New Wired magazine has a hot article about RED and JJ

[Marcus Irvin]

While waiting in a very slow pharmacy(1.5 hours of my life gone in Tom Thumb), I picked up the latest Wired magazine to find a full length article on our favorite camera and founder. It's a multi-page article with photos and a most positive viewpoint.

Much of it, I already knew from this site over the past 2 years, but there was some new information as well.

Check it out, you won't be disappointed.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Love wired and I'm going to love to read about RED in wired.


Congratulations RED!

[Jannard]

Is it a good article?

Jim

[Bob Torrance]

A very good article. Implies that the Red could be the first camera to replace (analog) film. That and the following quote may open the flood gates. "Director Doug Liman used a Red on Jumper" But all in all, quite a write up.

Interesting times,

bob

[Brandon Fraley]

That and the following quote may open the flood gates. "Director Doug Liman used a Red on Jumper"

well, it's true :) does the article imply that footage made it into the final cut?

[Mark L. Pederson]

well, it's true :) does the article imply that footage made it into the final cut?
RED Footage DID make it into the final cut of JUMPER.

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll pick up a copy and see. I hope the article makes it onto their website soon too.

Graeme

[Sergei Franklin]

[QUOTE=Baab;270638]A very good article. Implies that the Red could be the first camera to replace (analog) film.

I love my Red camera but the first camera to replace film was the Panavision Genesis. It's expensive and big and only 1080p but many Hollywood films have shot with the Genesis.

Red didn't start but will accelerate the move to digital.

[zak forrest]

man can't wired throw red a bone and send them a pdf or an actual copy..

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

The Genesis wouldnt replace film at all my friend. Its a TV camera not a cinema camera. Wonder what the difference is?

[Johann Schulz]

I'll check out the Wired issue for sure, but I still want to plug the August Issue of HDVideoPro, too. They have a great, 'progressive' article by Mike Goedecke in it on the RED ONE from pre to post, along with IR filter questions and answers specific to the RED ONE in another article.

As a relative newcomer, waiting in line, I learned more than I could have asked for, and it put many puzzle pieces into place for me. RED's on cover!

[Craig Schober]

The Genesis wouldnt replace film at all my friend. Its a TV camera not a cinema camera. Wonder what the difference is?

everyone (including many of us here) seem to have different definition of "replacing film". for me, film was replaced practically by dv cams 10 years ago because studios began funding scripts, projecting digitally and distributing "films" that were shot digitally on dv. of course there are film hold-outs that will never agree that film will ever be replaced by anything digital. god love 'em.

[Graeme Nattress]

Digital isn't replacing film, it's displacing film. Film will always be. Just as I still listen to vinyl records on tube amps, film will always be, although vastly displaced in number.

Graeme

[Johann Schulz]

I'm lovin' it, just like a lot of far-from-perfect 16mm films from the '60's! And as for today, perfect polish has it's flaws, too....

[Sergei Franklin]

The Genesis wouldnt replace film at all my friend. Its a TV camera not a cinema camera. Wonder what the difference is?

So I guess Superman Returns, Flyboys, Click, Déjà Vu, Apocalypto, Reign O’er Me, Grind House, Lookout, Next, The Ferryman, Balls of Fury, Condemned, Slipstream, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, I Know Who Killed Me, 21, Walk Hard, Get Smart, The Other Boleyn Girl,... are TV and not movies.

[Gunleik Groven]

So I guess Superman Returns, Flyboys, Click, Déjà Vu, Apocalypto, Reign O’er Me, Grind House, Lookout, Next, The Ferryman, Balls of Fury, Condemned, Slipstream, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, I Know Who Killed Me, 21, Walk Hard, Get Smart, The Other Boleyn Girl,... are TV and not movies.

Of course, didn't you know????

