Why is RED often just a B camera in Hollywood?

[cinemano]

Hello

Just curious after reading so many articles and sites where Big-Time Hollywood people often seem to use RED as a B camera or few shot...

It seems that so many of the "100% shot on RED" productions are for Television. Unless they are smaller productions or independent films.
(not counting "The Knowing", I trust is 100% RED?)

Yet films like "benjamin Button" they use a Viper (1920 by 1080 or something) camera.. Surely the RED could have handled it?? even at more compression, surely its just as good or better??

Whats going on here? I hope these Hollywood people start seeing what RED can do.. I mean come on! I want to see RED footage at a cinema near me!!!

Please will someone tell me why Viper was so much a better choice for them?? So they could launder the budget money of a Viper camera Rental cost?

i hope to see soon more 100% entire films shot by RED in big hollywood productions with famous actors ! Cos this is just silly.. there.. i got it out of my chest now :) RED is NOT a B Camera damnit!!! Grrrrrr...

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Actually the compression is RED's success and it's achilles heel.

Without compression 5000 owners wouldn't be able to afford the workflow, but not all BIG Hollywood projects feel that comfortable with it.

Epic and the upcoming redcode will probably change some.

[Douglas Underdahl]

I think that we are reading articles about films that are about to be released, which means they were shot more than 6 months ago, when RED was a new camera and many of us were unsure about how to go about using it. So many productions used the camera cautiously, sticking with an older system as their main unit as they became comfortable with the RED and it's capabilities.

As time goes by, more and more feature films will be announced that used the RED as a primary camera. As for TV, their post to release times are usually much shorter than features, so it makes sense that we hear of all RED TV series sooner than all RED feature films.

[michael zaletel]

Keep in mind that when these major corporations are making a feature film or major television show, they are not as concerned about the camera budget as we are. With millions of dollars above the line, there is a serious disincentive to take any risks on the final image just to save money or time. Plus, let's face it, there are some workflow issues with the RED that are still being perfected. If I were in charge of a $100 Million movie (or even a $10 million one), the last thing on my mind would be shaving a couple hundred thousand dollars off my camera budget especially if it meant potential resistance from key crew members who'd rather go with what they're used to.

Just give it time. I remember back in the 90's, major magazines and catalogs were still being done on very expensive Scitex and Quantel systems when Photoshop and Quark could do the same job for much less. It really isn't just a matter of fear, it's a matter of tradeoffs and risks.

-shooter

[cinemano]

very good points : ) I guess in Shooter's example, the Viper used in "Benjamin Button" with its 1920 lines is the Quantel where RED is the young Photoshop that could do more lines but was still unintroduced : )

[Robert P. Hogue]

I believe principal cinematography on Benjamin Button began in July/August 2007, before any production units were out the door. Fincher has already used the RED on a few small projects, and was quite impressed with it. But yeah, I think Hollywood is stuck in its Panavision ways for a while, unfortunately.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ask Jim Jannard directly,

he owes RED1.. Production, Research & Development,

also Marketing...???!!!

BTW, he should know it better for sure...!!??

[Charles Angus]

I think the Viper has greater than HD sensors, and scales to 1080, but I could be wrong.

Edit: According to the Thompson website, the Viper has 3x9MP sensors.

[Tonaci Tran]

Hello

Just curious after reading so many articles and sites where Big-Time Hollywood people often seem to use RED as a B camera or few shot...

It seems that so many of the "100% shot on RED" productions are for Television. Unless they are smaller productions or independent films.
(not counting "The Knowing", I trust is 100% RED?)

Yet films like "benjamin Button" they use a Viper (1920 by 1080 or something) camera.. Surely the RED could have handled it?? even at more compression, surely its just as good or better??

Whats going on here? I hope these Hollywood people start seeing what RED can do.. I mean come on! I want to see RED footage at a cinema near me!!!

Please will someone tell me why Viper was so much a better choice for them?? So they could launder the budget money of a Viper camera Rental cost?

i hope to see soon more 100% entire films shot by RED in big hollywood productions with famous actors ! Cos this is just silly.. there.. i got it out of my chest now :) RED is NOT a B Camera damnit!!! Grrrrrr...

