I can afford the RED, but should I?

[MadamImAdam]

I am shooting an out-of-pocket feature film (my third) starting March 2009. It's an adventure film set in Colorado. The brief theatrical exposure I anticipate is important (film critics and acquisitions executives will see it projected in a theater, likely at a film festival), but, as with most indie films, the majority of the eventual audience will see it on DVD and TV.

Right now I am trying to choose the camera I will use to shoot the movie. Shooting will be catch-as-catch-can from March through October, so owning my camera kit is more practical than renting. I have enough money -- about $30,000 -- to buy a basic RED One outfit with a Nikon lens set. The expense would represent roughly 25% of the total personal funds I will use making this movie.

Here's the thing: I own a complete HVX200 kit already. Everything RED-related that I would buy with that thirty grand? I own the equivalent already at the HVX200 level. If I shoot this movie with my HVX instead of RED, I will literally have $30K more to spend on this low-budget movie.

When I think only about the camera, I think, Must have RED! Must have RED! No more noise management! Nikon lenses! The RED One is an awesome camera, and I'd love to own one. However, when I step back and think about the whole production, I am reminded that optical quality and resolution are just part of this whole thing. I keep wondering if spending that $30K on the following would actually add more value to the movie:

--Improve lighting from "fair" to "good." The lights I've been dragging around for 10 years are literally falling apart (I bought them used -- very used). With just part of that $30K I could significantly upgrade the basic kit I keep in the truck and have money left over to rent more exotic lights for special uses on the production's "big days." For instance, I could hang a moon for a night exterior scene.

--Improve production design from "good" to "great." Rent better locations, props, scenery. Is it better to have great stuff in front of an HVX, or good stuff in front of a RED?

--Add value to other aspects of the camera department. Rent a crane instead of making it a ladder shot. Own a dolly and track instead of renting for special occasions, so any scene can have tracking instead of panning. Rent a motion-control head for a couple days, so split-screen vfx shots don't have to be locked off. Thirty grand could facilitate a lot of these little touches.

It's a zero-sum game. Whatever I spend on the RED doesn't get spent in front of the camera. On the other hand, if I get the RED, it will improve the look of everything I do put in front of the camera.

Obviously, this dilemma is ultimately something that only I can resolve. But I would appreciate hearing different points of view on this. If you were in my shoes, what would you do? Is 25% of the budget too much to spend to step up from HVX200 to RED One?

[Gunleik Groven]

If you're doing post on this, you should consider what implications RED has vs HVX. That said: The images aren't really compareable....

[Zach Nelson]

Why buy for $30,000 when you could rent for a fraction of that.

[Simon Valderrama]

Actually i found that's nothing more sad that having a big or complex production poorly rendered by a camera that's not up to what's in front of it.
It happened me once, and it was so frustrating that when i saw RED footage for the first time i thought: i must have RED, so that if my footage will look like crap it will be just because of me.

So i would say, get a RED and then get creative to get the most from your production with what's left!

BTW, the footage made me choose RED was music video "El Principio", photographed and edited by Evin Grant.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4657&highlight=principio

[Tim Fassnacht]

Gunleik is onto something here, Do you have an Intel Mac?
And if so, have you considered the extra post-production time associated with offline/online, transcoding dailies, etc?

In this case- Red will take longer as you'll need to consider that you won't have the capability of "Log and Transfer"ing on set like a lot of people tend to do with the HVX. This said, you'll need external Hard Drives on set for a mere data dump (and possibly temp archival) and a second set of storage media in the edit bay to act as target when transcoding (this is assuming you're posting this yourself). You'll be cutting offline and matching to online from you're R3Ds later, not always the case when working with HVX (I've seen a lot of shows that just tend to cut "online" DVCPRO HD). in short, there's much more time (and money) to be eaten on the post end.

On the flip side, you'll have obvious image advantages with the Red that the HVX doesn't even begin to compare too. (DR, DOF, RAW Imagery etc.). You must also consider the fact that on your bottom line, you could likely absorb the cost of your camera package into your personal company (assuming alot here) rather than the productions and write it off as a loss on your fiscal year. This way, of course, you also own the damn thing for the next crazy low-budg film you do.

It's quite the toss up really, and none of can really weigh it ultimately for you but I would definitely keep the floor open for things you may not be incorporating into the big picture as of yet. Best of Luck!

Cheers,

TF

[Nils J. Nesse]

Listen to Werner Herzog's advice and steal a Red.

"If you want to make a movie, stay out of the system. Steal a camera. Forge documents. Break into a car. You can make a film for five thousand dollars. There are no excuses anymore. Drive a cab, become a bouncer in a sex club. I worked nights in a factory. I'm a soldier."

[Julio Quintana]

You have to choose how you want your audience to feel at the end:

HVX: "That was a very high budget student film"
RED: "That was a very low budget professional film"

I would personally rather cut corners and shoot on RED. No matter what you do, the HVX will make all of your expensive effects and sets look a little amateurish.

[Steve Sherrick]

If from your tests the image quality holds up on the HVX200 (including doing a test print to 35mm), then by all means put the money into better lighting, production design, sound crew, etc.

Red will require proper lighting and production design. The images are not going to be great with lighting that is subpar. 4K will just show the lack of lighting and production design in higher resolution.

Post will be tougher with Red. But on a feature that will be spread out over months, you may find that you can set up a workflow that is just fine with Red. You can downconvert to 1K ProRes for editorial and then conform at the end. Perhaps at that point you'll have distribution and someone else can pay for the conform.

In an ideal situation you will have great lighting, sound, production design, acting, and a camera with amazing imagery. Reality sometimes forces us to come up with creative solutions. I'm sure you'll find just the right balance. Trust your eyes.

[Tico Llaurador]

I played around with a HVX and a Letus Extreme for a while last year and, though I liked the results, it still wasn't good enough. The RED is in an entirely different league altogether. So if you must have the HVX in the equation, then perhaps an EX3 would be your ticket. But definitely not the RED. If using a RED still appeals to you no matter what, then you have already answered your own question.

Good luck, any which way you go!

[Ramesh Jai]

You have to choose how you want your audience to feel at the end:

HVX: "That was a very high budget student film"
RED: "That was a very low budget professional film"

I would personally rather cut corners and shoot on RED. No matter what you do, the HVX will make all of your expensive effects and sets look a little amateurish.
I beg to differ. I have a RED One yet I will emphasize that high production values with an HVX will give you better images then RED One with mediocre production values.

