worldwide Red and its owner policy puts LA major rental houses in panic

[Roberto B]

take a careful reading between the lines on this.. they're expecting the newbies.. and it seems they're frightened.. trying to domesticate us..

eheheh..

they should think we are a some sort of fool user..

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=21527&st=120

and on.. and on.. and on..

lol

other sample:

"My biggest bit of skepticism regarding the RED camera is still the price point of $17,500 per camera -- I just don't see how they will make a profit"

eheheh..

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=20035&st=15&p=148608&#entry148608

and they're saying it's not their problem.. sure.. i'd like to see to who they will rent their F900H, F900R (the new model) etc..

[CVB]

I saw some good stuff coming through Cinematography.net as well.. I say we just smile and move on.

[Brainstorm]

Evolution is not about survival of the bitchiest... it's about adaptation. And many of the more virulent posters on cinematography.net are set to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Let's be honest though. Nobody who's even vaguely neutral could deny that there are a number of so-called "fanboys" on this board, but to say that about everybody who's following (or buying into) the evolution of RED is an insult. I most certainly do not consider myself a fanboy. For a start, I'm too old to be called a boy. Secondly, I've been working in the industry for about 28 years and have made a number of docos that have been broadcast around the world. IMHO RED is a development worthy of tracking... and hopefully buying! So why should I pay any attention to the dinosaurs? Like Jim Jannard said, leave 'em to it.


As for RED opening up the field to a new breed of filmmakers... all power to it I say!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Considering the market for film based productions won't dissolve during any of our lifetimes I would say investing your talents in that area wouldn't be a dangerous move.

Even if you refused to ever touch a computer in production, you would still be a valuable DP since you're hired to provide beautiful lighting. There is no adaption needed. Yes the RED is going to be cool and inexpensive but... I could never touch a red in my life and still be a valuable and employable piece of talent.

All this "adapt or die" business is bullshit. It's true in the vfx industry where we're sooooo freakin' slow that any improvement is a huge improvement, but in film production lighting is lighting, gripping is gripping, focusing is focusing and nobody gives a shit what the capture element is made of except a very select few, a select few whose jobs usually aren't on the line.

[Brainstorm]

Hi im.thatoneguy,

I agree with what you say completely, but it's not only the "skeptics" who makes it that's important in this debate. It's who watches it.

It's all very well and good to write off youtube content as "cinematically challenged" (to put it politely), but lots of people are happy to spend their time watching that sort of content, regardless of what it's shot on.

Even if more storytellers – of all quality – can access high-end cameras at reasonable prices, it may not turn everyone into a DOP with their own "masterclass" groupies & 4K "how-to" workshops, but some might make "alternative content" that a whole lot of viewers prefer spending their time watching... instead the bigger budget films that pay the wages of more established crew members... and that's what they're really frightened of.

That sort of (r)evolution cannot be controlled by skepticism, intellectual pig-headedness, stagnation or any brand of new camera. It's just a cultural phenomenon whose time has come.

Cheers
Brainstorm

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

If you substitute "film" with "tape", and "Red" with "ProTools" those entire debates over there (and here) could have all been written 15 years ago on the Digidesign and a few audio pro websites.

Considering the accelerated pace of progress this discussions will all go away very fast. Especially with 1500 cameras in the field coming fall.

Jochen

[Jay A. Kelley]

While I am not a fan of CML, I am not going to say anything about them.. Like any group of people, there are those I like... And well, then there are the rest.

David says RED, in the end, is just a camera... PEOPLE make things work.. I think he's right. But I am glad for RED all the same

Jay

[Graeme Nattress]

Cinematography.com != CML
Cinematography.net == CML

Confusing, isn't it :-)

Graeme

[Sean]

Cameras don't shoot people. People shoot people.

[Darren Orange]

Don't forget "28 Days Later"....all pal XL1s baby... lol, that was advanced, pretty funny seeing pictures of a huge PL lens on a little XL1.

[Graeme Nattress]

Pity it looked so bad in the cinema with the excessively sharpened visuals giving it that "VHS rental" feel :-) Remebering watching that is one of the things thing that drives me to providing the best visuals at an affordable price so there's never an excuse for that again :-)

Graeme

[JD Holloway]

They make some good points about RED's buyers.

This is not a camera for film students or amateurs (unless Daddy's rich).

While RED's price point puts it reasonably close to the prosumer market, I'm guessing many of these people likely will not have the skills or client contacts to generate business effectively or the local industry technical contacts (what key grip can pull that rig off? etc), to deal with the grind of film making as a full time business model. People should be careful,

RED certainly wont make you an artist.

Does this make any sense?

J

[JD Holloway]

Pity it looked so bad in the cinema with the excessively sharpened visuals giving it that "VHS rental" feel :-) Remebering watching that is one of the things thing that drives me to providing the best visuals at an affordable price so there's never an excuse for that again :-)

Graeme

Agreed,

Great concept though, and reasonably well executed. Funny to see lenses worth 10 times the camera, together.

I saw some of your stills yesterday. Nice and contrasty!

J.

[Steve Gibby]

If all the experienced minds in the motion media industry spent a lot more time and energy brainstorming ways to progress and learn, and a whole lot less energy defending their turf, imagine where we'd be right now...

