Beta Testing

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I've been persuading my partner to film her next feature using the REDcam, but it's a $10 million budget, and the film vs digital savings as a proportion of that kind of budget are actually quite small: of course most of the money goes on the talent, and the set, and the army of people assembled to make the film. The financial backers are understandably reticent about taking the risk of an untried Camera system, just to save a few hundred thousand pounds.

I'm very sympathetic towards the feelings of early res holders in not getting their hands on the cameras first, but I can understand why "big players", (who are these "big players"?? it's funny :biggrin: Aren't any early res holders "big players"??, maybe they wll be in the future..), are being given beta cameras to put through a big Hollywood Production scenario.

I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that we will have accurate and balanced feedback from these productions not just on how the camera performs but on how using the REDcam has affected the entire production workflow and budget. We needn't need to know the names of the Productions, but we could still learn much from their experience as it happens. What are the predicted budget savings now? Why is a major Hollywood studio taking the risk of filming their feature on a "beta" camera with an untested post workflow? Presumably the producers have calculated that they will save money. Where exactly do they think these savings will come? How will their predictions pan out as the film goes through production and post-production?

:weight_lift:


What do you think RED Team, could we have a section on Reduser giving us this kind of feedback?

[Costelloe Michael]

Fergus,

I have to say that at that budget at this time I would still shoot film. You have a proven medium that will deliver what you expect. Red is relatively untested and may yet throw up some surprises.

However if you said it was a choice between a cinealta and Red... different equation!

Mike C

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

thanks mike,

yes "the numbers" as the say in the States are pretty compellingly in favour of film in my partner's budget. Still I can only assume that if the beta cameras are being given to "big players" they will be playing with serious budgets.. Maybe not. My first feature next year has a projected budget of around £100 grand, so I don't think I'm a big player yet :biggrin:

[Costelloe Michael]

Fergus,

I do wonder whether the Red cameras on the bigger budget productions are 'placements' being offered by the companies / crews in order to aid development. There's a lot of hype around Red esp with PJ throwing his hat in the ring.

It would be more interesting if these films were being 'exclusively' shot on Red, but as far as I'm aware this hasn't yet been stated.

For your $100k(sorry £100k Edit) Red would be perfect I would say!

God Luck

Mike EC

[Yuval Shrem]

Fergus,

I have to say that at that budget at this time I would still shoot film. You have a proven medium that will deliver what you expect. Red is relatively untested and may yet throw up some surprises.

However if you daid it was a choice between a cinealta and Red... different equation!

Mike C


I must personally disagree.
I've worked with Film, SD and HD video, and watched many films in theatres lately. Ever since I've seen RED footage for the first time (at the LA screening) and even more so, after seeing the PJ footage at NAB, I simply can't avoid being annoyed by the shortcomings of film acquisition, especially (but not only) grain, scratches, and trembling, and thinking to myself: Watching this film could have been such a better experience if it was only shot with RED-ONE. Considering the FCP -RAW workflow shown at NAB, I just can't see myself even wanting to shoot on film, no matter what the budget is.
RAW workflow offers similar flexibility in image manipulation to the one presented in film, only you don't have to deal with grain removal and scanning and/or telecining your footage before having access to it.
There's also no real degrading when going from your original final print and the distribution prints in the theatres, which is very far from the situation with film. I would prefer RED not only because of the budget savings, but also for the improved workflow and superior image.

Cheers,
Yuval

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

That's fair enough Yuval. I respect your opinion. I live in London, I didn't go to NAB, so unfortunately I didn't see the 4K projected. Neither did the potential financiers of my partners film! That's why I would like feedback on the real life workflow and budgetary implications of filming on a RED camera. If you are putting $10 million down you are going to be understandably conservative in your choices.
Mr Jannard said: "We are now placing a handful of Beta prototypes (named but not serial numbered) before production begins. The primary purpose of these cameras will be to shoot major motion pictures by some of the most recognized professionals in the industry. These cameras will have minimum features... not enough for a production release but more than enough to shoot a high-budget film. These projects will give us the most thorough and comprehensive field testing a camera has ever been subjected to. We will have our field reps present at each project to watch over the production, baby-sit the cameras and workflow and give important feedback for any final changes that will go into the production cameras.

I would really like detailed feedback from these Major Motion Pictures on the budgetary and production workflow implications of filming with the RED camera. I mean for example Peter Jackson suggested filming with RED could help a production get through a lot more setups in a single day, this has been widely discussed along with the Film vs RED question on other threads, now we have a chance to find out if that is really true in many different filming scenarios. And saving production time really would save a lot of money for a big budget feature. I'm sure that there will be some downsides too, issues to be worked out. If the beta cameras had gone to early reservation holders, we would I expect have got that kind of feedback here in Reduser, I'm hoping that these "major motion picture" productions will be as generous.