100% SHOT ON RED major features will outnumber 100% shot on Viper movies really soon. It depends what you consider major.. but denzyl washington-book of eli, soderbergh's films..he is on his 4th 100% shot on red feature i think, gerrard butler -game, michael douglas- beyond a resonable doubt and probably many others we just don't know about in production.

You are comparing a 5 year old camera (not sure how long it has been out but heard 5 years) to 1yr + old camera.

Red simply is still new so it will be a matter of time before you'll likely see more hollywood projects going 100% red. I copied and pasted a list of digitally shot pictures from wikipedia.

IT doesn't look completely comprehensive..but still interesting...
I don't see many Viper shot major features here.

Labor Pains - Red One 2009
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt- Red One 2009
Book Of Eli - Red One 2009
Naan Kadavul - Tamil[7] Red One 2009
Apocalypto Panavision Genesis 2006
The Argentine Red One 2008
Balls of Fury Panavision Genesis 2007
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead Panavision Genesis 2007
Chemical Wedding Thomson Viper 2008
Click Panavision Genesis 2006
Cloverfield Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2008 (segments, other shots include the Panasonic HVX-200, as well as the Thompson Viper)
Collateral Thomson Viper 2004 (except for exterior night scenes)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Thomson Viper 2008
Deception Panavision Genesis 2008
Flyboys Panavision Genesis 2006
Game Red One 2008
Genghis Khan Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2005
Get Smart Panavision Genesis 2008
Guerrilla Red One 2008
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry Panavision Genesis 2007
If Panasonic SDX-900
Impressionists Panasonic SDX-900
The Informant Red One 2009
Jumper Red One 2008 (some 2nd unit)
Knowing Red One 2008
Me and You and Everyone We Know Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2005
Miami Vice Thomson Viper 2006
Next Panavision Genesis 2007
Planet Terror Panavision Genesis 2007
Reign Over Me Panavision Genesis 2007
Sin City Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2005
Speed Racer Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2008
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2002
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2005
Superman Returns Panavision Genesis 2006
Surviving Evil Thomson Viper
21 Panavision Genesis 2008
Two Brothers Sony HDCAM/cinealta (750/900/F23) 2004 (tiger shots)
You Don't Mess With The Zohan Panavision Genesis 2008
Zodiac Thomson Viper 2007
Postcards from the future (doc.) Dalsa Origin 2003
007 Quantum of Solace Dalsa Origin 2008 (SFX shots)

Change takes some time...but in my opinion..the pace at which RED has been used in major features is really good. It's not like the Dalsa which was out for so many years..yet never caught on in the hollywood features.

[Yannick Hagman]

Viper seems to have a better dynamic range.

[cinemano]

oh ok.. i read in premiere magazine or one of those about benjamin button.. they mentioned viper at 1920 by 1080.. perhaps a setting they chose.? Thanks for the list of films :) I hope one of them makes it in Portugal.. only major Hollywood films are shown here unfortunately :(

[MMM]

we are in central europe, now i think we are the first here, who has in finishing cinema movie 100% RED. http://www.unknownhourmovie.com/ i hope soon in english, and in 2 days with galery ..some photos here: http://www.filmpark.sk/FilmparkGalery/index.html ,
there is a big problem with finishing in more than 2 K ...we dont find editing system, which is able to edit 35 hours of material in 4K , of course in lover resolution ... we must convert this 35 hours to HD and PAL to be able edit it. The other thing is color correction. We are not able to find system / in "normal" price / which can do real time correction in 4K. If you can help me, please write me: peter@filmpark.sk ,not only software , but thare are hardware limitations ...

[Tim Naylor]

I agree that compression RED's achille's heel for theatrical release. I think they would've been better off going 2k (with a 35mm imager) and having better ASA, color depth and less noise.

Despite all the arguments for 4k, you never deliver broadcast over 2k and virtually all DI's are done at 2k. Why? Because 2k is about the threshold of our perceptual resolution. With four times less area to fill, 2k could dedicate that extra bandwidth and genius compression to creating far better color space. And you ask why they shot BB on a Viper?