There's only so many hours in a work day, month, year, and career...the more time that is spent on judgment and infighting, the less time that is available to do constructive work toward progress individually, and for this industry as a whole.

The degree to which someone can set pride, jealousy, and ego aside determines the degree to which they can continue to learn and grow.

Everything is dynamic - nothing is static. To either stagnate or grow is an active choice.

What's your choice going to be?

[Erik Rangel]

Everything is dynamic - nothing is static. To either stagnate or grow is an active choice.

The Zen of Gibby.
I love it.

[Hans von Sonntag]

I find CML interesting, since you can see a very pretty different perspective on RED than in reduse.net.

Some people at CML are grown up professionals with a attitude I like, for instance David Mullen who points out all the time that it is not the technology that does a film its the people who do it. Good story is a good story no matter which camera you use. Same with light, framing, moves not to mention acting, directing, editing etc...

I care for good stories and the nice people I work with. I dont't care about turf defenders...

Hans

[Yean Loon]

I think this thread should be closed. There's enough bashing on going over at cinematography.com. Let us not become like that.

Keep to constructive posts about the camera.

[Finner]

I think this thread should be closed. There's enough bashing on going over at cinematography.com. Let us not become like that.

Keep to constructive posts about the camera.

Agreed,

Rumours, talking smack and disrespect to long time industry profesionals make this board look like a bunch of little children. Lets learn all we can to do the best work we can when we get our cameras and let the images do the talking.

[Stephen Williams]

Cinematography.com != CML
Cinematography.net == CML

Confusing, isn't it :-)

Graeme

Cinematography.net = heavily moderated
Cinematography.com = most forums unmoderated (or very minimal)

Stephen

[donatello b]

all those that move up from a hand size DV camera or even those that have never shot before - IMO if they put out 20K+ they will learn how to use the equipment .. within a short time they will be selecting shutter speeds , F stop , etc many will learn by DOING , others will learn from mentors.. once they learn the camera and if they are not satisfied with their images they will learn or do whatever they need to get images that pleases them ( could be taking lighting class , hiring gaffer for projects -whatever- they will seek it out) ...
there will be a % that will give up but that is true with the business in general - & i would guess that the % of those leaving the business is much higher for those that didn't spend 20K on equipment ...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If you substitute "film" with "tape", and "Red" with "ProTools" those entire debates over there (and here) could have all been written 15 years ago on the Digidesign and a few audio pro websites.

Considering the accelerated pace of progress this discussions will all go away very fast. Especially with 1500 cameras in the field coming fall.

Jochen

That's an incorrect metaphor though. The digital revolution has already come and gone. It was the Prosumer-Camcorder/Premiere/Avid/FCP/Vegas/PC DV revolution.

Right now you can go out and shoot a very professional film. All we're increasing is resolution and dynamic range. That's not a seismic shift in production.

[SF Geek]

I don't think any of the people on CML made any statements that were out of line. The only thing I disagreed with is the statement that you won't be using your RED. Although, the truth is, if you were making all your money doing gigs with the DVX or a comparable camera, you won't be getting those jobs with the RED. A lot of people get these jobs because their day rate is 200-400 with camera and there is no hired AC. You have to charge more with the RED package if you want to make your money back and in most cases you will need an AC. Just because you upgraded your camera package it doesn't mean that all of a sudden you're going to go onto craigslist and find productions that can pay 1k a day for the RED. That is one thing they were trying to drive home on CML. Red does not = automatic good paying work. If you're breaking the bank to buy a RED you better have a good business plan in place.

[Hrvoje Simic]

RED certainly wont make you an artist.

J

It certainly won't.
But there are artists for whom this expression tool is much closer than ever and there are buisness people who will use this as a mean of making profit.
There are also people who will be able to combine both.

In the realms over 100k for a tool, term "art" becomes very relative.



If all the experienced minds in the motion media industry spent a lot more time and energy brainstorming ways to progress and learn, and a whole lot less energy defending their turf, imagine where we'd be right now...

There's only so many hours in a work day, month, year, and career...the more time that is spent on judgment and infighting, the less time that is available to do constructive work toward progress individually, and for this industry as a whole.

The degree to which someone can set pride, jealousy, and ego aside determines the degree to which they can continue to learn and grow.

Everything is dynamic - nothing is static. To either stagnate or grow is an active choice.

What's your choice going to be?


Grow. Always.

Motus vita est.


Rock on, dude!

[Martin Ludwig]

lets have this discussion after 8 weeks all reds are delivered. I am sure, some will have surprises !

[Ronnie Silos]

I can only compare owning a Red to my 26 years of experience with audio. I kept buying "toys" every year building and upgrading my studio. Will these toys make me a better songwriter? No. Microphones/recorders don't write music, People do. BUT - because it was accessible to me everyday I wake up, it has inspired me to write many songs at my convenience. I've released many albums. I've become a better engineer. I've become a producer. I've started a recording company with it. Now, I get a lot of business because of what I've become and the tools available to me. So as we ask again, will Red One make me a movie maker? No, BUT...... (to be continued....)