[Paul Harrill]

Look, the Red looks amazing, but the thing is: It's not about the camera. It's about the script and the performances, and then, after that, the look of the film. People would go see a Judd Apatow movie these days if it was shot on VHS. Why? Because his stuff makes people laugh.

But I digress. If I were you I'd shoot the thing on a Varicam with a P+S with 35mm primes. That camera's rental price has gone down since Red became the hot new kid on the block. It's going to be a workflow you know, and with a 35mm adaptor it's going to produce images that look fantastic. Plus your HVX can serve as B-camera on the shoot; it cuts in well with the Varicam if you use it right. That will save you time -- maybe lots of time, if you're shooting complicated "adventure movie" setups. And time is money.

[Gary Stone]

I beg to differ. I have a RED One yet I will emphasize that high production values with an HVX will give you better images then RED One with mediocre production values.

methinks no. from my experience the HVX needs a TON of light. especially when you add a 35mm adapter. add to this lower color sampling, DVCPRO HD compression and lower resolution (a lot lower) of the sensor and it's no contest. RED RED RED RED RED.

[Paul Harrill]

And one more thing: Most producers will tell you that the idea of spending 25% of a film's budget on the CAMERA ALONE is just plain crazy.

How much money is in the budget for film festival costs? Here I'm talking about everything from entry fees, press kits, and a professionally done website, to (potentially) a publicist if you get into a major festival, as well as travel/lodging for actors and director to attend festivals.

I bring this up because so few independent filmmakers budget for distribution, and they find themselves broke when their movie's done. It's a bad spot to be in: You've got a "product", yet you don't have the money to take it to market.

[Nathan Beaman]

its about content. it doesnt matter what you shoot on if its lacking in other places. If the movie doesnt play out well, all you get is crap with more pixels.

[Jason Ing]

Just curious. I'm not being sarcastic.

Does anyone know if there ever has been an INDIE MOVIE shot with the HVX that ever made money? Like $30k... or more? How did your previous two movies do? What did you shoot it with?

[Wayne D]

its about content. it doesnt matter what you shoot on if its lacking in other places. If the movie doesnt play out well, all you get is crap with more pixels.

amen to that

[Zack Birlew]

Well, looking at it from a production standpoint, the RED is a must simply for the various reasons described, particularly for lighting purposes. Plus, you can always save a little and go with Nikon lenses too or just the stock 18-50 if that's your thing. The HVX200 will hold you back, I think. It's better than HDV because it's tapeless but the resolution limit is the dealbreaker. 1080P would be better for 35mm blowup, there's no question, there's no fudge room, it simply will. I would have agreed with the 720P not being too bad back in the first generation HDV days but cameras have come a long way in perceived resolution, DR, etc. (ie. Sony EX1). But with RED, 4K or 2K to 35mm is definitely going to be ideal.

I've played with the numbers and for all the money you would spend on a RED rental, you might as well buy the darn thing. However, even though I say you should buy it, consider what I did back when I was trying to decide whether or not to get one. Do you have a Macbook Pro to do any editing, correction, etc. on set? How many CF cards can you afford? If just a few, how many CF backup drives or external hard drives will you need on set? Do you or your editor have a RAID to be able to easily view and edit your footage? What lenses will you use, PL or Nikon? Rent or buy? Batteries? What kind? Heavy duty tripod? Filters? Which ones? 4x4 mattebox or screw on [depends on lenses]? What about this IR hot mirror filter I've been hearing about? Shoulder mount (ie. RED base pack, Zacuto, Redrockmicro, etc.)? Follow focus? Which one? Built in sound or external double system? Both? If so, have two microphones to do it?

All of this mixes in with your other rental and production considerations, particularly sound and lighting. For me, I decided to go to film school. Had I had the means to do a film right out of college, I would have gotten my RED and all that other stuff, but I decided that just wasn't what I really wanted to do and so I chose something different.

I know, it's a lot to consider but either way, you should try for more than 720P, even if it's a first generation Varicam.

[David Mutchler]

Putting together my red package has cost me over $80,000 and counting.

[number6]

My advice... wait for Scarlet. If it doesn't arrive in time, consider using the HVX and drag your feet during early production. Then when Scarlet arrives, buy that and throw away what you've done to that point, reshoot with Scarlet, and be done with it.

[sander kamp]

You have to think whether image quality is part of the story you want to tell. If the story takes place in beautiful scenery with lots of locked off shots than it's going to look ridiculous if shot on the HVX. But if the story is all about hand-held action in gritty interiors, cars, trains, then the HVX is no problem.

And think about how you are going to support the RED and how you are going to pull focus. You need a really decent tripod that you probably have to rent and a follow focus and gears on your nikon lenses and marks where you actors have to stand and so on. The camera will take a lot more time on the production. And stealing a shot in a public place will be a lot harder with the RED than with the HVX.

[MadamImAdam]

Wow, what a great bunch of responses. And fast, too.

I laughed when I checked in on the poll results just now: 10 say go Red, 10 say stay with HVX. Well, at least the results confirm that this is a tough decision.

znelson -- For this movie, it's not practical to rent. Sometimes i'll need to be able to shoot on a moment's notice, to catch the right weather or because of performer availability. Sometimes I'll need to go horse packing into the backcountry, and I'd be paying to rent a camera during several days of mere transportation. Between March and October I'll probably end up shooting 75 days -- but spread out unpredictably over that time. My method of feature shooting works best if I own the camera and the other frequently used tools of production (basic lighting, grip, sound, truck). I rent the exotic stuff. I also can't imagine getting really good with the Red without lots of practice with it. I use my HVX literally every day. Often just shooting some wildlife out on the deck for an hour, but still, daily practice and review of footage are what keep my chops up with this challenging camera.

Valde -- Thanks for the tip on that music video. Looks great.

R3D2 -- I have an Intel MacBook, but my dual-2Ghz PowerMac is not Intel. You're right that I'd need to figure in the expense of upgrading to Mac Pro sooner than I was planning. As far as adding post-production time, I don't mind. With my method, time is cheap. It's money that's expensive. But you're right that the HVX "Log and Transfer" into FCP over FireWire is darn easy, now that I think about it.

Nils -- I like Herzog's advice about stealing a Red. Also, I noticed that you own Red #2331. Also, I was thinking about visiting Norway soon. What is your address and when are you usually gone?

Don Julio -- Given that well-received indie features have been shot on mini-DV (Personal Velocity (http://www.indiewire.com/people/int_Kuras_Ellen_021125.html) is a fine example), I think you may exaggerate the inevitability of the "student film" look from the HVX.

P. Harrill -- I like the Varicam. I'd put it halfway between the HVX and the Red. Unfortunately, the marketplace doesn't put its price there. Yet. If I could snap up a good used Varicam w/lens for $12K, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But to spend substantially more than that...well, that's Red territory, brand new.

Gary Stone -- Yep, the HVX needs lots and lots of light. About halfway through magic hour, that's it for the day, unless you love noise (in which case you'll be in heaven). Fortunately, I'm shooting lots of day exteriors, and I can light my day and night interiors adequately. Night exteriors are the biggest challenge, but I don't have many, and I'd probably have to rent lights anyway with the Red.

Jason Ing -- I don't know if the HVX has yet built up an indie-feature resume to rival the Sony VX1000 or PD150, but both of those cameras have shot Sundance award-winners, so it doesn't seem outside the HVX's limits.

Jack_Felis -- The HVX can produce a 1080p24p image with a bit more post hassle than the simpler 720p or 1080i workflow. You just have to do a pulldown. And it looks good. I have projected show-off images in front of friends and had them gasp. The Red kind of makes everything else pale in comparison, but the HVX200 can produce some really good-looking stuff if you know the camera well and have it pointed at something awesome. That said, I'm sure HVX 1080p and Red 2K would be similar only in the numbers; the Red would look much better. (Note: I think the old Varicam was 720p-only, albeit from a nice 2/3" chip. It's the new Varicam that steps up to 1080p.)

number6 -- Funny you should mention that. My backup plan is Scarlet. But I would never, ever, ever count on a piece of new technology showing up on a projected date, so I'm not seriously figuring Scarlet into my near-future plans. If it shows up in time, though, I'll of course snap one up, as it's almost certainly a major step up from the HVX (for 10% of what I'd have to spend going the Red One route).

sander kamp -- Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with you there. In my experience with the HVX200, outdoor scenes with plenty of even light (as well as professionally lit interiors that give you a solid 2.8 or better) are where this camera shines. Give me a slightly overcast day in the Rocky Mountains and I'll come back with some nice-looking footage. It's the run-and-gun in available light that results in the weak HVX images I've seen. Whether from God or the gaffer, the HVX200 needs light -- and the right kind of light, too, since the highlights blow out almost as easily as the shadows throw a noise party. If I had to shoot in available/unpredictable light, I'd rather have a low-noise/high-dynamic-range camera like the Red.

[Redolutionary]

I would say it ultamitely depends on the story you are telling and how you are telling it. Fantastical departures from reality need production value to suspend the disbelief where as gritty truthfull cautionary tales are sometimes more to the point in a low budget digital feel. If you are getting nitty gritty shoot hvx exsisting or practical lights and spend your time and money on locations and time to get the story told organically. Viewers ans aquistion execs will look past production value as they appreciate the honesty of your film. Otherwise shoot red and sell our body for lights and cranes!

[donatello b]

everything you put on the sceen counts ...
either rent or buy the RED... if you buy it, then you sell it at end of production and put the $$ into post ...
so if you pay 31k and think you can sell it for 22-25kk ? .. if rental is 15k for the period you need then maybe buying and selling is best ??? you'll have to run the numbers ...

[gdv]

Just rent it, even if the rental price will be 30% of buying a new Red package. And if you intend keep on producing your own feature films in the future I would invest in lenses (PL mount), head and legs, their value and use will last longer while the Red camera will value almost nothing in 2-5 years from now.
Go to the first page of www.red.com and you will understand why... Scarlet ... Epic... and if we think Arri, Sony, Pansonic etc will sit on the fence and watch the red team working, we are wrong.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Here's another response that won't help you make up your mind.. ha!

You have to look beyond this one production and ask yourself what else you would do with the RED One. Will you be shooting more than this one feature over the next 12 to 18 months to justify the purchase? You already own other gear, even if it's old lights and whatnot, seems as if you're trying to do more than shoot a feature and walk away from the equipment.

Renting may still be a good option, even with a sporadic and drawn-out shooting schedule. There are several RED cameras in Colorado, many in Denver and surrounding areas. Me for starters, but there are others, take a look in the RED Owners Rental Group section of this site. This can save you from spending all of that $30K on a basic camera kit and get you access to more equipment like a nice dolly, steadicam system w/ operator, etc..

Don't plan on Scarlet in time for the start of your feature. As of right now, the latest word is working models at NAB (mid-April) and they should be shipping then or shortly after.

Just food for thought.

[Mark B.]

I was in a similar decision making situation when I ordered my Red. All my money could go to the Red, or it could go to a cheap camera and the rest into production. But I didn't already have a camera, and I figured I'd be doing more than just one project, so I decided to spend the money on the Red. The recommendations given to me by EVERYONE though (this was back when Red was still vaporware), was to spend only a minimum on a basic camera, and then as much as possible in front of the lens, since that's what the audience will see. I ignored that advice, and now I find myself with a camera and... hmm, no money to make a movie. But, I'm taking this time to work on my script, and I'm thinking up new ideas for projects that I could shoot at little or no cost. I'm also planning to go back to work until I can save up enough to do my movie. It's all just an issue of patience.

So, do you have to shoot this thing immediately? Why not save up more money for another year or two and then get both the Red and the production luxuries?

If you really can't wait, then you have to ask yourself which you value more; the picture content, or the picture quality? If it's any help towards making your decision - critics attack the story and performances first, then the sound, then the picture quality. Also remember; dollies, cranes, and artificial lighting, aren't the drivers of a good movie.

[M Hsu]

I agree with the content first view. Content, than people, then camera quality.. up to a point.

