F55: Sony 4k commercial shoot with at RED camera
- Thread starter andycla
- Start date
- Status
evilthought
Well-known member
Red is a private company so we don't really know if they have ever made any profit, as they are not required to make it public. I am pretty sure James Jannard hasn't made a penny on Red. All his money came from his previous sunglasses businesses that he sold for $2 billion. Last year even $500 cameras had better DR and lowlight performance than Epic. Alexa comes in 2010 and totally wipes Red. Do you have numbers on how many cameras Red sold in past 9 years? I remember a thread on Red forum where someone with inside knowledge said the numbers are really low. I won't be surprised if it's lower than 1000.
I am also pretty sure if you turn on TV more stuff you see is shot on some Sony cameras than a Red.
Ben Scott
Veteran
starcentral
Veteran
How can there only be 1000 RED cameras in the world when at any given time there are 13,626 users online on REDUSER.NET...
:huh:
:huh:
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
Yup a complete utter scandal.
By the way are all Sony commercials in history edited and colour graded in Vegas?
Are all Sony commercials in history shot using Sony lenses?
Were they recorded with Sony microphones?
Were they stored and archived on Sony harddrives?
Were the crew monitoring with sony field monitors?
Were they monitoring audio with sony headphones?
Were they powering everything with sony batteries?
We they using sony lights?
We they wearing sony t-shirts? It's a complete scandal if they weren't wearing those sony t-shirts and speaks of how low sony's become.
And hey, a philosophical question that keeps me up at night: does the crew have to exclusively eat fried chicken when filming a KFC commercial?
I like fried chicken.
By the way are all Sony commercials in history edited and colour graded in Vegas?
Are all Sony commercials in history shot using Sony lenses?
Were they recorded with Sony microphones?
Were they stored and archived on Sony harddrives?
Were the crew monitoring with sony field monitors?
Were they monitoring audio with sony headphones?
Were they powering everything with sony batteries?
We they using sony lights?
We they wearing sony t-shirts? It's a complete scandal if they weren't wearing those sony t-shirts and speaks of how low sony's become.
And hey, a philosophical question that keeps me up at night: does the crew have to exclusively eat fried chicken when filming a KFC commercial?
I like fried chicken.
Joncarr
Well-known member
To clear the air, yea it was shot on the RED and not on the Sony. Does it matter? No cause theirs other factors involved like workflow needs, director and DP preference etc. I shot for Sony Music on my Dragon 2 weeks ago, did they care? No. Did they love the image when they looked at the monitor? Yes. Did they choose what it was shot on? No, that was the director. I would agree Sony not trying to show anything RED in the BTS, because it's for a Sony product so try to keep things Sony. They would do the same thing if it was shot on the ALEXA. And the only people will know it's a RED camera is us, not the general public.
Why did you put the F65 on the list? just to make it longer? that camera is something not a lot of people can reach and with a mechanical shutter. I can't comment on something that hard to find or use.
I personally owned an F55 and I liked the camera but to be honest I never was able to get a cinematic look, I only aware of one person able to get pretty close to a nice cinematic look with very explosives Anamorphic Lens (Reuben Steinberg)
F55 been out for 2 years and having only 2 films out is really disappointed, I think is a good camera for some TV Shows but unfortunately not for nice looking Cinematic Films. Cameras likes the Red one was shooting feature Films before release.
Your Demo reel (from July 1st, 2014) show exactly the look I'm talking about: Over Sharp, Plastic Noise and over saturated. This is the kind od look found on Hallmark, Discovery, ETC. Nothing wrong with this look is just not cinematic
I can get (Trust me I'm a nobody on film business) cinematic look without a lot of work with an Panasonic GH3-Gh4 and for sure with any Epic or Scarlet. With the sony I find it really hard if not impossible.
I personally owned an F55 and I liked the camera but to be honest I never was able to get a cinematic look, I only aware of one person able to get pretty close to a nice cinematic look with very explosives Anamorphic Lens (Reuben Steinberg)
F55 been out for 2 years and having only 2 films out is really disappointed, I think is a good camera for some TV Shows but unfortunately not for nice looking Cinematic Films. Cameras likes the Red one was shooting feature Films before release.
Your Demo reel (from July 1st, 2014) show exactly the look I'm talking about: Over Sharp, Plastic Noise and over saturated. This is the kind od look found on Hallmark, Discovery, ETC. Nothing wrong with this look is just not cinematic
I can get (Trust me I'm a nobody on film business) cinematic look without a lot of work with an Panasonic GH3-Gh4 and for sure with any Epic or Scarlet. With the sony I find it really hard if not impossible.
Viddovation
Veteran
Wow. Simply wow.
You've unilaterally chosen to bring my personal demo reel as a Director of Photography into a discussion where it's absolutely not relevant. The list that I posted earlier was of Sony 4k cameras that had previously been in this dvxuser thread or could otherwise be considered viable market competition to the current RED cameras for cinematic and broadcast television production. My personal demo reel that you've referenced and dated clearly states that it is composed from a variety of cameras but primarily from the Sony PMW-F3 and the Sony F35 - neither of which record 4k, neither of which were in the list I posted (although I could give you quite a list for the Sony F35) and neither of which were previously part of the conversation in this thread.