[Häakon]

This is not a camera for film students or amateurs (unless Daddy's rich).
With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

Sure, the end user's ability to generate business with the camera is a different subject entirely, and that is likely reserved for more professional users. But I recall a post on DVXUser at one point from an older gentleman who isn't even in the film business and is interested in Red for his own "home movies" because he's thrilled at the prospect of the quality that the camera will offer and has had enough still photography experience to understand apertures and shutter speeds and how the camera will function. If he's willing to put his own $20K down, who are you or I to tell him that it's an innapropriate piece of gear for his nonprofessional uses?

I do agree wholeheartedly that RED wont "make you an artist" and the camera is just one small part of the chain in being able to effectively tell a compelling story. But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me. If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours. And he will probably learn a good life lesson in the process. :-) But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

I also don't think that many film students are going to be able to afford such a camera, even if it is priced well below anything remotely comparable to it. If they can, more power to them. I for one am happy to see this progress of technology. The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.

[Brainstorm]

With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

... there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

... The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.


Hi Häakon,

I think you've hit the nail on the head... and more than one nail at that.

It's often an "outsider" who comes up with the brightest new idea that changes the landscape of an established field of knowledge – and they usually get howled down for upsetting the status quo. Just look at Albert Einstein. He was a patent clerk when he formulated the theory of relativity and he was laughed at too, for a few minutes. The rest is history.

There's no value in any ongoing "us vs. them" debate on this issue. Film making is not about "I've-been-doing-this-longer-than-you-so-I-know-more". It's just about communicating interesting ideas in interesting ways. That has been the essence of storytelling since the stone age.

If the only ingredient required for making a good story was experience, then there should be a much higher ratio of interesting "big studio films" than we're seeing of late. But don't get me wrong. The ones that shine do shine brightly... :clown2:

If RED helps bring less experienced people into the mix who have worthwhile ideas that they'd like to transfer from their heads and onto a screen (of whatever resolution) , then that alone is enough reason to let them play!

Cheers
Brainstorm

[tj williams]

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2...c=21527&st=120

I think it's noteworthy that he says except SD as it still may be possible that the RED Team will decide to take all the apples.

Enjoyed this thread as there is none of the ....."Once I have the RED in my hands look out major Dps".........

A lot of funny handle names on this forum.... Maybe some are major league first string Dps

[Tom Lowe]

With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

Sure, the end user's ability to generate business with the camera is a different subject entirely, and that is likely reserved for more professional users. But I recall a post on DVXUser at one point from an older gentleman who isn't even in the film business and is interested in Red for his own "home movies" because he's thrilled at the prospect of the quality that the camera will offer and has had enough still photography experience to understand apertures and shutter speeds and how the camera will function. If he's willing to put his own $20K down, who are you or I to tell him that it's an innapropriate piece of gear for his nonprofessional uses?

I do agree wholeheartedly that RED wont "make you an artist" and the camera is just one small part of the chain in being able to effectively tell a compelling story. But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me. If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours. And he will probably learn a good life lesson in the process. :-) But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

I also don't think that many film students are going to be able to afford such a camera, even if it is priced well below anything remotely comparable to it. If they can, more power to them. I for one am happy to see this progress of technology. The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.

Great post. You never know... something like the RED could make an indie outsider, some young person or person who could not afford to shoot and post 35mm, able to shoot an amazing picture at full 35mm quality (DOF, etc). That would be unheard of without the new technology. One great advantage of the RED is its ability to shoot for hours and hours. A young director could do 15 takes of each scene, time permitting, whereas that could never be done with film for an indie, due to money constraints. It also allows for effortless (stress free) filming of long cutaways and even timelapses.

There is a guy here, I believe he goes by "planetearth" who I believe is planning to shoot a Baraka-style non-narrative feature on the RED. Imagine how useful this camera would be for a shoot like that! (Of course, overcranking would be even better!)

[ericyoung]

Great post. You never know... something like the RED could make an indie outsider, some young person or person who could not afford to shoot and post 35mm, able to shoot an amazing picture at full 35mm quality (DOF, etc)...)

or some OLDER person. You don't have to still be a teenager to have ambitions!! :red_bandana: :biggrin:

[JD Holloway]

With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

Sure, the end user's ability to generate business with the camera is a different subject entirely, and that is likely reserved for more professional users. But I recall a post on DVXUser at one point from an older gentleman who isn't even in the film business and is interested in Red for his own "home movies" because he's thrilled at the prospect of the quality that the camera will offer and has had enough still photography experience to understand apertures and shutter speeds and how the camera will function. If he's willing to put his own $20K down, who are you or I to tell him that it's an innapropriate piece of gear for his nonprofessional uses?

I do agree wholeheartedly that RED wont "make you an artist" and the camera is just one small part of the chain in being able to effectively tell a compelling story. But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me. If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours. And he will probably learn a good life lesson in the process. :-) But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

I also don't think that many film students are going to be able to afford such a camera, even if it is priced well below anything remotely comparable to it. If they can, more power to them. I for one am happy to see this progress of technology. The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.

I feel I should address my post Haakon.

Part of my concern is partly of my own fear, for my business plan and its future. I love the technology and want it to work for me and for others. I dont want to see REDs gathering dust on shelves...unless they are rental shops. :whistling: I certainly never implied that RED was not for any segment of the population, only that perhaps rentals would be a better route, rather then ownership. I regularly volunteer my time/expertise(what little I have to offer)/equipment to young filmmakers who ask for my help. More professionals should.