I own a RED. Love it for what it is but also understand some of the sacrifices that come with a 17G body and a 4k chip. I bought it for its 35mm imager mostly and its desktop workflow. Though I still wonder how much better it could be at 2k. I think 4k has more marketing than pictorial advantages. And they're talking about 5k and beyond. Get the colors, latitude and noise right first.

[Craig Schober]

I agree that compression RED's achille's heel for theatrical release. I think they would've been better off going 2k (with a 35mm imager) and having better ASA, color depth and less noise.

Despite all the arguments for 4k, you never deliver broadcast over 2k and virtually all DI's are done at 2k. Why? Because 2k is about the threshold of our perceptual resolution. With four times less area to fill, 2k could dedicate that extra bandwidth and genius compression to creating far better color space. And you ask why they shot BB on a Viper?

I own a RED. Love it for what it is but also understand some of the sacrifices that come with a 17G body and a 4k chip. I bought it for its 35mm imager mostly and its desktop workflow. Though I still wonder how much better it could be at 2k. I think 4k has more marketing than pictorial advantages. And they're talking about 5k and beyond. Get the colors, latitude and noise right first.

with 2k acquisition, you're now trading off one set of problems for another. assuming you can get the better color, latitude and asa at 2k, you're also losing a lot of that perceptual resolution using a bayer sensor. a native 2k red acquired image is probably closer to 720p perceptually and not suitable for blow by some standards. at least with 4k, you're getting some of those image benefits by scaling down and you're covered for most any blow-up format except maybe imax.

but i agree that red needs to work harder on noise and latitude quality overall.

as far a benjamin button is concerned, fincher owns a few vipers and has enough clout to demand using a viper exclusively on his projects. this year we might see the first all digital film win for best cinematography. who knows...maybe next year it will be a red.

[Tim Naylor]

Read my post, I'm referring to a hypothetical 2k on a super 35 chip not RED's zoom in 2k. With the same bandwidth and compression tech you should be able to have far less compression with 2k than 4k. The Viper shoots uncompressed footage with a color gamut that can match DI DPX specs. DPX were developed by Kodak to match the amount of info needed handle the amount of info in a 35mm neg for 35mm out. RED has a fraction of that bit rate.

As Genesis, F23, SImaging and Viper have shown, native 2k (with the right color depth)) is more than suitable for blow up. I'm sure the kit rental for David Fincher is chump change in his world. He probably chose Viper for production / aesthetic reasons other than paying off his vipers.

RED has its uses and looks great under many circumstances but I think it's also wise to recognize its shortcomings and demand better. I think their 5k and beyond is not the way to go. I'd rather see them improve the bandwidth, workflow and color space first.

[Darren Orange]

Whatever you guys are talking about, will soon be put to rest. At 72%+ chroma and 100% luma RED ONE blows away anything of 3K and below even uncompressed.

Edit:: Let's just say I don't have all the answers yet but I'm confidante in RED

[Steve Sherrick]

Although Red is moving to 5K and above, the one thing to not overlook is that Redcode will be getting an upgrade as well. Less compression, more dynamic range, and most likely better color rendition. R1 was their first camera. Their next generation will take everything they have learned, and the tons of feedback they have received from the top DPs and use that to build cameras that will move towards a truly digital cinema world.

Has everyone here seen Red on a big screen? Has everyone worked with Red in Scratch or other high end solutions? I believe that when lit well, and taking advantage of the dynamic range (subjective but worse case 5, best case 9 useable stops) Red looks great projected at 2K and 4K. But it does have its shortcomings and some have maybe chosen to wait until Red's codec matures. Others are getting along just fine shooting with it. Like all great art, artists choose the tools they are comfortable with and that help them achieve their vision. Unless of course, economics or politics dictates what those tools must be. :-)

[Tim Naylor]

Whatever you guys are talking about, will soon be put to rest. At 72%+ chroma and 100% luma RED ONE blows away anything of 3K and below even uncompressed.