:)

G

[Christopher Gosch]

So I guess Superman Returns, Flyboys, Click, Déjà Vu, Apocalypto, Reign O’er Me, Grind House, Lookout, Next, The Ferryman, Balls of Fury, Condemned, Slipstream, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, I Know Who Killed Me, 21, Walk Hard, Get Smart, The Other Boleyn Girl,... are TV and not movies.
Cameras are tools not the ends. I love my Red but I also love my Movicam Compact and my SRIII. The Genesis is a fantastic camera as well and the images from it are very film like. These cameras are all paint brushes, we as cinematographers provide the paint. Panavision will continue to provide equipment for many years and I am sure they will adjust as the did when the ARRI III and eventually the 435 showed up the Panastar. Their support and lenses are second to none and if the front end of the system is a RED or a GENESIS (SONY) or the latest from Panasonic I am sure they will find a way to make the rest of the system work as well as they have done in the past with film. Concentrate on the final image - not on the equipment to get there. The red is an amazing camera but I have found many faults with it as well - It doesn't underexpose well, The post process is very complicated without a clear work flow, The support system and the myrid of owners don't have a standard - in LA I have constantly run into the 19mm vs 15mm issue when renting a second and third camera for shoots. The PL mount has caused owners to buy inferior lenses and a run up of prices on Lenses with PL mounts (Most prices on lenses have doubled in the last year) The amount of cameras have driven the rental prices into the ground and production companies are hiring inexperienced people because the own a red. But despite this the camera system does bring a new level of quality to digital imaging and I am forever glad for that. I always look forward to a new challenge.

www.redcinematographer.com

[Casey Green]

Is it a good article?

Jim

I would say it's a home run for RED. It does a nice job covering the early development history and motivations for your decision to create the Camera in the first place and also does a pretty good job describing the advantages compared to existing Film and HD Cameras.

Also, there are some great quotes from big-time DPs and Directors.

There is, of course, a lot left out since RED makes more than just the RED ONE... no mention of SCARLET or RED RAY, Workflow software, or many of the lenses or accessories (but they did mention EPIC). And certain details are not as technical as we are used to getting in cinema magazines.

All in all, a very well organized article which enlightens new comers and paints a very positive picture.

[Kyle Hance]

ProVideo Coalation doesn't seem to like the article....

link (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/wired_magazine_gets_the_red_totally_wrong/)

I'd still like to pick up this issue and read it for myself, though...

[michaelmadison]

It's a great article.

[Sean Michael Johnston]

I think it goes a long way toward enlightening the average (non-camera-enthusiast) person as to why the film industry is so excited about this camera.
I finally have a good short article to hand to my wife or my dad when they hear me get all geeky about my new set of tools.

Best article I've read so far about RED. Of course I'm also a big fan of most of the writers who contribute to WIRED : )

[Jarred Land]

I think it goes a long way toward enlightening the average (non-camera-enthusiast) person as to why the film industry is so excited about this camera.

I like this summation Sean.. definately not a technogeek article at all.. but a good glimpse of what RED is to the average non-film / camera industry crowd.

[Jannard]

This is an article done by Wired... not American Cinematographer.

Jim

[bjonsson]

I'm Bengt Jonsson, one of the cinematographers quoted in the article.

I feel a need to correct a few items

Although I am often the 2nd Unit Cinematographer for BONES, I am NOT the main unit Cinematographer. This position is brilliantly occupied by Gordon C. Lonsdale. I wish that I had been sent a copy for corrections. Bones is only a fraction of my work, as I often shoot commercials and music videos, and features.

I stand by what I said, but in the context of our discussion I was responding to the perceived difficulty with the RED workflow, and to dramatize how in the big picture, film too has it's own complicated workflow. Bones is shot on 35mm film. And it looks amazing.

Red is a powerful camera system, but it is important that proper and complete information is set forth.

Bengt

[Lauri Kettunen]

.. definately not a technogeek article at all.. but a good glimpse of what RED is to the average non-film / camera industry crowd.

... which is why the technogeek attitude at Provideocoalition.com to the small mistakes of this article is over the top.

[David M]

Digital isn't replacing film, it's displacing film. Film will always be. Just as I still listen to vinyl records on tube amps, film will always be, although vastly displaced in number.