The Father who wanted to put 20K down on a camera is, in MHO welcome to do so. Good on him! He fits my Rich Daddy scenario though does he not? I'm quite sure he and his family will very happy with his purchase. I wish I had my RED now to film my Son growing up.

"If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours".

I want to stop good people from failing miserably. Many good people leave the business before they have a chance to seriously contribute to it.
Some are my friends.

"But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego."

I sure hope so. I need more films to watch and talented directors to shoot for, but I sure hope you didn't mean my ego?


All the best

J

[JD Holloway]

There is a guy here, I believe he goes by "planetearth" who I believe is planning to shoot a Baraka-style non-narrative feature on the RED.

I hope hes still willing to let me help him out!

Dale....?

[Bing Bailey]

No tools don't make you a better story teller but it will allow good story tellers match the quality images they want to that story. dv is ok , hd is great , 4k is stunning.

lets face it money keeps a lot of people from creating high enough quality to get distribution. yes for a while studios bought up dv films. but thats changed again and its gone back to were it was. distributors want a certain quality. this like digital sound allows us to do it ourselves and at the highest quality. what jannard has done is going to reverberate for a long time in many markets. I'm just glad someone had the nerve to stick it to the other companies who are probably holding good technology back and feeding us piece meal so they can suck every last cent from us for mediocre improvements and hobbled cameras

having used a pro 35 and f900 I can say easily this is leaps and bounds above that. being able to use pl mount 35mm lens directly is fantastic. jannards making those almost affordable too.

I hope Red Continues to improve and continues to be a torn in all their sides and pulls another rabbit out of the hat for the next generation of red camera/upgrades

[Häakon]

I feel I should address my post Haakon.

Part of my concern is partly of my own fear, for my business plan and its future. I love the technology and want it to work for me and for others. I dont want to see REDs gathering dust on shelves...unless they are rental shops. :whistling: I certainly never implied that RED was not for any segment of the population, only that perhaps rentals would be a better route, rather then ownership. I regularly volunteer my time/expertise(what little I have to offer)/equipment to young filmmakers who ask for my help. More professionals should.

The Father who wanted to put 20K down on a camera is, in MHO welcome to do so. Good on him! He fits my Rich Daddy scenario though does he not? I'm quite sure he and his family will very happy with his purchase. I wish I had my RED now to film my Son growing up.

"If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours".

I want to stop good people from failing miserably. Many good people leave the business before they have a chance to seriously contribute to it.
Some are my friends.

"But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego."

I sure hope so. I need more films to watch and talented directors to shoot for, but I sure hope you didn't mean my ego?


All the best

J
Hi JD,

First let me say that no, I was definitely not talking about your ego. You seem like a really reasonable person; it's a shame I wasn't able to say hi when I was shooting a doc up in Toronto last year. :-)

I've just seen the sentiment of "these young people have no idea what they're doing and have no business even discussing the Red camera" by a lot of people - including some "well respected" industry shooters on several other places on the internet (I'll leave names out of it) and I feel that it's really the wrong attitude to have. The one statement you made seemed to sum up that overall mindset in a way, and I really wanted to address it. But my post was more a build-up of all of the posts I've been reading on the subject, and certainly not aimed squarely at you.

Of course I don't want to see "good people fail," but I also don't think it's anyone's business to tell someone they "should" or "should not" (or even worse, "can" or "can not") use a piece of gear just because of who they are. Whether it's their age or experience level, we all have to make our own choices and take that extra step sometimes. And like I mentioned, I don't think there are a lot of "high school kids" who are going to be shelling over $20K+ for a camera. What I got out of your "rich daddy" comment was that it was the rich daddies who would be buying it for the spoiled kids, not that they would be buying it for themselves. So I apologize if I misinterpreted that part. :blush:

What I honestly see is that there is an air of dissention and perhaps even jealousy by some of the more established crowd, in that independent productions are now finally able to make films (movies) with a level of (visual) quality that rivals the good ol' 35mm without having to completely break the bank. Previously, this meant you needed either studio backing or a "rich daddy" in terms of an investor or two to help you get your movie off the ground. Now, after the initial investment of the camera, you can shoot as much as you like (and save for the cost of the hard drives to store your footage on), you don't have to cough up anything else for acquisition costs. This IS a big deal. We should all be overjoyed that such a technology has enterted into our lives. I think some people feel threatened in that the quality attainable in their "elite craft" has now been opened up to a whole new sector of filmmakers. But that's the reality, and it's only going to continue to expand. As I mentioned previously, RED is not going to make any bad movies good. It will, however, make good movies that much better. I don't think "great visual quality" should have to remain a privilege of the rich few. With RED, it won't any longer.

Just from my own experience, for intstance, I shot a film last year called "The Faithful" and it was extremely important for me to have 35mm DOF and be as high resolution as possible. I wasn't interested in making a DV movie. Our budget just would not afford us to shoot film, so the best solution I found was to go the HVX+M2 route and get the best results I could that way. I'm very proud of the film and think it turned out quite nicely, but would I have preferred to have shot it on RED last year rather than a hacked system through two lenses and a noisy chipset? Of course I would have! And it wouldn't have changed the cinematography, lighting, acting, or story one bit, but it sure would've made the film look nicer. As a DP I care immensely about that, and the bottom line is that anyone who makes films wants their stuff to look as good as it possibly can. Red is a huge step in helping anyone do that - regardless of if they're shooting on a "pro" level/budget or not.

