-based SDI capture though since it doesn't look like a Red VTR will come out. This is XDCAM's saving grace... the NLEs don't necessarily support XDCAM well, but you can control the VTR and capture via SDI.