I also wonder like Mike does, whether the cameras will be filming exclusively, or as secondary units. Again, filming exclusively on RED beta cameras would be a very interesting choice to make on the part of a Major Motion Picture Production :nerd: I'm not saying I would disagree with that choice.. what do I know? But I'd love to know their detailed reasoning.. (maybe I'm asking a little much:clown2: )

lol

[Costelloe Michael]

I must personally disagree.
I've worked with Film, SD and HD video, and watched many films in theatres lately. Ever since I've seen RED footage for the first time (at the LA screening) and even more so, after seeing the PJ footage at NAB, I simply can't avoid being annoyed by the shortcomings of film acquisition, especially (but not only) grain, scratches, and trembling, and thinking to myself: Watching this film could have been such a better experience if it was only shot with RED-ONE. Considering the FCP -RAW workflow shown at NAB, I just can't see myself even wanting to shoot on film, no matter what the budget is.
RAW workflow offers similar flexibility in image manipulation to the one presented in film, only you don't have to deal with grain removal and scanning and/or telecining your footage before having access to it.
There's also no real degrading when going from your original final print and the distribution prints in the theatres, which is very far from the situation with film. I would prefer RED not only because of the budget savings, but also for the improved workflow and superior image.

Cheers,
Yuval

Yuval, I appreciate you said 'personally'!

A couple of points.

Grain. What do you not like about grain? I loved the texture of Dick Pope's photography on 'The Illusionist' superb use of low light photography with grain! 'Saturday Night and Sunday Morning' ? Ohhh too many to mention. You dont want grain? Use slow stock and light it up! But why? The amorphous live pattern of silver nitrate. Did you see the silver prints of 'Se7en'? The wonderful textures in 'Three Kings'?

To say something would be better if shot with Red? Different? Yes, but better, now you are shakey ground. In terms of resolution or other quantifiable facts we can say 4k has better reolution than S16mm, but Red 4k with Redcode RAW 'looks' more like 2k due to the softening from the wavelet compression. But do you 'like' it better than S16mm or the S35mm? Or is it better?

I happen to love working with film, getting feedback from the lab and going to grading in TK. I love the fact that I know how the film stock will react to the scene I've lit without looking at the monitor. I love the craft I put into lighting and the faith I have in my lightmeter.

I think that digital acquisition is inevitable. I also think that this camera is the best offering I have seen to enable low budget film makers to express themselves without mortgaging their house. I think we are also going to get a lot of bad films with great quality. Shooting at 4k is going to require everyone to be at the top of their art. No sloppy lighting, sets, make-up etc because they will sing out from the screen!

I welcome Red as a successor to a DCT system that sucks, for blowing open the world that digital camera companies have kept a lid on through marketing strategies, but I will weep at the demise of a wonderful substance that has given me a living all my career and has put so much emotion in my life.

Oh yeah BTW I love the workflow! Come on FCS2 and Colour... or is that 'Color'?

Mike EC :ph34r:

[RobRoySyd]

Fergus has made a very valid point and it's in no way a film versus digital issue at all. It's about risk management and getting your production underwritten. As far as I know no insurance company will underwrite anything other than film or tape. Sad that actuaries are limiting creative choice perhaps but with a budget of $10M this is a business.

On top of that, RED would have to be nuts to even contemplate letting an unproven camera and workflow be used for principal photography on such a major shoot. If something goes wrong the adverse publicity would impact the RED cause very badly. I'm certain they're not nuts and I suspect more is being read into this than should be.

Putting a prototype camera out there alongside the cameras being used for the real shoot makes perfect sense. From my experience the worst people to test something are the ones involved in the development. Letting others get their hands on it, knock it around like they would any camera to see what beaks makes perfect sense.

Also with all due respect to the early reservation holders, from an engineering point of view they're perhaps not the best people to be beta testers either. They're too close to the product and/or going to be too involved with their own productions to really test things to breaking point.

[Michael Brennan]

....I would really like detailed feedback from these Major Motion Pictures on the budgetary and production workflow implications of filming with the RED camera. I mean for example Peter Jackson suggested filming with RED could help a production get through a lot more setups in a single day, this has been widely discussed along with the Film vs RED question on other threads, now we have a chance to find out if that is really true in many different filming scenarios. lol

Peter Jackson has never (?) shot a feature with a digital camera before so he is visiting the advantages of shooting digital for the first time.
The advantages and disadvantages of shooting digitally are well documented in Star Wars and Superman features and also many articles about shooting HD for TV drama.
try www.definitionmagazine.com (disclaimer I edit it) or HD for indies.

RED offers a further advantage of recording direct to a small on camera hard drive, compared to large drives currently on offer or video tape.
I'm in London and have seen the RED footage projected on three occasions it has my vote in respect to image quality although the hardware in the production cameras is yet to be proven. PM me if you like.

35mm film still has a richer pallette and greater dynamic range but some of this horsepower can be traded for long takes, faster, cheaper workflow and more precise onset monitoring.

Mike Brennan

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Thanks Mike

It's such a difficult decision to make if I haven't seen the footage, I'll see it I hope in Amsterdam.. Of course for a low budget film it's a no-brainer.