It seems to me this sort of thing was discussed around the time that DV was introduced, in that it was enabling people to "make movies" on the cheap and with their own computers and that was blasphemous to a lot of industry professionals. The obvious difference here, though, is that while DV did blow the doors open for independent film production, the quality was nowhere near the level of traditional 35mm film. With Red, we're there (or getting damn close), and thus I can certainly understand why people see it as a "revolution" of sorts.

The times, they are a changin'...

[Brainstorm]

... or some OLDER person. You don't have to still be a teenager to have ambitions!! :red_bandana: :biggrin:

I'm with you on that one Eric! I'm not a teenager anymore either... but I still want to "rock the cinema" like an idealistic "angry young man"!!! :gun:

[JD Holloway]

The times, they are a changin'...

Hell ya.

And while dusty DPs (no names) may try to protect their craft, rental houses and broadcast companies will try and protect their investments. They have driven DVXs out of the broadcast game and have put serious pressure on HVX's too, limiting them to a small % of any given program (in my local anyway). They've used excuses like compression and lenses etc. I wonder what they will have to dream up to say RED is unworthy for broadcast.

Its single chip?
Its communist?
It rocks?

J

[Chris Kenny]

Hell ya.
And while dusty DPs (no names) may try to protect their craft, rental houses and broadcast companies will try and protect their investments.


Rental houses that carry cine gear are going to like Red just fine. It's going to create a lot more demand for their pricey PL-mount lens inventories.

[JD Holloway]

Good point!
And matte boxes, filters, pro sticks, follow focus', etc etc etc

[Mark B.]

I think there's fear in the market - rightfully so. There's been a demand and only a small number of shooters to fill it. Suddenly, the number of shooters is going to skyrocket but the demand is going to remain constant. That means shooters will have to take less money to win the same contracts, and that will equate to lower incomes and all the issues of poverty that go with it.

And for the independents who are saying this is a great thing for indie production, think about like this... You've got 1000+ people who wanted to shoot a feature film but didn't have the means until now. That means 1000 additional films will be floating in the distribution void within a year, seeking an audience. How is anyone's indie film going to get heard in that mess? Even if it's good, or great, or the greatest, it doesn't mean that anyone will see it. Distributors will have so many options, they'll be able to pick and choose and pay almost nothing for their movies because there will be such a gigantic glut of independent films. So your movie is in 4k... so are a thousand other movies, the distributors won't care. Picture quality will become irrelevant and judgments will fall back on what the distributors care about; name actors, big money, and nepotism. There goes the indie movement right out the window.

If Red is going to become a revolutionary tool, then the battlefield must become revolutionary as well. Distribution, potentially profitable distribution, must be readily available to ALL the independents. Audience exposure must be given to every movie in equal portions. The marketing costs of distribution must be rendered irrelevant, and the success of each movie must be placed directly in the hands of the viewing public. THAT is when the revolution will take place.

I'm fired up on this now... I'm going to find a way to make this distribution revolution happen.

[Brainstorm]

So your movie is in 4k... so are a thousand other movies, the distributors won't care. Picture quality will become irrelevant and judgments will fall back on what the distributors care about; name actors, big money, and nepotism. There goes the indie movement right out the window.

Hi Lowkus,

When did distributors ever care about anything other revenue? That's always been the bottom line, whether they're a niche distributor flogging "indies" or a big studio flogging "blockbusters".

What has changed over recent years is that having name actors and/or massive special FX sequences hasn't necessarily guaranteed filling cinema seats. It seems audiences are actually becoming a little more discerning. Putting Ben Affleck on the surface of an asteroid just doesn't cut the mustard anymore... if it ever did! :wink:

The other thing is, you can't have it both ways – making 4K available to a handful of indies, then trying to artificially limit the amount of films being produced for that market is exactly the same as the "experienced DOP's" trying to talk RED down so it doesn't intrude on their turf.

But you're right. The key thing to ensuring the health of the "indie movement" is building new means of distribution and finding different screens for people to view them on.

At the end of the day, it's the audiences who'll decide what types of film live or die. Let's hope they choose substance over crap on a more regular basis.

Cheers
Brainstorm

[Häakon]

I think there's fear in the market - rightfully so. There's been a demand and only a small number of shooters to fill it. Suddenly, the number of shooters is going to skyrocket but the demand is going to remain constant. That means shooters will have to take less money to win the same contracts, and that will equate to lower incomes and all the issues of poverty that go with it.
I understand some of the fear, but I'm not sure the number of shooters is going to go up all that much. At least in the feature market. Perhaps the number of owner/operators will, but just because you own a RED camera doesn't mean a production company is going to give you the job over someone with an established, solid record. If the "pro" guys are worried about losing jobs to "amateur" shooters who happen to have Red cameras, then they're more paranoid than I thought.