Graeme

I hope you are using a quality tube amp (http://www.stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/997graaf/)that doesn't use one of those awful (Hoik! Splat!) output transformers.:tongue:

And did you get the full package deal, with the leather armchair, briar pipe, 60s type heavy black plastic rimmed glasses and a selection of Dave Brubeck LPs made from virgin vinyl?

While there is absolutely no substitute for a tube guitar amp, I kinda draw the line at using one for ordinary listening. But I suppose it keeps you warm in winter.

[Graeme Nattress]

Not only does it have output transformers, but the pre-amp is just a transformer. Leather armchair - yes. Pipe - no. Spectacles - Oakley's finest (Thanks Jim). For music, I'd prefer the Beatles :-)

And yes, keeps the room warm in winter. Yes, it's very much less than measureably perfect, but does it look like I care? Start an audiophile thread on general chat if you want to talk more.

The mention here is that I prefer the old, imperfect way, for aesthetic reasons, and that I can, many years after transistors and cd's totally took over, still get and enjoy older equipment. Same will happen with film, I'm sure.

Graeme

[number6]

I don't think I'll be subscribing to Wired Magazine... they are just now printing 2 year old news? I need information faster than that.

[Wil Klassen]

Digital isn't replacing film, it's displacing film. Film will always be. Just as I still listen to vinyl records on tube amps, film will always be, although vastly displaced in number.

Graeme

Coming from a slide film photographer I'd have to say that's an extremely well said statement, unfortunate as it may be across all spectrum's of media. :pinch:

[Jeff Coatney]

I liked the Wired article. It had some bits and pieces of history that I found interesting. But I take issue with one of the "Facts" in the article. I am personally very skeptical that it costs $12,000 dollars a year to "Preserve a 4K digital Master of a feature film." Somebody prove it to me and I'll shut-up about it.

What's great about Wired's readers is that they expect the "Future" to actually arrive someday. Building an expectation in the minds of the movie-going public that Red IS the future is a good thing. I think more articles in magazines that don't necessarily focus on the film industry is better than American Cinematographer. Why waste your time with the entrenched critics? The camera is building a new community of users, a new group of professionals in a globalized "Market Space".

The movie business' center of gravity is changing, moving away from the guilds and unions and tipping towards what is attractive to private equity and bowing to corporate accounting pressures, just like other industries.

Building the brand equity in the minds of the people that buy tickets (and watch the DVD special features) and convincing them a better experience awaits them thanks to the new Red camera is a prejudice worth building in the minds of the film goer.

[Graeme Nattress]

And of course, if 35mm were archival, why do we need a remastered Star Wars or Little Mermaid....

Graeme

[David M]

Not only does it have output transformers, but the pre-amp is just a transformer. Leather armchair - yes. Pipe - no. Spectacles - Oakley's finest (Thanks Jim). For music, I'd prefer the Beatles :-)

And yes, keeps the room warm in winter. Yes, it's very much less than measureably perfect, but does it look like I care? Start an audiophile thread on general chat if you want to talk more.

Graeme
Plasmatic (in measured tones punctuated with gestures from the stem of his briar pipe):
No offense old man, but I'm afraid any discussion between those devoted to pursuit of true sonic excellence and those content with the tragic deficiencies of .... output transformers .... is never going to end well. You think "Film vs Digital" arguments can get heated? Ha! :clown2:

(Sorry, couldn't resist. I lifted that almost word-for-word from a pdf of a hardcore nutjob HiFi magazine one of my customers gave me :) )

Actually one of the most violent flaming matches I've ever seen online was on a sewing forum, if you can believe that. In the "embroidery" folder someone mentioned how you could scan a commercial printed pattern and iron it onto fabric by first printing it onto overhead projector film. Someone then brought up the subject of copyright violation and it was on for young and old! I've never seen so many captial letters and exclamation points.

Don't worry, I make good money "tuning up" audiophile tube amps. They're easy to work on, hard to blow up, the parts are easy to get and their owners tend to have have deep pockets. Like film cameras really.

[Daniel Browning]

I am personally very skeptical that it costs $12,000 dollars a year to "Preserve a 4K digital Master of a feature film." Somebody prove it to me and I'll shut-up about it.


Four terabyte RAID-5 Array amortized over 10 years: $250/year
Second array for double backup (new every 10 years): $250/year
Convert away from deprecated file formats every 10 years: $1,000/year
Rackspace, monitoring, dead hard drive RMA, etc: $1,000/year

That leaves almost $10,000/year for standard Hollywood Accounting and embezzlement. ;)

[Brad Wilson]

didn't see anyone post this...so, here it is (if I missed it, then here it is again):

Analog Film Meets Its Match in Red Digital Cinema's Ultrahigh-Res Camera
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera

[Raul Gonzo]

excellent article. (I used to like Wired, starting to again). Is that what Jim looks like? He looks dangerous! :shifty:

[number6]

Actually learned a lot about RED reading that article. I retract what I said in an earlier post number 28.

[Paolo Tinari]

didn't see anyone post this...so, here it is (if I missed it, then here it is again):

Analog Film Meets Its Match in Red Digital Cinema's Ultrahigh-Res Camera
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera

Thanks :-)

[Paolo Tinari]

Is it a good article?

Jim

Rethoric. You dictated it on the phone...

"Standing nearby is the man who developed it—a handsome guy with a neatly trimmed goatee and a pair of sunglasses perched atop his clean-shaven head."

[Paul Hazlett]

Actually one of the most violent flaming matches I've ever seen online was on a sewing forum,

have a bit of a cross stitch fetish have you??....heheh

[Craig Meadows]

Just got my issue in the mail yesterday, what a great article. Not overly technical and a great read. I am recommending many of my clients read this to help fill in some of the holes I probably forget to mention at times.

[Thomas Mathai]

Convert away from deprecated file formats every 10 years: $1,000/year
Rackspace, monitoring, dead hard drive RMA, etc: $1,000/year


How did you calculate the above costs to being 1k a year each?

[Lawrence Bansbach]

The article was generally pretty good (although its brief discussion of depth of field was simplistic and therefore somewhat misleading), but it omitted the real revolution: Scarlet. It could sell ten times what One and Epic sell combined.

[number6]

Scarlet. It could sell ten times what One and Epic sell combined.

Yeah, in the first six weeks.

[Daniel Browning]

How did you calculate the above costs to being 1k a year each?

Management of storage units can be heavily automated, so the minimal amount of oversight will just be in response to automated alerts ("verify failed", "disk offline", etc.) and regular human investigation. Based on the colocation facilities I've visited in Portland, OR, I think $500/year is a comfortable rate for 1U at managed-service. Two geographically separated would make $1k/year. But you might prefer a fancier facility with high security, full service bar in the waiting lounge, swanky downtown real estate, etc. With all that it might be as much as $3k/year. On the other end, you could use a riskier offline storage service where the units are only booted once a quarter, and so don't take A/C or power. That would cost almost nothing, but there's a small chance that more than one drive would die in two separated arrays at the same time.

As for the transcoding at $10,000: that's 50 hours at $200/hour. Breakdown:
5: Request temporary transcoding system in data center ("box cart").
5: Connect to remote KVM and install transcoding software.
5: Connect to old storage array and new storage array.
10: Transcode.
5: Test.
20: Margin for a custom box cart, shipping, unforeseen issues, etc.

[Cameron Preyde]

I think the ProVideo Coalition blog about this article was excellent. It was mentioned earlier in this thread and just goes to show how little Wired actually cares about decent journalism. For those of you who've read the Wired article and are praising it...did you realize that it was full of errors and was incredibly misleading?

Read: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/wired_magazine_gets_the_red_totally_wrong/

I'm not saying that RED ONE isn't good, I'm saying that Wired isn't.

[Roberto B]

Is it a good article?

Jim:w00t:


Rethoric. You dictated it on the phone...

"Standing nearby is the man who developed it—a handsome guy with a neatly trimmed goatee and a pair of sunglasses perched atop his clean-shaven head.":)

edit
my fav..

"Jim Jannard, 59, is the billionaire founder of Red. In 1975 he spent $300 to make a batch of custom motocross handlebar grips, which he sold from the back of a van. "

[Emanuel A.]

Yes, it's funny. BTW, we'll be in Rome these days... Any chance for una pasta a casa tua, Paolo?

E. :-)

[David M]

have a bit of a cross stitch fetish have you??....heheh

No, actually I was making a sarcastic comment to my wife about what an 'exciting' place the sewing forum must be. She certainly showed me a side of fabric-oriented society that I never suspected existed.

All those nutjobs, handling sharp needles and scissors.:ranting2:

[Priyesh P.]

Film will always be. Just as I still listen to vinyl records on tube amps, film will always be, although vastly displaced in number.

Graeme

OK, but to produce vinyl doesn`t need that much sophisticated equipment like film does (a german company did some vinyls for a client on old machines they bought from somewhere in their garage). But what do you need to produce film? the base material , chemicals and coating devices and all the knowledge to properly produce, apply and fixate the colour layers. and this was "just" the production step of the film...

Just think about the availability of the Pathé 9,5mm or even worse, the 17,5 or normal 8mm film and processing today...

[Dan Hudgins]

But what do you need to produce film? the base material , chemicals and coating devices and all the knowledge to properly produce, apply and fixate the colour layers. and this was "just" the production step of the film...


I have made my own photographic materials, and can say that making black and white film faster that EI 3 is almost impossible for someone who wants to start a new film company to fill the vacuum after the major companies die and has not been in the photographic materials business for 15 years or more, unless he hires people from a film making company since most of the tech is a trade secret. Those workers would have been bound by non-disclosure, so even that option would be hard. Making color film to compare with Kodaks new stocks is next to impossible. Making a good color film with fine grain at EI 800 is not something a new small company can do on their own.

Lucky Film in China seems to be using chemicals and technology from Kodak, they may be the last maker to go under, but I do not see any kind of motion picture film being made 100 years from now, maybe limited print stock 50 years from now, but doubt that any movie camera film will be around 25 years from now.

Its hard to say when all the Movie projectors will be taken out of theatres, but I would think that by 2060 almost all? By 2030 half?

It makes me sad to think all the tech invented by AGFA, KODAK, and FUJI will die with the workers who know the secrets of making film, since these are not documented in detail outside the companies. 100 years of knowledge gone forever...

Where are ANSCO and DUPONT, they both made great film stocks that were used to make great movies...

As the volume falls, the labs will close, the chemicals will become impossable to purchase, and even if you have a hord of film stock, you will be unable to get it processed.

[Thomas Mathai]

Management of storage units can be heavily automated, so the minimal amount of oversight will just be in response to automated alerts ("verify failed", "disk offline", etc.) and regular human investigation. Based on the colocation facilities I've visited in Portland, OR, I think $500/year is a comfortable rate for 1U at managed-service. Two geographically separated would make $1k/year. But you might prefer a fancier facility with high security, full service bar in the waiting lounge, swanky downtown real estate, etc. With all that it might be as much as $3k/year. On the other end, you could use a riskier offline storage service where the units are only booted once a quarter, and so don't take A/C or power. That would cost almost nothing, but there's a small chance that more than one drive would die in two separated arrays at the same time.

As for the transcoding at $10,000: that's 50 hours at $200/hour. Breakdown:
5: Request temporary transcoding system in data center ("box cart").
5: Connect to remote KVM and install transcoding software.
5: Connect to old storage array and new storage array.
10: Transcode.
5: Test.
20: Margin for a custom box cart, shipping, unforeseen issues, etc.

Well I wouldn't pay more for fancier, but I would pay more for proactive oversight. Considering that it would be MASTERS and other original material that can never be replaced, it would make sense that there be more than just the minimal oversight.

Isn't that why so much film negative has been lost from minimal oversight and negect?

It's only been the last few decades that the studios realized the importance of their libraries and have been more interested in restoration and safe storage.

I'm sure as solid state storage becomes more affordable, there will be better reliable long term storage systems.

While storage media has come and gone, I haven't seen many file formats disappear. So when it comes to transcoding, I don't see it being as important as long as the masters and original material are conformed to a standard.

I don't know if SMPTE is working on a digital cinema standard yet, but Adobe is going to introduce Cinema DNG. We'll see if that one has promise for mastering and archival use.

I would transcode to whatever becomes the Digital Cinema Standard, both Master and original material before going to long term storage, then not worry about it unless there is a good reason to transcode to something better.

[Dan Hudgins]

I would transcode to whatever becomes the Digital Cinema Standard, both Master and original material before going to long term storage, then not worry about it unless there is a good reason to transcode to something better.

The 50 hours gives seems very low, if you archive 20:1 ratio on a 2 hour film as 16bit 4K TIF files, you have:

40*60*60*24=3,456,000 frames of about 60MB is 208TB.

With copy and or processing of each frame at 30 seconds to 3 minutes the time to backup or transcode the frames would be:

480 hours to 2880 hours?

At $200 per hour that is:

$96,000 to $576,000?

The slower the equipment runs the more money charged? It should charge by the GB processed?

[Daniel Browning]

20:1 ratio on a 2 hour film, 16bit 4K TIF files, you have 208TB.


I would suggest using a codec from the late nineties or even more recent. ;) Modern codecs like Cineform can compress 4K in 120 MB/s (16 TB for 400 hours) while retaining quality equivalent to film. Some might think that archiving 400 hours for a 2 hour feature is being pack rat, but you know what they say about "one man's garbage..."



480 hours to 2880 hours at $200 per hour that is $96,000 to $576,000?


$200/hour is just for a skilled expert to prepare and execute the transcode, not material costs. Even if it takes 2880 hours to render 400 hours of archival material on today's computers, we can comfortably expect that render speed will double every 18 months. So what takes a 2880 hours and a $100,000 30-node render farm today will in the 10 years be done in 140 hours on a 64-core workstation.

[Priyesh P.]

It makes me sad to think all the tech invented by AGFA, KODAK, and FUJI will die with the workers who know the secrets of making film, since these are not documented in detail outside the companies. 100 years of knowledge gone forever...

Where are ANSCO and DUPONT, they both made great film stocks that were used to make great movies...

As the volume falls, the labs will close, the chemicals will become impossable to purchase, and even if you have a hord of film stock, you will be unable to get it processed.

Exactely.
Agfa stopped production of motion picture filmstock. Just like Technicolor did when single-strip colourfilm had wide sucess. It`s a slow process, but nonreversible. 35 and 16mm Filmstock was even in it`s best time terribly expensive - just imagine what will happen when production volume decreases - everything in the chain will get more and more expensive while in parallel the digital cameras will get better and better, there will be a crossing point whereafter it`s just pure nostalgia but no advantage left for film...

[Thomas Mathai]

I would suggest using a codec from the late nineties or even more recent. ;) Modern codecs like Cineform can compress 4K in 120 MB/s (16 TB for 400 hours) while retaining quality equivalent to film. Some might think that archiving 400 hours for a 2 hour feature is being pack rat, but you know what they say about "one man's garbage..."


I wouldn't use Cineform for long term archive because it's proprietary. You never know what would happen in a decade or two. To transcode to a non-open format can leave you stuck.

[Ryan Damm]

Did anyone else notice how over-sharpened the photo at the lead of the article was?

Kind of ironic, eh?

(And you'd think they'd at least run the technical details by someone in the photo department -- who could've set them straight on the difference between analog/digital and photochemical/semiconductor... my 10-year-old Hi-8 analog consumer camera doesn't have narrow depth of field.)

[Antoine Fabi]

Film is Film i agree.

BUT, we're not far from NO banding at all, more aesthetic highlight handling, and very fine and round grain patern like film.

Then...Film will be replaced (at large scale).
Even now (only 6 months of experience here), with good knowlege and testing, many camera upgrades, some of us here have found the way to produce stunning images with very good highlight aesthetic look. It's incredible how fast things are improving.

Cheers!

Antoine

[Tim Fassnacht]

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera?currentPage=1