Would you be persuading your producers to film a £5 million feature on the RED 1?

A difficult question at this stage I know.

I suppose if they are testing these beta cameras next to whichever cameras the big budget productions are using for principal photography, then we'll get some very useful side-by-side comparisons.

Oh, and nice website (definition magazine):nerd:

[GlennChan]

but Red 4k with Redcode RAW 'looks' more like 2k due to the softening from the wavelet compression
The wavelet compression doesn't seem to soften the picture noticeably... see the stills on the CML website comparing uncompressed to Redcode. What makes the image appear soft is:
- No s-shaped transfer curve. Throw the Red image into Photoshop and add s-shaped curves to see what I'm talking about.
- The Red camera has optical low pass filtering to help it avoid artifacts. Where OLPF is essentially blurry glass in front of the sensor. I believe this approach is the best way of getting 1080/2k images... and you're likely finishing 1080/2k anyways.

2- Back on topic: Have you considered Sony's F23?

[mezmo]

Hi Fergus,
Given the budget of your partners next film I assume it will to be delivered on film. That is you will have to go thru a film-out process.
Red is relatively untested here at the moment. You would need to deliver a
crisp, clean, artifact free intermediate or burned neg for release printing. When Red arrives the best thing to do is run a test thru the entire post process to film-out and make your decision then. Make-up or Camera tests could be used for this.
If the film is to delivered for Digital Projection or HD Cable/Broadcast TV,not a problem,Red seems more than capable here.
Hope this helps, Mezmo

[Yuval Shrem]

Hi Fergus,
Given the budget of your partners next film I assume it will to be delivered on film. That is you will have to go thru a film-out process.
Red is relatively untested here at the moment. You would need to deliver a
crisp, clean, artifact free intermediate or burned neg for release printing. When Red arrives the best thing to do is run a test thru the entire post process to film-out and make your decision then. Make-up or Camera tests could be used for this.
If the film is to delivered for Digital Projection or HD Cable/Broadcast TV,not a problem,Red seems more than capable here.
Hope this helps, Mezmo


True. There has not been a public film-out test (maybe no film-out test at all), however most films these days go through a digital intermediate for editing and color correction anyway, which means even when you shoot on film you need to eventually go through a film-out process. Since the image from RED is so much cleaner than the scanned film, there's no real reason it will not yield comparable if not better results.

Am I missing something?

[Tom Lowe]

Hey fergus does your friend want to kick me down 2% of that ten mil budget so i can shoot a SAG ultra-low feature? :)

[kunal2]

But i would embrace Red One because of itz workflow and vast possibilities,still i will add grain and color process to achieve film stock,because the texture and mood of film is unbeatable
cheers
DIGITALCHEMIST
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/556801332/in/photostream/

[kunal2]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7645949@N08/556801332/in/photostream/
this picture is done on a Canon 20D digital slr,color manipulation,grain and some cloud burning was done in post po,i planning do shoot something like that,if i get more or less like this with Red and enough space to color process on postpo,i would be happy
thx
kunal

[mezmo]

Hi Yuval,
Yes, Red code/DI may or may not yield better results than film, we don't know yet,
hence the testing before you commit to this new format. Your also testing
the DI process you intend to use in Post. The best way to sell somthing to nervous backers is to show them resilts on the big screen. I've done this with Super 16 Optical blown-up features and Varicam DI stuff, it works.
People can decide if the film-out image quality meets the expectations required.
On a $10M budget a test like this is beer money and in the budget anyway.
For a DP or hire company offering new acquisition technology like Red your insurance company would probably insist on it and the films completion dudes would probably demand it.
If every big wig loves the pictures the only thing to worry about is keeping
the camera working for ? weeks. A back-up body would be good.
Cheers Mezmo

[Michael Brennan]

Thanks Mike
....Would you be persuading your producers to film a £5 million feature on the RED 1?

A difficult question at this stage I know.



Offer the idea but I wouldn't use the word "persuade". Detail the pros and cons of RED after considering script, director, shooting and delivery schedule ect.

Then film out test and sign off by the producers, ensuring they take responsibility and back the decision.

Since RED is new, backup cameras and rigourous hourly QA with reshoots built into schedule together with a plan B to use another digital camera or 35mm film could satisfy insurers.

I have suggested using three RED cameras for a very large concert.
There will be a 40 HD camera outside broadcast so their is zero risk if their are camera or post issues with RED.
The concert footage will be supplimented by doc elements shot around the world later in the year that RED is also capable of doing. A 35mm print will be made.

The producer still isn't sure!


Mike Brennan

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

good suggestions all..

Because I come from a low rent background I hadn't considered the test footage and producer sign off tactic. :clown2:

But will we get any feedback here from the workflow testing that these major movie productions will be doing with the RED Beta cameras (is that Digibeta ED? :sarcasm: )

We've had no word here from the people at RED...:ninja:

The reason I ask is because of course camera systems may be changed much closer to filming but I'm interested in trying to apply the RED model now to the budget projections, which are in discussion right now.