Contracts may change more in the lower/end commercial, music video, or corporate market, but that's been happening already. Just have to learn to adapt sometimes.


And for the independents who are saying this is a great thing for indie production, think about like this... You've got 1000+ people who wanted to shoot a feature film but didn't have the means until now. That means 1000 additional films will be floating in the distribution void within a year, seeking an audience. How is anyone's indie film going to get heard in that mess?
Again, I don't think that RED is going to cause any severe influx of independent films any more than DV or 24p did. Sure, it'll cause an influx of 4K films, but as you pointed out, will that mean a lot to the majority of distribution companies or film festivals out there? As I previously stated, my last film was shot on an HVX because that's what our budget could afford. Would I have liked to shoot on 35mm or an F900 or even RED if it was a possibility? Of course, but there's always a limit and you just have to find a way to be creative with what you have. For us, that meant using the M2 to get the shallow DOF we wanted. But it certainly didn't stop us from making the film just because we didn't have a RED ONE lying around...


So your movie is in 4k... so are a thousand other movies, the distributors won't care. Picture quality will become irrelevant and judgments will fall back on what the distributors care about; name actors, big money, and nepotism. There goes the indie movement right out the window.
Agreed, I don't think anyone is thinking that having a 4K camera will be the magic solution to make your movie amazing. It takes a myriad of other (more important) elements to really get a film to shine. But this is an argument that has been beaten to death, especially since the arrival of 24P on the scene. What it does mean is the potential for higher quality, however, and while that may or may not have a direct impact on the way a story is told, people do notice and care - especially the filmmakers. Could Steven Spielberg have shot "War Of The Worlds" on DV? Sure, Spielberg can do anything he wants. :-) But I think a lot of people would have been pretty dissapointed if they saw compressed 4:1:1 video on the big screen. It would be like watching a feature film on YouTube: entirely possible but not the best experience. Yet some people do it on their iPods every day. Anyway, the point is we all have different thresholds for quality demands, but my hope is that most of us - at least those who are actively making films - want the quality of their material to be the best it possibly can, and this camera is another (great) piece of the puzzle.


If Red is going to become a revolutionary tool, then the battlefield must become revolutionary as well. Distribution, potentially profitable distribution, must be readily available to ALL the independents. Audience exposure must be given to every movie in equal portions. The marketing costs of distribution must be rendered irrelevant, and the success of each movie must be placed directly in the hands of the viewing public. THAT is when the revolution will take place.

I'm fired up on this now... I'm going to find a way to make this distribution revolution happen.
I think, again, that independents have wanted something similar to this for a long time - Red or not. There are a handful of "movie showcase" websites that give equal exposure to independent films - the question is, how many people actually actively seek them out and watch each one? Advertising, word, of mouth, reviews, critical acclaim - all the usual suspects - still have the most impact on the end user seeing something. That being said, if you think you have the answer for the little guy, I definitely won't stand in your way. :-)

[Roberto B]

With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

Sure, the end user's ability to generate business with the camera is a different subject entirely, and that is likely reserved for more professional users. But I recall a post on DVXUser at one point from an older gentleman who isn't even in the film business and is interested in Red for his own "home movies" because he's thrilled at the prospect of the quality that the camera will offer and has had enough still photography experience to understand apertures and shutter speeds and how the camera will function. If he's willing to put his own $20K down, who are you or I to tell him that it's an innapropriate piece of gear for his nonprofessional uses?

I do agree wholeheartedly that RED wont "make you an artist" and the camera is just one small part of the chain in being able to effectively tell a compelling story. But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me. If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours. And he will probably learn a good life lesson in the process. :-) But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

I also don't think that many film students are going to be able to afford such a camera, even if it is priced well below anything remotely comparable to it. If they can, more power to them. I for one am happy to see this progress of technology. The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.

great value.. great point.. my respect..

they're too much interested on their own business.. that's their problem..

and when they're saying they're not it is when they are more than ever..

who cares who they say? loooooooool

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?s=&showtopic=21527&view=findpost&p=161660

[Joel Kaye]

Another thing owning RED allows is for DP's or newbies to get a TON of 35mm experience fast. In a few months of shooting RED every day people who have an eye and some talent are going to grow much more quickly than if they had to wait for a film to come along that they could shoot 35mm style. This is a different kind of shooting than just grabbing a DVX-100 or HVX200. 35mm adapters are very similar though.

The result will likely be that in 2-3 years there will be a lot more competition for DP jobs. The top end guys won't have to worry much - they've got major film experience already.

There does need to be an indie distribution revolution - and it could, but indies will have to become business people who create marketable products. That's something RED can't solve.

[Steven Parker]

Another thing owning RED allows is for DP's or newbies to get a TON of 35mm experience fast.

I can't agree with that... as great a camera as Red may be, I'm sure it's a heck of a lot different than shooting 35mm. Knowing your various filmstocks, when can you push it or pull it, knowing when to turn on (or off) that fill light - you can only get that experience by shooting those stocks. Every stock reacts differently and there's going to be a learning curve for the Red responses to light as well.

I think owning a Red will be a good business investment for people who already know how to shoot - how to compose, light, use visuals to emphasize emotions and get thru the day on schedule. Without those skills, no camera in the world could help you make it as a shooter. Pick any great painter - would their work be less powerful if they only had crayons instead of oils?