From you 1st hand experience, how did it stack up against the f23, f35, D21, and Genesis?

[Tim Naylor]

Whatever you guys are talking about, will soon be put to rest. At 72%+ chroma and 100% luma RED ONE blows away anything of 3K and below even uncompressed.

From your 1st hand experience, how did it stack up against the f23, f35, D21, and Genesis? Did you not like the Genesis when you last used it. Was the D 21 too slow?

I think it blows away virtually all 40 grand and below cameras. But like most folks here, I want the sky, moon and stars for 17G.

I'm with Steve and wait for some updates. I did just see today, the improved bandwidth for Epic, which is definitely the way to go. I'm still in the dark as to why they must go 5k when they still haven't tweaked color depth, noise and ASA at 4k.

[Sergei Franklin]

Genesis, F-35, D-21,.. have a sensor of about 4K.
The difference to Red is that they process the image in camera to HD or 2K
while with Red the processing happens in post.

[Josh Negrin]

I know a production company that produces hallmark movies, owns a RED ONE, that they're not shooting on. Simply because, all the director's they hire are old school and want to shoot film. Even the newer directors are given the option of shooting film or RED ONE. I love the RED and have shot a movie on it myself, but if given the option to shoot film, I'd take film in a heartbeat.

Some people aren't willing to change, rightly so, if they've done it one way for 20+ years and it's worked, why would they?

[Tim Naylor]

Genesis, F-35, D-21,.. have a sensor of about 4K.
The difference to Red is that they process the image in camera to HD or 2K
while with Red the processing happens in post.

D 21 is sub 3k and both Genesis and F35 only output to 1920x1080. I'll add Phantom and f23. All of these cameras have considerably higher data rate and far less compression so I was really just curious as to what sub 3k cameras has he used to qualify such a blanket statement.

[Tim Naylor]

I know a production company that produces hallmark movies, owns a RED ONE, that they're not shooting on. Simply because, all the director's they hire are old school and want to shoot film. Even the newer directors are given the option of shooting film or RED ONE. I love the RED and have shot a movie on it myself, but if given the option to shoot film, I'd take film in a heartbeat.

Some people aren't willing to change, rightly so, if they've done it one way for 20+ years and it's worked, why would they?

I wouldn't chalk it up to old habit. I've been shooting film for over 25 years and I'll dump it in a heartbeat for anything that delivers a better image. Nobody gets nostalgic about mag changes, 10 minute mags, waiting on dailies, and expense. I just think the old schoolers don't get caught up in hype.

[Steve Sherrick]

D 21 is sub 3k and both Genesis and F35 only output to 1920x1080. I'll add f23. All of these cameras have considerably higher data rate and far less compression so I was really just curious as to what sub 3k cameras has he used to qualify such a blanket statement. Personally I think an HPX 3000 at 100mb intra 1080 yields better color depth than RED.

Tim, how are you processing the Red footage? What color space, gamma space, etc? I like the 3000, but I'm not sure about this comparison. I do know that a lot of Red footage that gets posted on the net has been either processed poorly, or has been given a look for creative purposes. You can pull beautiful color from the Red. Just need to shoot it correctly and process it correctly.

[Tim Naylor]

I've been shooting it fine. Clients love the results (all broadcast work - no blow up work yet). I've no problem making great looking images. I usually shoot for a fat waveform, daylight when possible and know what to preserve and what to let go. IR's have helped me alot. I love the camera and look forward to improvements - in the right direction.

I would like to see less obsession about 5k and beyond and more focus from RED on delivering a fuller color gamut, higher ASA, less noise, etc. And I truly believe that spreading the signal too thin is the root of it. If they haven't mastered 4k why even get me excited about 5k plus?

That said, I think I'll go out and shoot around the neighborhood tomorrow. I wouldn't be saying that if I had a 35 camera.

[GlennChan]

less noise
That's what the specs for Scarlet + Epic are saying. Higher dynamic range / less signal-to-noise ratio / less noise is essentially the same thing.

They're on it. ;) IMO that's more exciting than higher resolution. (Because more pixels means more rendering, which is so boring...)