Furthermore, you're using a compilation reel of my work for hire to make a point about camera technical capabilities and to suggest that Sony cameras are unfit or provide inferior results for cinematic work. You say all of this with amazing confidence for someone who doesn't have intimate knowledge of how that reel was produced, and the circumstances under which each shot from it was created.
I'm very grateful and incredibly lucky to work in this industry. I love what I do, and I try my best to stay knowledge and informed. As an independent owner operator I've worked my way up from a Canon XL1S all the way to a Sony F35 and Arri Ultra Primes. I'm blessed, and so incredibly fortunate. I've worked with a great many talented and visionary people, but as an indie owner operator, many of my clients have had bigger dreams than budgets. Like many of us here, that means "making do" and shooting under less than ideal circumstances with underwhelming support packages.
In building a demo reel, I choose to highlight the breadth of my experiences, even when it forced me to pull deeper in my archives. Indeed, some of the shots in that reel are from the Sony PMW-EX1 with a Letus Ultimate DOF adapter. Remember those days? And many shots on that reel were originally recorded in 35Mbps XDCAM-EX. Some of the shots on the reel are edited in from even lower quality codecs because I was unable to secure master grade footage from the editor or producer after the VFX and grading was completed.
Additionally, it should be noted that in many cases I do not do the color grading for work that I shoot. Therefore, the color grading reflects the talent and artistic choices of the colorist, director, and possibly producer - but not necessarily me. In some cases the "Hallmark" look was actually desired. Who am I to second guess my client who pays the bill? And if anything, a demo reel is an opportunity to show a broad palette, a range of capability if you will.
You don't have to like my work, and you're welcome to your abysmal opinion of Sony cameras. But your choice to use my demo reel as part of your argument not only isn't constructive or sound, it's downright rude. I'm no Roger Deakins. I'm no Claudio Miranda. I'm not even Phillip Bloom. Nor do I claim to be. What I am is a working professional who is part of a community. And I don't find it productive to compare demo reels when talking to other members here. Everyone has had different experiences and opportunities. More than once have I been jealous and amazed by someone's reel, only to find out they're also envious of an opportunity I had that they didn't. We don't shoot video in a vacuum. If the client doesn't foot the bill most of the shots on most of our reels wouldn't exist.
So please, let's not have personal attacks. And let's not tear each other down to make our points.
Thank you.
Ian-T
Veteran
I don't know if this was meant to be funny.....but..BBWWWAAHHHHAAAAA. That hurt.
Ian-T
Veteran
Nicely said. Kinda makes me want to apologize. ....I'm sorry...
You might like to look at http://www.televisual.com/read-reports-surveys/31/256/Cameras-the-most-popular-brands.html . Or maybe things are different where you live - which is where, by the way? OK, statistics may need to be taken with a large pinch of salt, and the trouble with surveys like that are that you get a lot more low budget productions than high budget represented - hence the high no of C300s. But at the higher end, the F55 is certainly getting rented, believe me.
Not very popular!? Oh come on, you must be trolling! Just for starters, it's currently the camera of choice for the BBC NHU unit, and has been used for countless other high end TV productions and cinema films.
The whole concept of a manufacturer "look" is nowadays out of date in the world of s-log and (especially) RAW. The clue is in the name - "RAW" - as in straight from the beginning of the camera chain. Before such things as sharpening and saturation controls - whether overapplied or not.
If you've been using a F55 - or any similar type camera - and have been getting an over sharp or over saturated look it can only be down to poor post control. Your fault, or that of your grader - not that of the camera. Many, many other users have got very good results indeed out of a F55, and if you've failed, then I'm afraid it's your problem.
Viddovation
Veteran
Not every forum member on Reduser owns a RED (I don't), although it's also fair to point out that some of them own more than one RED. That said, the notion that under 1000 RED cameras have been sold is pretty silly... RED users tend to be pretty proud of their serial numbers, and frequently post them publicly. A very cursory 5 minute check of reduser finds me serial numbers as high as 6,636 for Red One MX; 5,642 for RED Epic (including Dragon upgrades); Scarlet as high as 4,940.
A more realistic guesstimate would be 17.5k to 25k Red cameras in the world. Not shabby. But the point that RED is private and doesn't have to share it's profit figure holds some water. Research and development is expensive, so it's hard to guess exactly how profitable RED currently is.
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
I've seen plenty of good quality images from Sony cameras. While I agree that the colorimetry of Sony isn't the best, neither is Red's, in my opinion. Canon, Black Magic and Arri seem to be dominating this aspect of digital imaging. However, with a 10bit or higher video (ideally RAW) and at least 10 usable stops of dynamic range (ideally 12-14), any properly exposed image can be colored and graded to look cinematic. I've seen FS700 images that are shockingly stunning! Even A7s!! Of course, I've also seen garbage from Sony and Red as well.
As far as I'm concerned, all of the Sony and Red line-up are capable of cinematic quality. Red has an advantage because they are much more helpful with LUTs than Sony. However, a properly lit, exposed, framed and colored/graded image from both companies are capable of being "cinematic". Ahh, let's not forget glass!
In my opinion, someone who is hating on an F5 or F55 is choosing to overlook a whole lot in order to make that statement. I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of getting good images with a Scarlet cannot get a good image with an F5.
It's simple really: Light according to needs of scene and capabilities of camera, properly expose to get around 12 stops of dynamic range, turn detail down in camera and use either a Log or Raw format, use a set of lenses that aren't too sterile, bring saturation and color back to reasonably natural levels on post (davincy or speedgrade), throw that **** on Filmconvert for a quick color palette of something like a fuji or kodak film stock (if you aren't familiar enough with color palettes to do it yourself) and keep the grain down to 10% tops, and done! You got a good image whether you shot on a Dragon or on an A7s.
Clearly this thread was meant to instigate a defensive reaction from Sony users and clearly it has done so. As has been stated previously in this thread, camera choice is up to the DP, Producer or production company who was hired for the job...based on personal preference. You can prefer a Red, but that doesn't take anything away from any other cameras that weren't used.
As far as I'm concerned, all of the Sony and Red line-up are capable of cinematic quality. Red has an advantage because they are much more helpful with LUTs than Sony. However, a properly lit, exposed, framed and colored/graded image from both companies are capable of being "cinematic". Ahh, let's not forget glass!
In my opinion, someone who is hating on an F5 or F55 is choosing to overlook a whole lot in order to make that statement. I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of getting good images with a Scarlet cannot get a good image with an F5.
It's simple really: Light according to needs of scene and capabilities of camera, properly expose to get around 12 stops of dynamic range, turn detail down in camera and use either a Log or Raw format, use a set of lenses that aren't too sterile, bring saturation and color back to reasonably natural levels on post (davincy or speedgrade), throw that **** on Filmconvert for a quick color palette of something like a fuji or kodak film stock (if you aren't familiar enough with color palettes to do it yourself) and keep the grain down to 10% tops, and done! You got a good image whether you shot on a Dragon or on an A7s.
Clearly this thread was meant to instigate a defensive reaction from Sony users and clearly it has done so. As has been stated previously in this thread, camera choice is up to the DP, Producer or production company who was hired for the job...based on personal preference. You can prefer a Red, but that doesn't take anything away from any other cameras that weren't used.
I have no idea how many Red cameras have been sold, but whether it's a high or low figure, I wouldn't put much faith in serial numbers as a guide.
I remember a tip from a course I filmed once about "starting your own business". Very early on the advice was not to start invoice numbering from 00001....... There may be a lot to be said for similar advice regarding serial numbers.....
Joncarr
Well-known member
Actually invoicing numbering camera from 00001 is basically the whole point with RED. Which is basically the point why most RED owners put their serial number in their signature. The first five production line sn0001-0005 of the REDone and epic is owned by Jim jannard and used for tests of camera extremes and firmware testing, and more importantly for films before the camera was released and during slow roll out i.e. 0002-0005 redones were first used in Che, 0002-0005 epic was first used in Spider-Man. Which they are still used on big jobs for studio only films. 00001 of the redone and epic is still sealed in its original packaging in jim's safe never to be open. 0006-0007 of the redone and epic is owned by mark at Offhollywood. As for scarlets tonaci tran owns SN0001. Even when they did the redone to epic trade in the early adapters kept end their SN as they were first in line to receive the epic before new order were processed. So yes they go by 0001 for camera bodies. Theirs at least 10,000 redones out there. last REDone I used was SN 9,785 which was my friends before he sold it for a epic almost 5 years ago. Man how far technology changed in such a sort time.I remember a tip from a course I filmed once about "starting your own business". Very early on the advice was not to start invoice numbering from 00001....... There may be a lot to be said for similar advice regarding serial numbers.....
evilthought
Well-known member
This was mentioned in the forum. The serials numbers don't correspond to number of cameras made. I have to look up that thread again, but the person who was posting was a supplier that supplied a main component that is used in Red camera. That's why he knew for a fact how many cameras were made/sold. The number was shockingly low. Maybe a google search will find that thread again.
Joncarr
Well-known member
Companies have multiple suppliers making batches of a quantity number. Whether they go back to the same supplier or a new supplier is their business. Also in the early days of red. The first year of camera production was out of country as they were building the Irvine factory, which can effect who is the supplier of parts. Furthermore companies sign very sue ready legal NDA forms when they supply to a company as talking about components being made by a party voids the NDA, and becomes a big legal issue for them. So odds are that person was just BSing, it is the internet you know... Serial numbers do correspond with the cameras made, that's how it has been and always been as with RED.
Of course you owned an F55, but gave it up for a GH4. Please post your work as you are attacking other people's work. We'd love to see it. For me, I love Sony. I love S-Log and I love the look I'm getting from the FS700 + 7Q. I'd take that combo over any camera priced under the F5, except maybe the FS7, but that isn't out yet.
Last edited:
- Status