And I also think that we as production professionals massively overestimate the importance of the RED look. Normal human beings are not watching a movie for overexposed highlight soft knee transitions and noise in the blue channel. You want proof? Sit your wife's friend down and show her 2 scenes shot identically, one with an hvx/35mm adapter and one with a red. Under most conditions, the friend will NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE. Obviously not true in a theater, but once again, if your main audience is watching on tv....

disclosure: I own and shoot with a RED, buy really, I'd spend the money on a great DP or LD before I spent it on the red. Look at that canon 5DmkII video going around by vincent laforet. that looks better than what a lot of RED owners have shot....

don't hate me for saying that.... but really, show your non movie friends (ie your potential audience) that vincent movie and show them some red stuff and ask them if the cameras are the same or different. They will not be able to tell.

And before you start screaming about production quality and dumbing down and internet compression and skew, let me run out of the room.

I have to go shoot some more.

Why not team up with someone here who owns a RED? You might be able to get someone involved for the back end, or shoot, ketch is getting people to shoot for free bringing REDs with them. Seems there's RED owners sitting around. Jason Ing has had his camera on the shelf since january waiting for the birger mount if I understand correctly. (sorry if that's not true jason)

as a theoretical exercise, I bet David Mullen with a handful of lights and an hvx would tell a better story than me with my RED and a 20k lighting truck.

[Martin Jäger]

my opinion:

i'm a purist when it comes to images.

BUT:

i'm able to forget the lack of picture quality - allmost everybody is.

on the other hand i will definitely forget a film with a poor story and a bad overall feeling.

if the image lacks of quality but the whole rest of the film is brilliant, people will
remember it forever and nobody will say "yeah - but it looked like video"

think of some lars von trier movies (DOGMA) - they are not even lit!
but "Festen" for example is brilliant in my opinion.

martin


PS: and yeah, maxwax is right - why not try to involve somebody who owns one?
if i'd live close to you I'd definitelly help you out.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

30k towards better actors, better crew, better lighting, better production values will do a LOT more then a better image.

Yes, the RED is fantastic, but if you *really* want to use it well, you need more then 30k.
Do you also have a good focus puller? Because it's great to have 35mm DOF, but if the image falls out of focus every 10 seconds because you aren't seasoned with it, it will do you more harm then good.

If your budget would be like 200.000 dollars or something, I would say: yes, spend 50.000 towards a good Red package. But with your budget: get the best production values you can. No one will really care about the pixels afterwards, if you threat the image correctly.
Somebody here said: if you shoot with the HVX you will have a high-budget student film and if you shoot with a RED you will have a low-budget professional film.

I beg to differ: if you have spent all your money at the camera, and you don't have the money for professional actors or production values etc. ... you will only have a really amateuristic movie that just happens to look good. People will *not* care for your movie in that case.

In film academy, some 1st year students really wanted to shoot their movie with 16mm, instead of video, like all the other ones did. You know what?
Once projected (not professionally) it looked the same as the rest, but their story was worse. They didn't won any prize, but many other students who shot on video and had a better movie, won prizes.

Good luck with the movie!

[Victoria C]

If you can afford to tie up some cash for awhile, you can put 10% down and order a RED. That will give you months to make the decision, and you can always decide not to buy and get your money back. If you sit on the fence too long, you'll simply rule out buying a RED because of the wait.

If you are unsure, keep your options open. Things may change to make your choice clear, either way. Just my 2¢.

EDIT: Just saw the new delivery schedule, so maybe this doesn't apply anymore.

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

Buy a RED shoot your film, sell your RED.

A 17,5K US$ trade in towards an Epic on a used RED ONE will keep it´s price from falling unless everything goes completely down the drain.

[Martin Weiss]

Also consider this: rather than spending the money on the camera, why not hire a Redowner with DP experience - that way you'll get something much more watchable, and increase your chances of actually selling that film.

[Yannick Hagman]

You won't get much for your resold Red in a year I assume..

Scarlet I would say if you or anyone without much knowledge about cameras is shooting. But consider hiring a professional DP, they sometimes can arrange good package deals also and put it on another level.. throw the rest in front of the lens and above all make sure your story is great and original.

[Blake Gentry]

You won't get much for your resold Red in a year I assume..

Scarlet I would say if you or anyone without much knowledge about cameras is shooting. But consider hiring a professional DP, they sometimes can arrange good package deals also and put it on another level.. throw the rest in front of the lens and above all make sure your story is great and original.

Why wouldn't the RED One be worth much in a year's time? Epic will be in an entirely different price range (2x-3x cost for the body alone?) and Scarlet, while 3k, will not be able to compete with the interchangeable lenses, larger sensor, and other customizable features of the RED One. Not to mention the free upgrade to Mysterium X when it is available, and the $17,500 trade-in value towards an Epic.

Sounds to me like the method of purchasing the necessary RED equipment and selling/trading it off after production is the best way to go (assuming you can't split the camera budget between another upcoming project).


**yeah, i'm basing all my assumptions on those future cameras on the previously released specs because at this point, we don't know what will be changing. But I think we can safely assume that there will be significant price & feature differences between the models no matter what is changed.

[Simon Smith]

Red, of course.

[Yannick Hagman]

Neo8234, don't forget the competition and that Scarlet probably will be sold with a larger sensor I hope. It's very risky adding a resellvalue in a budget with digital cameras. And before you say a D5II is no competition: The imagery looks better as imagery from the DVX he likes to shot with.

[Jonas Rejman]

I would advise a RED.

You will love, what you can do with the image in the post.

I agree, that image quality is not everything, and that you have to take care of all the other goodies as well (actors, crew, etc. ...), but image quality remains a substantial part of the movie. While I adore the low-tech films, that have brilliant stories, I never watched them twice.

I rent, or make a deal with a Dop, to whom I present the project, and I try to involve him. You say, that you want to shoot very long, that you will have a lot of shooting days, so that might be tricky, as such projects are better, if the shootings days are not spread over months like in your case.

But with 4300 REDs out there, there must be someone, who can spare it for a month or two. Some people have to sell, because of economic pressures, maybe a deal with them might help both out?

I think that even a very basic, barebone REDsetup will give you a more cinematic experience than videocameras.

Also, what you might consider, that when you bring your project in 4K quality, and it has rare footage, you might get a posthouse as a partner easier, than when you bring "just" 720p/1080p. I very worst case, you need 1-2 1TB firewire drives and a MacBook to edit your footage, and to create a demo, to pitch for such partnerships.

So bottom line (in my oppinion) is, that 30K will not be enough to buy the RED ONE package you are envisioning. But maybe 10K will allow you to rent it. And that is the deal I would look into.

[cinemano]

dude, i had a HVX200.. i was always frustrated because i found it kinda soft.. one day i bought a cheap camera.. the hv20. I connected it to my plasma by hdmi and realised that even that tiny thing looked sharper than my hvx200. I sold it quick and my car too.. to get the RED :) Ok, to be honest i also find the RED a little soft.. but im using Nikon lens not RED lenses.. perhaps im a sharp-a-holic.. I find the Ex1 damn sharp though. Maybe i look for video sharp and not film look?

[Matthew Greene]

Sorry, I can't recommend you buy a camera just to shoot a film. Especially if it involves getting in debt (just an uninformed guess). I'd personally stick with the 200 and put some of that that cash towards production values, talent or perhaps camera accessories that will give you greater creative control (e.g: DOF adapter, Dolly, Renting a grip truck, etc...).

If your film is good, it's going to be good on the 200. I recommend upgrading the script, talent and accessories since they offer better bang for your buck than upgrading the camera and lacking in other departments.

Just my opinion.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Our original poster is in the EXACT same position I was about a year ago. I had a complete HVX-200 system with a Brevis (and an M2 before that) and Nikon lenses. I was going to be shooting a feature film and then the RED became available.

Well, I opted for the RED. And not just one, but two. Why? Because of something that Valde said: If I made a film with the HVX and it looked second rate, I would always question my decision to shoot it on the HVX, especially since the RED was, indeed, available. If I made it using the RED, and it looked second rate, I'd at least know that it was MY fault and not the fault of my gear.

I don't know about everyone else, but I can take not being very good. What I can't take is knowing that I COULD HAVE BEEN GOOD, but I didn't have appropriate gear.

As I said, we opted for the RED, and we couldn't be more pleased. How does our film look? We think it looks great. The camera is better than the acting in some cases, and certainly better than the script in a few others, but boy does that image sing. Now that we have that first feature under our belts, we're coming back next year for Round Two, loaded to bear.

So, again, in a nutshell, go for the RED. The HVX is a fine camera, and it blew me away when I first got it, but my best friend here in town, who just now bought an HVX on Ebay, said, "you know, I can't believe I'm saying this, but buying the RED really was a great decision. The thing just looks amazing."

So, there you have it. Go RED.

Stephen

[Steve Sanacore]

Are you shooting the film yourself? If so, do you have the skills to shoot with the RED? Will you have a good AC to pull focus and a good gaffer to light? Those would be my considerations. The RED footage will look much better but shooting will be more demanding.

[Stephen Pruitt]

I should add one addition factor to consider. When we were thinking of shooting with the HVX, we planned on a budget of about $50,000. Buying the RED meant that we upped our budget considerably, especially considering the REDs. In total, we spent several times our original budget. We simply would not have done that if we were shooting with the HVX.

Happily, however, the vast majority of that extra money went to equipment that will be used to shoot our next film, as well. And this time, we're going for all of the marbles!

Stephen

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I say the OP should indeed shoot his feature on RED over the HVX. For what Stephen just said above. It's the same reason I now do 99% of my shooting on RED, even though I don't have to. Most of my stuff is boring corporate projects, government stuff, interviews... Anything I do that is narrative in nature or shooting stock, etc.. is all hobby-based. I bought the RED One because I wanted it (hobby), but at the same time I knew it would work for what I shoot professionally. I get a lot of compliments on my work since switching to the RED from the HVX. Customers don't understand cameras, they just know my work looks better lately. I also don't have to feel like I am settling for second-best when doing my own personal projects either. If I shoot a feature or even a short film and it gets noticed, even picked up for distribution, I would be kicking myself if I shot it with the HVX when I could have shot it with RED.

This is not an endorsement or recommendation to buy the camera. In fact, if you're talking about a single feature for now, I would seriously consider renting. Get some rental quotes, start figuring out how a RED rental or series of rentals will work out in comparison to an outright purchase.

One saving grace of buying the RED One will be future trade-in value. That RED One body will be worth $17.5K to someone down the road, no matter what. I seriously don't see a RED One body being sold for less than $15.5K as long as the EPIC trade-in deal exists. Accessories are another story. And don't expect resale values on media (especially RED Drives with HDDs inside) to be very good.

Might want to start shopping that HVX kit around too. Its days are seriously numbered.

[Richard Goodwin]

Being someone who is in a similar position and facing a similar decision: I have a projects I want to shoot; I have a Deposit down; and I'm going into my final decision phase about if this is the right cam to buy, should I rent etc. I can only offer some points that I have been using to form my own decision.

1. I think it's better to look at these purchases as extended rentals. With the rapid development in Digital Cinema anything you buy has an expiration date on it. However, some things decline in value much faster. This is very different from the "film days" when if you bought a 35mm Mitchell from the studio days you could (and can) still use it today. It might not be quite as perfect as a current Arri 35. But, it will produce a pretty similar result. The point being that none of these cameras can be treated as extremely long term purchases. They are more like computers now. You will have them but at some point you will prob. upgrade because the technology is improving so rapidly.

So, it's back to the declining value curve. As one poster said sell that HVX fast. However, the RED may (will) become out of date. But, it will still be shooting images that can go into a theatre anytime. Its value and resale value will be good for a few years at least.

If you go for RED (or stay with HVX) you should plan on selling at some point before the value of the equipment declines too much. Considering the upgrade and trade-in potential for RED it should still have a good bit of value.

Also, all the accessories you buy (assuming you choose quality, standard stuff like rods, base-plates etc.) will be able to resold because they are, for the most part cinema standard. The same is true for the optics. If you treat that stuff well and maintain it you can recover a lot of its value if you choose to sell it off.

For a simple calculation take what you could get now for your HVX rig vs. two years from now. Do the same for RED. My guess is you will end up loosing more or close to the same on the HVX because its value will decline more. There will still be a solid market for the body used. And, assuming RED sticks with its modular, and reusable approach for accessories all of them can be resold to other RED owners (I think there was a thread where Jim Jannard even stated that all RED accessories would fit Epic?).

Your real cost will be the depreciation on the equipment not the cost of initial purchase (that is assuming you sell, maybe you will use it for two more movies :) ).

2. Think about ways you can make some of the purchase price back. For myself I'm not planning to be a full time rental house or operator. But, over two years just with weekend rentals, and maybe renting to another feature for a month or two I can make some of the purchase price back.

Of course there is a lot of competition in the rental area because there are already so many RED cameras out there. It depends on where you live and your business connections. But, you can form those. Also, you can do some projects for money; even for causes you care about. Do a PSA and charge them some small fee to help pay back your cam. Shoot a wedding or two. Etc...

For me I decided to focus on making a specific amount back (say 10K of my purchase) so I have a realistic target. It does not pay for the whole thing but it lowers the total cost.

3. Pleasure. If you are using tools it does make a difference when you ENJOY using them. There is no monetary value to this. But, I do think it affects your work simply by making it more fun. I was thinking of a lot of cameras, but when I actually picked up a RED and looked through the finder (EVF) I was hooked. It just felt like cinema. That may be cheesy. But, I'm guessing there are others who feel that way.

In the past having had different still cameras I know that some were just such a joy to use; and it was not related to cost; I would say my Holga and Hasselblad were so pleasurable to use that the shooting days were much more fun. Think about that when you are going to be doing much run and gun on a 75+ day shoot. There is something more inspiring when its just a joy to use your equipment. For Cinema that equipment is your work space. It's like a dancer having a good studio. Or a Glassblower a good workshop and tools.

For me just going to the ocean and shooting the waves come in would be fun with the RED. I don't know if you can put a money value to that. But, it does count for something.

There are a lot of other points. But, I don't want to repeat the good advice already in this thread. I hope these thoughts add to your decision process.

Good luck deciding. Reading this thread has really helped me to think about my decision too. So, thanks for posting this.

[Ian Laurie]

I was in a similar situation as well. I am just finishing film school and was trying to figure out what to do next. when it came down to it i hated the fact that nothing ever looked as good as i wanted it to. from handicams to hvx 200 to a hvx(?) 900. I always felt slightly ripped off. I figured that there is so much TERRIBLE work done out there for local tv ads, that using them as a revenue to pay off the camera, while having the ability to finally make my projects "feel" real in terms of the look, that i decided to buy. I don't have it yet but my theory is right. I already have work lined up. and now i am focusing on paying off the camera and building funds for my feature. If this camera truly produces that beautiful cinematic feel, which i believe it does, then it will be worth it for me for years to come.

[gdv]

And most important, check if you have good scripts. This is the base for everything that will come afterward!

[MadamImAdam]

The thoughtful responses in this thread have been useful to me, and I am once again grateful to the reduser.net community for sharing so generously.

I believe the arguments for renting a Red or hiring a DP with a Red are sound. I only wish I could go this route. And I definitely would (and likely will) do so for a more conventional commercial project. But this particular movie would require the DP/Red to be available at a moment's notice over several months. And we'll be doing things like packing into the bush for two weeks in order to get what would amount to three days of conventional shooting. Three committed buddies and an owned camera can do this. Add a hired DP and a rented camera...not so practical. That's why I'm the DP (I do have a decade of experience) and why I don't want an obstacle of any kind between me and the camera.

I remain unpersuaded by the assertions that the HVX200 guarantees an amateurish or "student film" result in an indie feature. I believe these assertions contradict a mountain of real-world evidence.

These are the hallmarks of the "amateurish" feature film, in order of the harm they do:

BAD SCRIPT - The plot doesn't move; the characters aren't believable
BAD ACTING - Often because the bad script gives performers nothing to work with
BAD SOUND - Especially poorly captured on-set dialogue
BAD LIGHTING - Either no lighting or fake/cliched lighting
BAD CAMERA OPERATION - Shaky; poorly executed moves

Imagine a low-budget indie feature with a great script, solid performances, crisp sound, tasteful lighting and competent camera operation. Now imagine it has all that, but it nonetheless has a low-resolution, sometimes noisy image because it was shot with an inexpensive camera.

Does the audience therefore hate this movie? Do they rate this well-written and wonderfully acted movie as "amateurish" because the image isn't as punchy and sharp as Hollywood movies are?

Personally, I have never seen this happen. In fact, you can even start committing violations starting from the bottom of the list above without alienating the audience. Thomas Vinterberg's brilliant "The Celebration" (aka "Festen") was mentioned earlier in this thread by Smartin. This film not only displays extremely low optical and pixel resolution, but also the tiny Sony PC7 camera was handheld in every shot, and there was literally no lighting used on the set due to the Dogma 95 rules (http://www.indiewire.com/people/int_Vinterberg_Thms_981014.html). But the movie has an excellent script and top-notch performances that you can actually hear, and audiences love it.

I don't fetishize low image quality. A film should look as good as you can reasonably make it look. But it's obvious to me that optical and pixel resolution do not rank high on the audience's list of priorities. Even when they decide that a movie feels "cheap," factors like bad acting, bad sound and bad camera operation are more likely to trigger this judgment than low image resolution. The Red is a superior camera to the HVX200, but it does not follow from this fact that the HVX200 cannot be used to produce good work that an audience will love.

All that said, I do of course still want a Red One.

The argument for buying the Red One with a plan to sell it is compelling. I am generally pessimistic about the resale value of any digital camera. Has there ever been a digital still or video camera that did not depreciate steeply over a short period of time? However, the guaranteed $17,500 value of the Red One body as a trade-in on Epic is definitely a game-changer in this regard. It would seem to create a unique new market for a used Red One: Epic buyers who don't own a Red One, and who will therefore value a Red One body at somewhere near $17,500. The unknown supply/demand ratio will lower this figure by some amount, but it seems reasonable to expect a Red One to depreciate considerably less than any other digital camera. If at the end of production I sold the Red One body for $15,000, and sold the remaining accessories for only 50 cents on the dollar, that's a loss of $8,750 on the complete $30K package I am planning to assemble. Divided by 75 shooting days, that's $116/day.

These numbers make a lot of sense. I think I could get $8,750 of value out of the Red One while making a feature film. And I could lower that cost by whatever I could sell my HVX200 package for. Judging by eBay, probably about $4k. So one way to look at this situation: Will my feature film have $4,750 more value if shot on the Red One instead of the HVX? This question leaves out significant factors (the $30K will be tied up until I sell the equipment, I must upgrade immediately to an Intel MacPro instead of waiting), but it is nonetheless a legitimate way of looking at the raw numbers.

If I could actually rent a Red package for $8,750 for one year, I'd obviously prefer that. But thinking about the remaining $21.5K as a "deposit" that I get back at the end of the one-year rental period is a tempting way to look at this.

[Jason Ing]

MadamIam,

Maybe you should have put a third option in your poll:

3) I have this great script and will do a great job shooting it. So I should put the $30k I have now toward raising production value... but only after selling my HVX200 and saving up for a Red One (because that will also raise production value) so I can put my best foot forward on my third film to give it the greatest chance of selling at a film festival which would recoup the money I personally invested, turn a profit, and launch my career into the stratosphere.

[Jason Ing]

P.S. Personally, I opted for a combination of choices 1 and 3 (minus having to sell a HVX200).

I bought a Red One and will do "small" productions with it, music videos for a friend, shorts, etc.

I'll gain a lot of experience creating great images with the Red One (sure, audiences accept crappy images, but I really think they do appreciate, enjoy, and prefer beautiful images) while I save up for my movie to increase its production value.

[Florian Stadler]

I don't think you can put together a feature Red package for 30K even with Nikon lenses, Red accessories and Redrock MB/FF,Miller Tripod.

Camera Body: 17500
CF Module: 500
3 16GB cards:1650
2 Red Raids w. Cables: 2200
EVF w. extra cable:3130
LCD w. extra cable: 1880
Production Pack: 1250
Left Handle: 250
Top Mount: 250
Pair of 12" Rods: 80
2 Red Power Packs: 2900
AC Adapter: 150.00
19mm Base: 900
Case: 450
Redrock Mattebox: 795
Redrock Follow Focus and 5 still lens gears: 800
Basic Filter Kit: 900
Miller Arrow 55 Tripod: 5500
Nikkor set 80mm fronts: 2000
Cases/Backpacks for Lenses, MB, FF: 400
Total: 43485,-

Add Sales Tax to that if you live in CA.

This is the absolute minimum feature package with no frills and you don't have any drives yet to store your footage and no Macbook Pro, etc.

I spent 100K on mine but I didn't cut any corners whatsoever:

www.florianstadler.com/red.html

Good Luck!

[Jason Ing]

I don't think that's the absolute minimum. For example, is it absolutely necessary to have both the EVF and LCD? One could suffice.

But that's nitpicking since I agree that $30k is low considering that it is absolutely necessary to include the costs of storage, post, etc.

[cinemano]

Well i felt the RED is an amazing camera for sure.. but my shots when viewed at 100% size (not blown up) look soft to my understanding of soft. Im using the same Nikon lens on my Nikon camera and I can zoom into my Nikon fotos and its much sharper. Even if i take a 4K photo with it. Like i said it prob a question of taste. Many call it the "film look" to me looks like a 20% blow up somehow

[cinemano]

and before someone says "did you use a proper AC, ect" yes.. we did.. i had some 3 DPs and 2 ACs.. we did tests with even Zeiss Nikons expensive lenses.. we did backfocus adjustments even.. made it razor sharp focus with measuring tape, and even by eye on LCD.. we tried everything.. Some of my DPs disagree.. but to me it aint 100% sharp at real size view. I find the ex1 sharper. is it video sharp vs film look? id really like to know. Perhaps im misunderstanding what sharp is all about.

[Jason Ing]

There's threads about this, but from what I understand, another factor in sharpness is not just the lens, but also the possibility that there is sharpening occuring in the camera as well. I don't know if the Nikon slr does this, but I do know (correct me if I'm wrong) that Red doesn't sharpen at all (I believe that's what I read before) so you can sharpen to taste in post.

[MadamImAdam]

florianstadler,

Thanks for that detailed budget advice. I have a budget with many of the same line items. Not included in mine are those items I already have (camera support, filter set, cases) or currently believe I do not require (EVF, Red Raids). Since I was planning on January 2009 acquisition I had hopefully included the Birger mount and controls in my budget. However, the budget does include a healthy contingency should I have to piece together a different mounting and FF solution.

The contingency is also present to cover any shortfalls I notice as I actually implement a workflow for this feature. I'd rather discover that I need more batteries or memory in prep than over-buy at first and end up with acquisitions that are giving me no value. Currently the memory represents more footage time than I have found necessary with my HVX P2 workflow, but I confess I have not deeply researched the RED workflow yet to spotlight any significant differences.

I am not including postproduction equipment in my camera department budget, but I am aware that I'll need more for the RED than I currently use with the HVX.

Here's my current RED package budget...

Red Body $17500
Production Pack $1250
Power Pack $1450
CF Module $500
4x8GB CF $800
LCD Monitor $3000
Birger mount and controls $2000
Tokina 11-16mm zoom $570
Nikon 18-200mm zoom $660
SUBTOTAL: $27,730
Contingency $3,000
TOTAL $30,730

If anyone sees any red flags here (so to speak) I'd appreciate any feedback.

[Jason Ing]

You're getting almost everything I have.

Consider getting the Lexar Pro 300x. They're the only non-Red CF cards that are proven to work. I think you can still get the rebate and someone said they're going for $60-ish at B&H.

Also consider getting the cheese plate for a more solid connection to your tripod (production pack's shoulder mount will be wobbly).

What about a Red drive and cable or 16GB for longer takes?

Additional handle for the production pack? (if you want two handles to hold on to, also consider getting the Red Handle mount which widens the handles to make it a little more comfortable.

[Tom Lowe]

Sell the HVX, buy an EX3, and put the remaining 20K toward production.

[cinemano]

agree with Tom.. the ex3 is pretty amazing. Save your 20K for the film, then with the ticket sales get the EPIC ;)

[Steve Sherrick]

I don't think you can put together a feature Red package for 30K even with Nikon lenses, Red accessories and Redrock MB/FF,Miller Tripod.

Camera Body: 17500
CF Module: 500
3 16GB cards:1650
2 Red Raids w. Cables: 2200
EVF w. extra cable:3130
LCD w. extra cable: 1880
Production Pack: 1250
Left Handle: 250
Top Mount: 250
Pair of 12" Rods: 80
2 Red Power Packs: 2900
AC Adapter: 150.00
19mm Base: 900
Case: 450
Redrock Mattebox: 795
Redrock Follow Focus and 5 still lens gears: 800
Basic Filter Kit: 900
Miller Arrow 55 Tripod: 5500
Nikkor set 80mm fronts: 2000
Cases/Backpacks for Lenses, MB, FF: 400
Total: 43485,-

Add Sales Tax to that if you live in CA.

This is the absolute minimum feature package with no frills and you don't have any drives yet to store your footage and no Macbook Pro, etc.

I spent 100K on mine but I didn't cut any corners whatsoever:

www.florianstadler.com/red.html

Good Luck!

Thanks Florian, you just reminded me how much money I have spent. :biggrin:

That's almost my exact Red Kit, except I don't have 16GB cards, and I have a few extras not on that list.

Sure, you can skimp by with less, but once you start shooting with the camera you will find that two batteries doesn't cut it, especially if you are asking those batteries to power EVF, LCD, drive, etc.

It will cost more than you think, but at the same time, you can always rent what you can't afford to buy. Get the basics and rent the rest.

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Send me your script, I'll cut off 30 000$ in wise rewriting, and you'll have a camera to shoot amazing cheap features for 10 years...

OR

Get a crazy Red owner here to go with you on your shoot for 10 000$ and make him a co-producer...

(And call your film Brokebackshish Mountain)

I admire your ambition friend... And that Herzog pep talk was great!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Sell the HVX, it will only hold you back at this point.

The EX3 is a good option, as Tom points out.

Given your described shooting situation, I think your planned RED kit doesn't fit. You're going to go off into the wild for two weeks at a time and only carry two batteries and one charger? Only 4 CF cards? What LCD are you going to blow $3000 on? The 5.6" RED LCD is only $1750. Why the Birger mount with those Nikon mount lenses?

I could pick it apart a bit more, but I guess I'd really need to know more about your specific shooting needs. In most situations, you will want to add more to that base production pack unless you're just goofing around. Is the base production pack the right choice? You don't need the cradle if you are not using the drives, but you'll probably want an additional top-mount and a couple universal mounts.

[Steve Sherrick]

4 batteries is the minimum with this camera. They don't have to be Red batteries. There are other decent options for a little less money, but the Red batteries have some advantages, like being able to tell you how much is remaining in the display screen.

Is EX-3 4:2:2 or is it the same as EX-1?

[Sean]

How are 35mm adapters (like the Redrock M2) faring with the EX3? I remember reading that people had some problems getting adapters to work effectively on the EX1.

If you're gonna shoot non-Red (HVX or EX3), I would never shoot drama without an adapter. You want the shallow depth of field no matter which way you go.

[Kyle Mallory]

Tom is right. EX3 and $20k for production. Kilgroe is right as well, there are problems with your RED package that you'll need to address if the 30k is a hard limit.

Also I could be mistaken, but I believe the $17,500 trade-in value toward the EPIC is only good to the original owner. Don't count on that in your resale value of the RED ONE. If anything, keep the R1, upgrade to Epic, and then sell that.

Ditch the HVX. It is holding you back.

Ultimately, my suggestion... If you are 100% confident in your ability to make pretty pictures with something like the EX3/HVX, then do it, and save the money for your production. You've made all of your own arguments-- The camera doesn't sell a movie... It helps, but it doesn't sell it. Bad production quality can keep a movie from being sold.

[Stelios Koukouvitakis]

There have been made good films with the DVX/HVX that entered the festival circuit and got critical acclaim.

Just recently a Greek from Columbia shot a feature in real time called PVC-1 using an HVX on steadycam. He didn't even shot it on HD, he preffered to use the DVCpro50 mode because he needed the 80min casette time.
His film made it to Cannes Film Festival (among others), won several awards and got distribution with IFC Films.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1031951/

http://www.pvc-1themovie.com/

So as you already know, the camera choice, the format etc have to serve the story. Other popular films such as Blair Witch Project, Open Ocean used cheap cinematography because it served the story and became Box office hits.
In other cases, such as 28 days later and with a couple million budget, even MiniDV can look very cinematic.

So in your case I wouldn't buy the Red. Even renting the Red seems an overkill since proper post production is very expensive. If you end up using it as a 1080p camera why not rent such one from the first place?

Discuss it with your cinematographer. Rent something that will ensure both very good image and good ergonomics that he is familiar with. I urge you to hire the best cinematographer you can afford. Maybe he suggests a camera or he has his own equipment.

If you want a small factor camera Sony EX-3 maybe is the best choice.
If you can rent a full body camera, take a look at the PDW700.

I really like the Red One but I know I won't end up with "the Knowing" picture quality. For me it makes sense for film productions with budgets from $500,000 and up. Only then you can take advantage its 4K glory from start to finish.

Of course, if you're shopping for a camera to rent in the future, shoot commercials and corporate etc then it's a different story. With Red you would make a future business investment but you won't make a better film.

Good luck!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Also I could be mistaken, but I believe the $17,500 trade-in value toward the EPIC is only good to the original owner. Don't count on that in your resale value of the RED ONE. If anything, keep the R1, upgrade to Epic, and then sell that.

Nope. The trade-in is valid on any RED One, whether you're the original owner or not. I believe the camera must be returned in working, or at least serviceable, condition with the RED PL or Nikon mount in place.

[Mark B.]

Nope. The trade-in is valid on any RED One, whether you're the original owner or not. I believe the camera must be returned in working, or at least serviceable, condition with the RED PL or Nikon mount in place.

That's really good to hear. I think it improves the value of the camera for everyone.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Need to revise (or add to) my above statement... It seems that if you install the IMS mount, therefore completely removing the RED base mounting structure, you void your warranty and the ability to upgrade to EPIC.

[Jason Ing]

Need to revise (or add to) my above statement... It seems that if you install the IMS mount, therefore completely removing the RED base mounting structure, you void your warranty and the ability to upgrade to EPIC.
This voiding of warranty and upgrade disqualification doesn't apply to the Birger mount, correct?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Correct, Jason.

The Birger mount leaves the RED warranty intact, so Birger customers are good to go. :)


Nope.. Birger mount originally had issues, but we worked with Eric and the Birger mount now is approved by RED. You obviously will need to send the camera back though with the RED PL mount attached, for both the Audio board upgrade plan and the Trade in Program.

[Jason Ing]

Thanks Jeff. Just wanted to be sure.