2- I'm not sure about the fuller color gamut... I don't believe the camera is really a limitation there.

For broadcast anyways, you're limited to Rec. 709 or SMPTE C or EBU color gamut. (And uh... this is something that we don't do right. Almost all of the time, professional broadcast equipment pretends that these gamuts are the same thing or ignores their differences. This happens in HD<-->SD cross-conversions... they aren't entirely color accurate according to the numbers.)

[Tim Naylor]

That's good news. If they keep the rez down and the bit rate higher that should translate into better color space. Hope and pray.

[Steve Sherrick]

That's good news. If they keep the rez down and the bit rate higher that should translate into better color space. Hope and pray.

Well, the goal with the 5K is that it translates into a truer 4K. As post technology catches up over the next couple of years, 4K finishing will become more of a reality, and more of the norm. Sony is pushing more 4K projectors into theaters and eventually we'll see more correlation between shooting at 4K and distributing in 4K. As that 5K image will resolve closer to 4K, with greater dynamic range and less noise, we should see some really great Red footage hitting the theaters.

[Bing Bailey]

Ben Button was shot on viper for one reason only. fincher likes digital and has been using the viper for his last few projects. he's comfortable with it , he knows how to work with its strengths and weaknesses. its not because it was any better or worse than the red. its just comfort level. its the reason so many people are resistant to change. they want to work with something they know well. creative people are notorious for not wanting to change their working methods or tools unless they are forced to and nobody is going to force a director like fincher to use anything he doesnt want to. he'll probably eventually come around to using RED. maybe he won't be able to get the viper on a commercial shoot and will use a red instead

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The Hollywood "sheen" that is so beloved is the result of an intricate collaborative process that reflects the high level of craft attained by many departments. The craftspeople at the higher levels know how their contribution to the final product is affected by the properties of 35mm negative film shot using top quality cine lenses from Cooke, Zeiss, Angie, etc.

Fincher's "home team" and many other top craftspeople understand the nuances of the Viper, Genesis and other D-cinema cameras as evidenced by the look of Ben Button/Zodiac, etc. IMHO the elephant in the room at this point is the slow pace of adaptation in post production.

I agree that DR, noise issues and compression artifacting eclipse resolution as keys to the next jump in image quality. However, I wouldn't get hung up on the move to 5K or 6K acquisition as pointless or counter-productive, even if DI is ultimately done at 2K. Why? The power of oversampling in digital imaging, particularly with Bayer pattern sensor processing, should not be underestimated.

It is argued that one of the reasons that film appears to have more resolution than digital, even after a 2K DI, is the ever changing distribution of grain structure from frame to frame combined with persistence of vision. It will be interesting to see if next generation de-mosaicing algorithms try to take advantage of the larger data set provided by higher resolution sensors by mimicing temporal randomness.

[Tim Naylor]

Ben Button was shot on viper for one reason only. fincher likes digital and has been using the viper for his last few projects. he's comfortable with it , he knows how to work with its strengths and weaknesses. its not because it was any better or worse than the red. its just comfort level. its the reason so many people are resistant to change. they want to work with something they know well. creative people are notorious for not wanting to change their working methods or tools unless they are forced to and nobody is going to force a director like fincher to use anything he doesnt want to. he'll probably eventually come around to using RED. maybe he won't be able to get the viper on a commercial shoot and will use a red instead

He has the resources to test and work with any camera system he wants. The fact that he took on what was then a new system is contrary behavior to someone resistant to change and comfortable with the status quo. I believe he's with it because it's the best camera for his needs. If something better for him was out there he'd be all over it. Also, the Viper's acquisition matches DPX specs far better than RED. This is vital for DI / film out.

[Jannard]

You guys are all too funny...

When "Buttons" started in production, all we had was "Frankie". The RED ONE wasn't released until almost a year later. I know because I personally showed Frankie to DF.

Compression is not our Achilles' heel, it is one of our best strengths. After a side by side shootout with Don Burgess at the helm, the RED ONE was chosen over film to shoot the VERY large budget "Book of Eli", which began shooting this week. They didn't ask for less compression.