The rental houses will be fine - there's a ton of DVX/HVX/VariCam/Sony owner/operators out there... and a ton of rental houses supplying them too.

[Joel Kaye]

Knowing your various filmstocks, when can you push it or pull it, knowing when to turn on (or off) that fill light

I didn't mention film when I said 35mm. Two different things. Agreed - RED won't give you any film experience. And film won't give you REDCINE experience.


Pick any great painter - would their work be less powerful if they only had crayons instead of oils?

Um - yeah. All of them. I'll just respectfully disagree if you don't think that shooting RED over a HVX200 would make the same DP's stuff look better. It will IMHO. A great DP with an HVX could probably beat a bad DP with RED every time. But that's a different point. They'd both be better off with a better camera. Now someone truly weak would probably be better off with a video camera that has auto exposure and autofocus. They'll figure that out when they get a RED, get frustrated and give up.

[Robert Jackson]

Another thing owning RED allows is for DP's or newbies to get a TON of 35mm experience fast. In a few months of shooting RED every day people who have an eye and some talent are going to grow much more quickly than if they had to wait for a film to come along that they could shoot 35mm style.

We've seen something very similar to this with the rise of the DSLR. The instant feedback allows for a lot more "keepers" and photographers are developing their technique much more quickly. Of course, their compositional skills may not be improving at the same rate, but DSLR users are shooting a lot more frames in an average month than 35mm film users were typically shooting and they're developing levels of technical proficiency very quickly.

[Graeme Nattress]

DSLRs have really helped people learn photography through instant feedback, low cost of shooting, high quality images, metadata so you know what settings you used, and ease of internet posting so you can get good constructive criticism.

Graeme

[Joel Kaye]

DSLRs have really helped people learn photography through instant feedback, low cost of shooting, high quality images, metadata so you know what settings you used, and ease of internet posting so you can get good constructive criticism.

Graeme

I wasn't even thinking that - but you're right. I used to manage a camera store back before digital got big. I shot a ton of film and looked at hundreds of customer photos every day (doling out the kind of feedback you're talking about). But despite years around cameras and a lot of shooting MY photography got much better when I first got a Nikon D-100 and I started taking WAY more photos and could watch the histogram and bring it into Photoshop etc.

Yeah - that's what I think RED will do. And frankly, it's a damn good reason to own one. Shoot the heck out of it. Try everything. If you get to the point you feel you're expert then sell it and rent when you need it. Regular video cameras just aren't going to give you the same experience RED will. And if you do shoot some amazing stuff you've got it in 4K.

No brainer. :-)

[Joe Carney]

This leads to another issue. Wouldn't it be great to set up a forum section on cinematography issues? Maybe those with 35mm experience could offer tips and advice to others? Not film, but lens, light, framing...? I don't mean the lens tests, but real world advice.

As for why to get the camera? For me, it's because I want to make independent scifi and horror films, which means lots of green/blue screen shots and low light shooting. From what I've seen so far, Red will allow me to pull pristine keys compared to what I could do before and get low light shots like nobodys business.
No more dealing with HDV compression issues, or even the limitations of 8bit 4:2:2. Red will offer a tremendous boost for those us wanting to do genre movies.:alien:

[Robert Jackson]

Red will offer a tremendous boost for those us wanting to do genre movies.:alien:

It should offer up a tremendous boost to people working in all kinds of production. People who have a way to own and use a piece of equipment on a regular basis are a lot more likely to come up with interesting ways to use it. I'm always taking my HD100 and doing some kind of tabletop tests with it. I was throwing a bunch of light through water in a fish tank a couple of nights ago and using Braun hand mixers to generate "water spout" swirls and patterns in the water and then kind of shaping it with shutter speed. The compression artifacts actually weren't too bad most of the time. The kind of things people will come up with when they have full-time access to a camera like the RED will surprise a lot of people. Once the tools are powerful enough and readily accessible the only practical limitation starts to be imagination and creativity.

[Joel Kaye]

Red will allow me to pull pristine keys compared

Compared to other video cameras yes - but I've seen F-950 uncompressed plates that are shot as well as possible and it's still not point and click. Great comps usually require multiple masks, great color and lighting matching, wrapping the background light around the foreground and more. But a good artist should be able to tear it up with RED footage if it is what we hope it is. No jaggies, low noise. :-)

[Steven Parker]

I didn't mention film when I said 35mm. Two different things. Agreed - RED won't give you any film experience. And film won't give you REDCINE experience.



Um - yeah. All of them. I'll just respectfully disagree if you don't think that shooting RED over a HVX200 would make the same DP's stuff look better. It will IMHO. A great DP with an HVX could probably beat a bad DP with RED every time. But that's a different point. They'd both be better off with a better camera. Now someone truly weak would probably be better off with a video camera that has auto exposure and autofocus. They'll figure that out when they get a RED, get frustrated and give up.

You're right - you didn't say film, so moot point for me. And you all bring up excellent points about feedback from working digitally.

But it's weird... I know that technically, in terms of format specs, resolution, etc, a Red blows an HVX out of the water (and many other cameras as well)... but does that mean the final images are better only because they are higher rez, bigger aspect ratio, etc etc ? (I know - everyone's gonna flame me with shouts "YES!")

Hope I didn't offend you, joelnet. Just thinking out loud about the emotional impact of imagery as opposed to tech specs. Sometimes lo-fi works.

[Joel Kaye]

Hope I didn't offend you, joelnet. Just thinking out loud

None taken - it was a logical train of thought. Believe me, half my messages are edited 'cause I was thinking out loud when I hit "submit". (Now if I only I had a "preview post" button whenever I'm in a screenwriting meeting with other writers!)

As far as RED being a better camera I think the combination of 11 stops along with 35mm DOF/Bokeh and a much better codec will all add up to much prettier images. I don't want to bash on the HVX - but it's a pretty noisy and pretty soft... but not in a good way.

Film is soft in that there's still a ton of resolution but the edges of things don't have that video feel. That's a good thing to my eye. Hopefully RED and it's CMOS sensor will be more like that. The images they've posted look exactly like that to me.

Compare a portrait shot with a Digital SLR to a point and click rangefinder shooting the same portrait on film. Film isn't going to win the day. The DSLR lens will win the day. Same thing with moving images..

I bet we hear some people saying RED feels soft too when they see footage. But I think that's because people who are used to sharpened video. If you've got a DSLR that let's you turn off in-camera-sharpening it's really apparent.

[dalemccready]

There have been many instances when being forced to shoot DV commercials that I feel like I'm wasting my time with good lighting and think to myself "this would look so much better on a decent format".

So I think it is possible that people will benefit from the added resolution and depth of Red without neccessarily having added that value themselves.

That kind of is the point of pushing this technology isn't it? Everyone wins.

But as they say:

"If you know how to light, it doesn't matter which stock you use. If you don't know how to light, it doesn't matter which stock you use"

[Joel Kaye]

I feel like I'm wasting my time with good lighting and think to myself "this would look so much better on a decent format".

So I think it is possible that people will benefit from the added resolution and depth of Red without necessarily having added that value themselves.


I just know from shooting straight HD vs. using a 35mm adapter the 35mm stuff looks way better to me instantly. Sure it's harder to move the camera and focus - but just having some pretty bokeh slide behind a character helps a ton.

Most people at this point know lighting for DV/HD is different and requires more precision than lighting for film. Film exposure is much more forgiving. I'd argue that if you can make it look really good on DV then when RED shows up you'll kick butt. Time will tell though. Again - there may be some frustration at first, but get out there and shoot a couple hundred hours in a month and watch how fast you gain ground on the big boys. That's my plan anyway. (Yeah - I'll be deleting a lot of stuff)

[Michael Brennan]

Film exposure is much more forgiving. I'd argue that if you can make it look really good on DV then when RED shows up you'll kick butt. Time will tell though. Again - there may be some frustration at first, but get out there and shoot a couple hundred hours in a month and watch how fast you gain ground on the big boys. That's my plan anyway. (Yeah - I'll be deleting a lot of stuff)


Controlling the dynamic range on location for a given budget for DV/HD/RED is usually more difficult than film.
Having done that what then counts is the part between black and peak white. Subtle lighting is more apparent on large screen displays and cinema.

I'm not sure shooting and lighting for DV will give you all the experience you need to instantly translate to higher res system with greater recording depth.
But a well setup, decent monitor ensures a fast learning curve.



Mike

[chace]

But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me.

It's odd isn't it? I think the establishment at CML was a little miffed at being ignored in the development process of RED.....along with a marketing approach that they feel is "devisive"....their words, not mine. The "revolution" ..."you're with us or against us"....and on and on, left the established shooters/EFX-types at CML feeling like outsiders in a business where they consider themselves to be industry leaders. (hmmm)

My first posting at CML led to a listmum censoring my emails. I was labled a "disciple of RED hyperbole"...and consequently, every other email was not allowed. The tone of CML is set by the owner and cemented by the advertisers and long-time posters there. Please keep in mind, many of them are terrific individuals...very talented...and don't have a chip on their shoulder....but there are several who dispise anyone who doesn't "pay their dues" shall we say. They consider their craft worthy of respect....a craft that took many years to perfect....whatever.....and here are you guys....the barbarians banging at their gate. ha

As for many of you that post here who are just starting out....hang in there. Don't let the establishment get you down....we all gotta start somewhere. There are just as many talented people that post here anyway....and a nicer tone of support to boot! Thanks for that Jared.

Anway, I think there is a comaparison to Folk Art in here somewhere. Most folk artists are self taught...outsiders....who may not be the next Monet or Rembrandt, but who created a new form of art....and one that has been recognized world wide.

Keep in mind...there are many ways to tell a story visually. Some stories don't need a CML DP....or 12K's...and a crew of 100.

Anyway, I personally can't wait to see what many of you create. Exciting times! I think we all owe JJ a round of drinks for sticking his neck out and creating a handheld Dalsa.


chace
dir
backyard.com
venice

#770-something

[Robert Jackson]

But a well setup, decent monitor ensures a fast learning curve.

It's not state-of-the-art or anything, but I have a pain-Jane 30" Apple Cinema Display that works really well as an on-set monitor, IMO. I have to use a component to DVI converter, but the RED could probably feed it some recognizable DVI signal.