Read Alex Proyas' comments about RED here. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39986

Watch the "Knowing" trailer.

The Viper does not have more DNR than the RED ONE. It does, however, have less resolution any way you cut it. Maybe someone should ask David Fincher which he would choose today? I don't know the answer, but let's also not assume that you do. I do know that he shot a Nike commercial on RED a few months ago.

The only valid comment I have read here, IMHO, is that we are new. There was a tremendous resistance to shoot RED on a major production (except for a brave few) for that reason. And that reason was valid early as we cut our teeth on firmware and hardware improvements. But those concerns seem to be over. When you consider how much has been shot on RED in the 1st year and 4 months since deliveries began, it is pretty amazing. And we never had one call from Proyas, Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, the Hughes brothers or any other director or DP of a major production asking for a higher data rate. That only gets spoken of here. Professionals are getting the most out of the RED ONE with no complaints. Instead of asking for less compression, the real question you should be asking is... "how are they doing it?".

Jim

[Brian Chapman]

You guys are all too funny...

When "Buttons" started in production, all we had was "Frankie". The RED ONE wasn't released until almost a year later. I know because I personally showed Frankie to DF.

Compression is not our Achilles' heel, it is one of our best strengths. After a side by side shootout with Don Burgess at the helm, the RED ONE was chosen over film to shoot the VERY large budget "Book of Eli", which began shooting this week. They didn't ask for less compression.

Read Alex Proyas' comments about RED here. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39986

Watch the "Knowing" trailer.

The Viper does not have more DNR than the RED ONE. It does, however, have less resolution any way you cut it. Maybe someone should ask David Fincher which he would choose today? I don't know the answer, but let's also not assume that you do. I do know that he shot a Nike commercial on RED a few months ago.

The only valid comment, IMHO, is that we are new. There was a tremendous resistance to shoot RED on a major production for that reason (except for a brave few). And that reason was valid early as we cut our teeth on firmware and hardware improvements. But those concerns seem to be over. When you consider how much has been shot on RED in the 1st year and 4 months since deliveries began, it is pretty amazing. And we never had one call from Proyas, Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, the Hughes brothers or any other director or DP of a major production asking for a higher data rate. That only gets spoken of here. Professionals are getting the most out of the RED ONE with no complaints. Instead of asking for less compression, the real question you should be asking is... "how are they doing it?".

Jim

<Clapping> <Clapping>

Exactly. This is the reason i'm looking forward to the fixed lens Scarlet. Give me a chance to learn, experiment and hone my skills.

Just keep working on those cameras Jim. Anyone that's complaining will still be complaining five years down the road anyway.

-Brian

[Michael Lindsay]

I've seen bits of Knowing of SR and it is quite impressive...

[Steve Sherrick]

You guys are all too funny...

When "Buttons" started in production, all we had was "Frankie". The RED ONE wasn't released until almost a year later. I know because I personally showed Frankie to DF.

Compression is not our Achilles' heel, it is one of our best strengths. After a side by side shootout with Don Burgess at the helm, the RED ONE was chosen over film to shoot the VERY large budget "Book of Eli", which began shooting this week. They didn't ask for less compression.

Read Alex Proyas' comments about RED here. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39986

Watch the "Knowing" trailer.

The Viper does not have more DNR than the RED ONE. It does, however, have less resolution any way you cut it. Maybe someone should ask David Fincher which he would choose today? I don't know the answer, but let's also not assume that you do. I do know that he shot a Nike commercial on RED a few months ago.

The only valid comment I have read here, IMHO, is that we are new. There was a tremendous resistance to shoot RED on a major production (except for a brave few) for that reason. And that reason was valid early as we cut our teeth on firmware and hardware improvements. But those concerns seem to be over. When you consider how much has been shot on RED in the 1st year and 4 months since deliveries began, it is pretty amazing. And we never had one call from Proyas, Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, the Hughes brothers or any other director or DP of a major production asking for a higher data rate. That only gets spoken of here. Professionals are getting the most out of the RED ONE with no complaints. Instead of asking for less compression, the real question you should be asking is... "how are they doing it?".

Jim

Jim, the reason I asked if people have seen Red projected or seen in a Scratch suite is that I feel a lot of people are seeing Red footage downsampled, possibly poorly processed, etc. Having seen Che projected in 2K, as well as the booth demo at NAB, the FCP Supermeet projection, 2K projection at WGBH's theatre, and of course 4K projection of Crossing The Line I feel that even right now, despite all the advances you guys are making, it holds up really well. But it can also look really bad in the hands of people that don't know what they're doing or have poor viewing conditions. As I said, when exposed properly and processed properly, Red looks great and that's why the people you have mentioned are loving the camera. They have seen it at its best.

Now, before I might be accused of kissing Jim's ass, a quick search may discover that I was one of the ones who complained about compression artifacts early on. Maybe there were some, or maybe I didn't know what the hell I was doing. Bottom line is, I have seen what this camera can do and even in this first generation, it can be stunning. It will be even better in the next generation.

That's not to say everyone has to be 100% satisfied with the images. This is all subjective of course. :biggrin:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Another important Benjamin Button point:

Most of the vipers were used for motion capture. Not Image capture. I believe many shots had 3 vipers on motion capture duty. The quality of the frame was irrellevant. What they needed were: Global Shutter and a nice clean image. If it were between RED and Viper for motion capture I would personally still choose the uncompressed viper today. The tracking and VFX work done in Benjamin Button was phenomenal and I imagine they wanted as good of plates as possible. 3-4k would be less important in such a case.

Also. We can mostly stop asking for less compression since RED has delivered. With REDCODE 30. ;) Ask and ye' shall receive. The REDCode we see today isn't the REDCode of 15 months ago when it was a point of contention. It's come a long way. The best way now to reduce compression artifacts is to keep your image noise free. That's REDCode's Achille's heel even if REDCode isn't REDOne's Achille's heel. Then again that's the achille's heel of all compression schemes. Macroblocking is always most offensive in noisy shadows.

[Graeme Nattress]

No macroblocks in REDCODE though, Gavin. You're right that REDCODE has been vastly improved over time though.

Graeme

[randywedick]

I just wanted to clear something up:

The Vipers are not personally owned by David Fincher. He rents the Vipers, S.Two, Digiprimes, etc from The Camera House. Who also rent Reds.

Plus Claudio Miranda (the DP of Button) has mastered how to expose the Viper, putting flesh tones, barely visible shadow and bright highlights exactly where he wants them. This takes time and experimentation with any camera.

Commercials are a great place for experimentation, features not so much. The Viper/S.Two workflow was tested on some Heineken spots with Brad Pitt before being used on Zodiac. The recent RED Nike commercial was another test (looked incredible BTW, best RED footage I have yet seen).

The reason the Red or Viper or F23 or Film stuff from Fincher looks so good is mostly due to talented people working on the crew, composing the lighting & contrast ratio just so, framing, moving the camera, production design, editing, post, and (a big one) the mastering, the de-noising, the re-graining, etc.

Randy Wedick
Tech
Band Pro

[Brad Webb]

Some of Ben Button was actually shot on a Sony F23 according to this month's issue of HDVideoPro. They actually switched from the Viper to the F23 midway after they ran into some problems with the Viper.

[Steve Sherrick]

The reason the Red or Viper or F23 or Film stuff from Fincher looks so good is mostly due to talented people working on the crew, composing the lighting & contrast ratio just so, framing, moving the camera, production design, editing, post, and (a big one) the mastering, the de-noising, the re-graining, etc.

Randy Wedick
Tech
Band Pro

I agree wholeheartedly with this Randy.

[Zac C]

Beaks: And shooting with the Red One camera. How was that?
Proyas: It was great. There was a huge learning curve. We were one of the first films to use it on such a scale, and we had quite a few of them on the production. But it is really the future. There's no going back for me now. It was my first digital film, and this particular camera is quite extraordinary; they're improving them all the time. My next film I'm going to be shooting on this camera called the Epic, which is the next generation. It's a 5K camera, so it's a step up again in resolution. I love clarity in an image. I'm a big fan of films shot in 70mm and being projected in 70mm - and all the large formats. So this film, digitally projected, looks extraordinary. There is no grain. It's got a clarity. You feel like you could reach out and touch the actors or step into the scene; it's almost a three-dimensional quality. I'm completely hooked on the format.




interesting... is he going to be the guinea pig, and that film you said would be shot entirely with the new modular camera?

[cinemano]

i dont feel 5k, 6k or 21k etc is the future... 3D is. Im kind of tired of 2D, either im nuts or ahead of my time lol but mark my words one day people are gona shoot 2D for artistic reasons like black and white hehehe just kidding. But i do think 3D should get more attention. Im glad the 3D scarlet system is coming soon :)

[Steve Sherrick]

i dont feel 5k, 6k or 21k etc is the future... 3D is. Im kind of tired of 2D, either im nuts or ahead of my time lol but mark my words one day people are gona shoot 2D for artistic reasons like black and white hehehe just kidding. But i do think 3D should get more attention. Im glad the 3D scarlet system is coming soon :)

Not to put a negative twist on 3D, as I think it will be successful, but people were saying the same thing 30 years ago. 3D would end traditional filmmaking. And then it became a gimmick and people passed it off as a novelty. The difference this time around is that the technology is better and they are using the technology to tell better stories than the first time around. And it's expanding into sports, concerts, etc.

There will always be a place in my heart for the traditional 2D film. There are very few experiences in life that live up to the feeling that I get when I sit in a movie theatre and get immersed in a good film. 3D is a different experience for me. I enjoy it, but I'm much more aware of the technology rather than the story. It's more of an amusement park experience for me. But maybe that will change.

[David Mullen ASC]

I like 3D, but I also find it a bit exhausting for a 2-hr. movie...

It's probably going to keep building in popularity, but I'm not sure it is a necessary advancement for cinema to take.

And I recall reading a bound volume of "American Cinematographer" for the year 1953 or 1954, I can't recall... but one of the first issues, like in January, had a headlined article that was titled something like "IS THE FUTURE OF MOVIES 3D?" and one of the last issues, like in December, had an article titled "IS 3D DEAD?"

[cinemano]

perhaps 3D wont be exhausting or make us more aware of technology in the future.. I remember reading that people didnt like color at first neither.. they said people looked like salmons because of their skin tones.. In "Wizard of Oz" the film goes in color only when she goes into a magic place.. to explain the surreal colors to an audience not yet prepared. But i think 3d will become so natural to us that we cant imagine watching a flat film anymore at least not a new film. lets see :) It just makes me uneasy investing so much effort and money on films when a little voice is telling me: "this is gona look flat to people in a few years" .. hopefully im wrong and short dept of field with blurry backgrounds will be enough perspective and 3d illusion to keep us satisfied for more years to come.

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble is that movies are shown both in theaters and on big and small TV sets at home, down to iPhones and iPods... so any 3D movie is going to have to work as a 2D movie experience too.

[Spike Baumann]

"Knowing" trailer is in the theaters now and you can see it butted up against other film trailers on the big screen. It looks just as sweet as the others.

[Tom Lowe]

The answer to the OP is: Give it some time.

It will take some time for these cameras to shoot major films and for those films to come to theaters. David has already shot TWO films on Red, and they have yet to be released.

Also, the studios are risk averse. Why take a chance on a new camera that for the last year has still basically been in "beta," with ever-improving "builds"? Why risk that when the Genesis, for example, is a proven commodity that produces nice results?

Wait till Epic hits and then all bets will be off. The transition will be quite rapid compared to the rollout of Red One. Why do you think Panavision and Arri are trying to scramble to build next-gen cameras right now? They know what's coming.

[Tico Llaurador]

Dunno... take a look at all the cameras that have been "B" cameras at one point or another in film history... and you'll probably end up with a list of all the cameras that have been "A" cameras at one point or another in film history as well.

So... what, me (or you) worry?

:wink: