RED Alert! for download please!

[Sebastian Cramer]

I think everybody would like to get hands on RED Alert and be able to play with the RAW images. Please make it available for download.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

And both versions (PC/mac) would be even better!

[Casey Green]

If RED ALERT is a free program, can someone post it here?

(PC and MAC)

[Gabriel Beaudry]

First, this thread is in the wrong section of the forum.

Second, Red Alert is a MacIntel only software.

[Anders Holck]

I think Red Alert is Mac only at the moment.
I dont think they are allowed to distribute it legally...

[laguun]

RedCine is the full application and, according to Red, will be available for Mac and Windows shortly.

I am not sure is it is a good idea to make it a free software.
With watermarks, sure.

But the added value for the buyers of red if it would be licensed to owners of the camera and cost for non-camera owners is considerable.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I moved this thread into the OT section, for lack of a better place.

As others have stated, RED Alert! is MacIntel only for now and it's only a temporary application until REDCINE is ready. Think of it as REDCINE lite or something.

I'm sure with the next release of cameras and the upcoming release of REDCINE, software tools will be more readily available. We just have to be patient...

[Mathew Mackereth]

lagunn - but cinematographers don't work in a vacuum... surely it is not an added value to those shooting red if the downstream workflows can't support the footage?

I'm certainly happy to pay for red cine for my post workflows, but i can't see how it helps the flexibility of any production to make this a highly expensive option?

[Graeme Nattress]

REDAlert! is the grandson of the App that did the first IBC footage, and the son of the app that did Crossing the Line. It was just written to support our R&D and earliest footage. REDCINE is the main app. That's why REDAlert! is Mac and Intel only.

Graeme

[laguun]

lagunn - but cinematographers don't work in a vacuum... surely it is not an added value to those shooting red if the downstream workflows can't support the footage?

I'm certainly happy to pay for red cine for my post workflows, but i can't see how it helps the flexibility of any production to make this a highly expensive option?

you are right, but making it free has several negative results as well:

a) unsavy people will use it and produce unwanted results.
b) you will cut off a stream of revenue for the owners of red
c) you will probably have TONS of support request from thousands of users which red can´t handle
d) there will be version conflicts - as the one who "downloaded it sometime" will use it together with the camera owner, which probably will use the up-to-date version
e) "what-cost-nothing-is-worth-nothing" mentality will be widespread

just to mention a few.

With the redquick quicktime wrapper, everybody and his sister can use the R3D files. But redcine, which -really- alters the images from the ground up in public domain isn´t a great idea, in my humble opinion.

[laguun]

REDAlert! is the grandson of the App that did the first IBC footage, and the son of the app that did Crossing the Line.
Graeme

They grew up so fast....

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes indeed. Amazing really..... You should have seen our first go at decoding stuff before IBC last year - crude as hell. I think I'm on demosaic 25 or so, as I've learned how they work and how to make them good.....

Graeme

[Mathew Mackereth]

I kind of agree -

I'm still thinking about the revenue stream argument - i still tend to think that ubiquitous readibility/ flexibility would create less hassles - however the big downside for me in handing raw redcode over would be less in terms of economics, and more artistic - without even a baked in white balance or "stock" - the footage could be open to abuse by the inexperienced or over-zealous, as you point out.

the beauty of redcode as i understand it is that the "grade" is kept as metadata - and so the raw, untouched footage flows through the system to the final grade - and decisions made when "one-lighting" at the start of the project are non-destructive - assuming a native pathway and a native grade.

i completely agree with your arguments if transferring destructively to other formats - in this case the DOP would really want to be there for the grade and transfer anyway - and i think this is at the crux of the matter - a more flexible format requires the DOP to be more active in the transfer processes perhaps?

[laguun]

Hey Macka,

i think the commercial consequence of having a free redcine would probably include:

- destructive raw->yuv or raw->rgb done by an assistant
- the dp wouldn´t be involved if the budget is tight as "someone" would do it for all the scenes
- raw/lin/log/yuvspaces/yuvmodels/rgb/xyz conversion can be terribly confusing even for experienced broadcast or film guys. And they will have to do it if its not a process in control of the owner
- for workflow purposes, almost anything would be downconverted to yuv/rgb in order to edit it on standard systems - thus reducing one of the mayor benefits of the Red1 shooting workflow, the adaptive RAW before finishing.
- unsavy producers would ask "why does that take so long? Last time we did it on set and could edit online straightforward!"

etc.

However, don´t get me wrong, a "free" recine would also have advantages.

I however think that the model which makes most sense is:
QT/AVI wrapper (redquick) free and for anyone (solving your really reasonable fears in terms of workflow)
Raw translation (redcine) lincense for owners or buy (solving my reasonable fears in terms of quality, revenue and mis-use)

[Joel Kaye]

However, don´t get me wrong, a "free" recine would also have advantages.

You'd want the ability to get the app to everyone who might be called on by you to process your footage. In an Internet world that could be a lot of projects with footage going anywhere in the world.

Certainly the codec needs to be available to read and write to for free. You can get 100 FX artists working on shots pretty fast... even in the low budget world. There should NOT be a charge for every one of those machines to access the footage IMHO.

Basically I'm not a fan of charging for the apps. You handle quality control by firing crappy artists - not by denying them the app in the first place.

[Corey Culp]

Basically I'm not a fan of charging for the apps. You handle quality control by firing crappy artists - not by denying them the app in the first place.

I agree with Joel, if it makes a difference.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Wouldn't want the unwashed masses creating art, that's only for people with an education and experience!

I can understand why RED would want to charge for it but it would be retarted if they want to create a defacto standard. And who doesn't want to be in control of a defacto standard?

[Sebastian Cramer]

I don't see anything bad in having a free reader. There is Quicktime reader for free and if you want to have additional features get Quicktime Pro. Same with acrobat, etc.

To my opinion making RedAlert available for free or something similar has only advantages:
1) It gives everyone who is interested in RED a chance to get some hands on feeling with the posted footage available from others.
2) Hey, everybody has been waiting for the camera a long time now. It will shorten the testing for everyone who has not gotten his camera sofar.
3) I don't see any issues to keep quality up with not giving it out. You can completly distroy an image with photoshop, but as is is widely spread it makes life easier not harder.
4) If security is such an issue. Maybe is shoot have disabled features for only a limited amount of output, like max. a second, watermarks etc.
5) I only see it will boost the hype on RED if everyone has a chance to check it out himself.
6) It is a chance to get more familiar with the camera, processor speeds, conversions, monitoring and all this stuff which needs to be sorted out before you have the camera in the hands.
7) And it's no argument it's only an early beta. Everyone will accept it's only a beta and immediatelly switch to the new version, when it's available.

So again, please Greame put a version out for mac/intel and let us play. Thanks.

[laguun]

i think i should underline my concern with scenarios.

scenario a) quicktime codec free, redcine licensed
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine at the set.
typically you or an employee will be hired with the camera as dit.
or you will rent out redcine and insist on qualifying the DIT.
notebook on set operated by an experienced reduser.
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine after/pre editing.
r3d/ qt files we edited at the customers facility.
for online you process the edl and the raw conversion.

scenario b) quicktime codec free, redcine free
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine at the set.
someone works with the camera as dit. ("he has downloaded it already")
first time redcine users selects sharpen on the set and adjust gamma to match the notebook monitor. maybe converting to rgb, even as a 709 space is required as an hd out is goal.
guess who will get the disappointed call. you or the first-time dit.
furthermore, it will fall back on the camera.
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine after/pre editing.
r3d/ qt files we edited at the customers facility.
online process of edl and raw conversion as above.

to underline my point:
would you give your negatives to -any- lab?
what if labs were free?
would you recommend your client to use the "free" lab when he never did before?
and would he employ you if he could do it himself for "free"?
and who would be blamed if the images then just are mediocre - the customer? you? the camera? redcine? the display calibration?

i am not against a free redcine. but think about the scenarios. things like these above will happen every day.

with the qt-codec, co-workers and customers can access the media. everywhere, anytime. but they can´t reduce the master quality. with a free redcine they can - and they will.

Furthermore, think about the additional revenue stream you can generate when you or your license of redcine are needed.

And imagine situations when your customers employee has a different redcine than yours, maybe only a different (or typically, no) display calibration for its monitor. Osx & windows have different gamma settings, btw.

Furthermore, imagine the amount of necessary support that would generate for red. 150 internet agencies on this board with the topics ranging from "whats the fastest redcine setting for making a you tube flash video" to "i installed redcine and the codec and my FCP 4 doesn´t work anymore!!! I am on a G5 imac btw!!!!!".

Red, as far as i know, has not spoken on the issue so far. I hope for a free codec and licensed redcine. I wouldn´t be disappointed if redcine would be free, that would have advantages as well, but especially in the first year of the red one, i see to many problems and issues happening everyday with redcine if everyone and his sister would have it on his computer.

[laguun]

4) If security is such an issue. Maybe is shoot have disabled features for only a limited amount of output, like max. a second, watermarks etc.


I agree, a watermark/time restricted free version would be great.
But i would vote again the full redcine as free. See the reasons in the post above.

[Priyesh P.]

I think a free app is the best. Why? Because:
1. When I get harddisks with rushes from the telecine-company I don't need software to process them, I can start immediately without the need to purchase anything.

2. Not everybody who has to work with red files (with the raw files) has a full blown postproduction company. There are lots of people out there who work as a one man show and don't forget, reds will not exclusively be used in high end productions that can afford multiple or even single licenses for their projects.

3. Red just started shipping friday. They've still a long way to go until the camera, workflow and codecs becomes standardized and I really doubt that people will buy licenses and learn the app for one or two projects that may come in the next half or full year.

P.

[Sebastian Cramer]

Lagoon,
as soon as Redcine is available - no matter if free or not - it will be on set and someone will play with it. If it comes with the camera, than clients would still insist to have it because it simply comes with the system.

So with all your concerns, it's out there and people will use it. I don't think someone can stop fiddling with redcine on set. But:

if it is limited and you will only have it with the camera or as a separate purchase, people will start to play with it on set because they don't have much other chance, while if everyone has already played with it, they trust in what they can do with RAW and move on.

[Sebastian Cramer]

Ah, and one more thing. No one really has any idea on the hardware requirements. Will a 4 core do it, or do I need a 8 core to get a propper speed for outputting? What computer and monitoring do I need to see a good image with no holds? All this stuff can be sorted out with the material from the early cameras.
Actually, people can get a bit more used to the actual workflow before the camera ships in larger numbers. I only see benifits to this.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

i think i should underline my concern with scenarios.

scenario a) quicktime codec free, redcine licensed
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine at the set.
typically you or an employee will be hired with the camera as dit.
or you will rent out redcine and insist on qualifying the DIT.
notebook on set operated by an experienced reduser.
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine after/pre editing.
r3d/ qt files we edited at the customers facility.
for online you process the edl and the raw conversion.

scenario b) quicktime codec free, redcine free
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine at the set.
someone works with the camera as dit. ("he has downloaded it already")
first time redcine users selects sharpen on the set and adjust gamma to match the notebook monitor. maybe converting to rgb, even as a 709 space is required as an hd out is goal.
guess who will get the disappointed call. you or the first-time dit.
furthermore, it will fall back on the camera.
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine after/pre editing.
r3d/ qt files we edited at the customers facility.
online process of edl and raw conversion as above.



scenario c) quicktime codec free, redcine costs money
- customer rents out camera, wants to redcine at the set.
someone works with the camera as dit. He bought it prevously for $150
first time redcine users selects sharpen on the set and adjust gamma to match the notebook monitor. maybe converting to rgb, even as a 709 space is required as an hd out is goal.
guess who will get the disappointed call. you or the first-time dit.
furthermore, it will fall back on the camera. Client calls you up pissed as hell. You spend 5 minutes in REDCine send him an example shot properly graded proving the footage is fine and client fires DIT. You now charge double what you would have charged on set because you have to clean up the DITs mess and it was the client's dumb fault for cheaping out on a know-nothing in order to save a few pennies. Client learns that paying for quality crew is cheaper than fixing mistakes of inexpensive labor and comes straight to you next time.

The only difference between the disastrous B and C scenarios is the newbie DIT spent... $150. The only way you can use money as an obstacle is to raise the price to above $500.

Once you raise the price of REDCine above $500 you have limited the software to dedicated high volume red facilities. This is not something RED wants to do.

You know who's at fault for a shitty DIT messing up the footage? The person who hired a shitty DIT and didn't establish a quality pipeline.

Flexibility is PARAMOUNT! I want REDCine on laptops, workstations, in the DIT tent, in the craft services tent, in my pocket, and next to the sound guy if needs be. I don't want to have to be dicking around with dongles and license servers if that's the way I want my pipeline to work. What if a laptop fails and I need to use a replacement asap. "whoops sorry we're using all of our redcine licenses and we can't transfer the license from the dead laptop because its hdd is foobar. That's exactly the kind of bone headed protectionist, expensive and financially irrational decisions that have plagued proprietary ass backwards pipelines for the last 2 decades.

REDCode is going to have to become akin to water in order to survive. It needs to flow freely with ubiquitous availability.

[laguun]

The only difference between the disastrous B and C scenarios is the newbie DIT spent... $150. The only way you can use money as an obstacle is to raise the price to above $500.

Yes. I think a higher price would be necessary in order to prevent anyone just buying it. Think about the price (for non-camera owners) as a check. If someone really spends 500 or 999 on a software, he will think twice.



Once you raise the price of REDCine above $500 you have limited the software to dedicated high volume red facilities. This is not something RED wants to do.

I don´t think so. If camera owners get like 3 or 4 licenses even very small operations should have enough to keep their co-workers equipped.
Furthermore, 500 is really not to much, even for a small operation.



You know who's at fault for a shitty DIT messing up the footage? The person who hired a shitty DIT and didn't establish a quality pipeline.

You are right - however guess whos gonna be blamed. Not necessarily the guy whose fault it was. The DIT will reassure everyone that it was not his fault, but the camera or redcine.



Flexibility is PARAMOUNT! I want REDCine on laptops, workstations, in the DIT tent, in the craft services tent, in my pocket, and next to the sound guy if needs be. I don't want to have to be dicking around with dongles and license servers if that's the way I want my pipeline to work. What if a laptop fails and I need to use a replacement asap. "whoops sorry we're using all of our redcine licenses and we can't transfer the license from the dead laptop because its hdd is foobar. That's exactly the kind of bone headed protectionist, expensive and financially irrational decisions that have plagued proprietary ass backwards pipelines for the last 2 decades.

I agree. Copy protection should be not present or really really mild.
However i fail to understand why now we suddenly are speaking about copy protection. I never said that i would like to see a copy protection.
The license model is the important thing.
If a DIT with a pirated RedCine is working things are clear. Thats not only sloppy, that would be illegal.




REDCode is going to have to become akin to water in order to survive. It needs to flow freely with ubiquitous availability.
RedCode, yes, i agre. RedCine, no, i don´t agree.
Film is everywhere as of now, even when very few people own a lab.
Same for HDCAM, D-Beta etc, even when few people own the VCR.

RedQuick, the codec - all whats necessary to use the R3D files should be free and available.
RecCine, RedAlert - all whats not necessary to use but to manipulate the -sources- should be used by seasoned and experienced guys. And if you get like, 3 or 4 licenses with your camera, you can easily have several projects running.

Furthermore, you will have plenty of first-time / first day ever - users of redcine worldwide put into the pressure to deliver on the job, if its free. Thousands of editors, who never followed this board and do not know -anything- about lin/log, 709/601, bitdepth limitations of their NLEs etc will consider redcine as "import" module. That will certainly provide a quite different level of image quality compared to an owner of an red who has already completed several projects. And that will fall back on the camera.

Bottomline IMHO - i fail to see advantage in having a free redcine for everyone, i however see many reduced risks and benefits to the buyers of red with licenses for them. I am all in for a free codec, i am all in for no or totally userfriendly copyprotection. There we agree. On redcine, i suppose we have to agree to disagree. And i suppose my position is rather the minority, as well. However i hope that red is clever enough to license redcine only to buyers of the camera and sell it additionally as standalone. If its free, i could care more, but things as i described above will happen often. Daily.

[laguun]

Ah, and one more thing. No one really has any idea on the hardware requirements. Will a 4 core do it, or do I need a 8 core to get a propper speed for outputting? What computer and monitoring do I need to see a good image with no holds? All this stuff can be sorted out with the material from the early cameras.
Actually, people can get a bit more used to the actual workflow before the camera ships in larger numbers. I only see benifits to this.

As of now, Tonaci & gang use it on the notebook.

[laguun]

Lagoon,
as soon as Redcine is available - no matter if free or not - it will be on set and someone will play with it. If it comes with the camera, than clients would still insist to have it because it simply comes with the system.

Valid point. I agree. However the communication here is cruicial. If they need to rent if from you, you can throw it in if you know that DIT/1st AC is a good guy or at least teach him/her the do and don´ts.
However, you can send one employee, or yourself to the set, if necessary. You can filter out biased guys or folks ith an negative attitude (the "i wanted to shoot that project on film-type).

You know, after having converted dozens of full productions from film to cinealta, i have the experience that often unwilling 1st acs can really spoil the images. They do not neccessariy do that conscious.



So with all your concerns, it's out there and people will use it. I don't think someone can stop fiddling with redcine on set. But:
if it is limited and you will only have it with the camera or as a separate purchase, people will start to play with it on set because they don't have much other chance, while if everyone has already played with it, they trust in what they can do with RAW and move on.
Here i disagree. If a DIT or 1st AC or Editor wants to learn it - there is the watermarked/time-restricted version. Good enough to learn. Or he can - and should - get in contact with someone or a company renting out reds.
If redcine is free however - everyone will take it as totally granted that it "has to work" at once.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The type of DIT who doesn't know what he's doing, tries to regrade footage when he's not supposed to and blaims every one around himself without any responsibility seems like *exactly* the kind of person who would install an unlicensed copy of REDCine clandestinely.

That's why I brought up copy protection. The only copy protection I want on this software is the scout's pledge.

I can also tell you how many copies of REDCine our studio would want/purchase at $500 each. [4/1] respectively.

I would also hope that the DoP has A) Tested RED so knows what it should be able to handle and B) Is involved enough to look at the footage the pos DIT is producing and say "hey wait a minute you're screwing the pooch, show me the raw footage."

[Graeme Nattress]

No matter what we do, or how hard we try, we cannot stop people using software or hardware "incorrectly", and we cannot vet users in their knowledge of arcane video engineering terms before they're "allowed" to use the camera or software.

Graeme

[laguun]

The type of DIT who doesn't know what he's doing, tries to regrade footage when he's not supposed to and blaims every one around himself without any responsibility seems like *exactly* the kind of person who would install an unlicensed copy of REDCine clandestinely.

That's why I brought up copy protection. The only copy protection I want on this software is the scout's pledge.

i agree.



I can also tell you how many copies of REDCine our studio would want/purchase at $500 each. [4/1] respectively.

yeah - but i always said that buyers of the camera should get some sets included with their camera.



I would also hope that the DoP has A) Tested RED so knows what it should be able to handle and B) Is involved enough to look at the footage the pos DIT is producing and say "hey wait a minute you're screwing the pooch, show me the raw footage."
i sure hope so.
However, as we started to change film to hdcam in the early 2000s, i have come across some people (very few, luckily) who had kind of a saboteur attitude, as they were trying to underline their point that all digital must be evil.

[laguun]

No matter what we do, or how hard we try, we cannot stop people using software or hardware "incorrectly", and we cannot vet users in their knowledge of arcane video engineering terms before they're "allowed" to use the camera or software.

Graeme

i agree.
Graeme, as no one of red has answered this yet, do you have decided on the matter already?

because if its free to anyone - i would like to download a copy of redalert at once ...

[Joel Kaye]

would you give your negatives to -any- lab?


I'll give a COPY of my footage to anyone who wants to bang away on it. If they totally blow it - guess what? I still have the original. No harm no foul. Welcome to RED-World.

The only reason to charge for the apps is if RED wants to add a revenue stream. I don't think charging is going to add a revenue stream for a RED owner. It seems like that's what your brain is trying to solve. People will pay you because you're better at it than they are. Or they won't pay you.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

yeah - but i always said that buyers of the camera should get some sets included with their camera.


Ahhh but what about renters? I expect to only pay for 2-3 day rentals for all of my projects.

I also like to be able to go back to the RAW image after I leave the set.

My current workflow I believe will be:

Export SD proxy. Edit in Avid. Export EDL. One Pass Raw in Redcine. Export only the frames I need to 16bit tiffs or EXRs. Composite in Nuke or Combustion. Conform in Combustion and export final uncompressed.

I only want to export as little data as possible to uncompressed 16 bit. Which means I won't be using REDCine until after the Edit. And neither REDQuick nor REDAlert! handle EDLs so I need REDCine.

Unless you as the camera op and rental company intend to do all conforming for your client; the editor is going to need to be able to input an EDL pull list and export.

[laguun]

I'll give a COPY of my footage to anyone who wants to bang away on it. If they totally blow it - guess what? I still have the original. No harm no foul. Welcome to RED-World.

I am not worried about own productions.

The rental client will probably not give you the masters if he has them on disc already and has a free RedCine. He would have to buy and copy another hard disc. Rental & co-production will be the ones who will be pretty different in how RedCine is used depending on the business model red decides to use for RedCine.

A typical feature film record ranges between 10-50.000$. With or without red.
A over night redcine rerender will cost time, labor and disc space. With or without red. When detected late in the workflow, and 120 minutes of uncompressed 4K have to be redone in 10bit, time might become a critical issue.

In both cases, time or budget will be harmed when done incorrectly. Red solves many issues. And its a great tool. But many things will remain the same.



The only reason to charge for the apps is if RED wants to add a revenue stream. I don't think charging is going to add a revenue stream for a RED owner. It seems like that's what your brain is trying to solve. People will pay you because you're better at it than they are. Or they won't pay you.

Producers will -always- have to try to cut costs. Its part of the job.
Customers often go the cheap route, not realizing what additional cost that will generate.
Often "better" is not a guarantee that someone is hired / gear is rented. If it would be that way, nobody would use DV, HDV or DVCPRO.

The added revenue stream is not the important thing for us here.

Its a valid reason, but a secondary one at best. Indeed, we probably would allow RedCine use to qualified users for free anyhow, if red decides to make RedCine not free.

Main interest are:
- providing excellent results and maximum quality for the early adapters of red.
- avoiding unsustainable/unnecessary amounts of support for red (and this forum)
- preventing unqualified/biased naysayers from having a deciding role in the outcome of the first projects if not properly trained.
- focusing producer/dp/directors awareness to the importance of "development" of digital raw media, as in classic photochemical labs.
- securing the DIT position. With free redcines, we will probably see, especially in skeleton crew and/or low budgets, moving the redcine job to PA or off line editors.
- underlining the importance of postproduction workflow planning, in order to avoid to have to fix and rerender if rental customers/production partners find out that "sharpen", what looked good on the 1280 notebook display suddenly is catastrophic in keying, looks terrible in projection etc.
- underlining the service capabilities and added value of any red customer
just to name a few.

My concerns are based on experienced made in over 15 years of rental & production business, and especially on the recent 7 years when we saw into what obstacles highly experienced, top-notch film shooting crews run all the time when starting to use Cinealta.

It will be much worse what can go wrong with a raw basing workflow. Therefore, especially in the early year(s) if would prefer to have redcine in the hand of any red-customer, but only in the hands of the studios/dits/acs who at least have proven to understand the value of redcine by licensing it for some $$$.

[Joel Kaye]

He would have to buy and copy another hard disc


I'm assuming that's what people will do. I'd certainly want any of my clients to have a raw backup of their footage.

To me your concerns are the same concerns I have when I hire anyone to do anything.

These concerns would best be addressed by a REDCINE certification program. None of it gets solved by charging for the software. Hell... a lot of crappy cinematographers are going to OWN a RED and that's $30K+.

A producer who hires a guy just because he has RED doesn't guarantee himself a nice product. How do you propose they solve that dilemma? Charge more for the camera?

[laguun]

Ahhh but what about renters? I expect to only pay for 2-3 day rentals for all of my projects.
....
Unless you as the camera op and rental company intend to do all conforming for your client; the editor is going to need to be able to input an EDL pull list and export.

For qualified rental clients, it would be logical to provide them with RedCine, also for free if they have limited resolutions. You have a planned workflow.

Now think about 99% of the producers and 99% of the DPs right now.
They don´t know -anything- about a high-quality, cost effective in RED as of now.

But they do know how to do it in 35mm and in HDCAM etc. So expect that -everything- what goes wrong, is complicated or requires additional steps in posts will be blamed - on red.

Now lets guess what will happen if the average avid editing studio will have a free redcine.
They will happily start exporting importing, Worst case - single frame sequence, losing the EDL. sharpen on as it looked better on the notebook. Lets add wrong colorspace. Later on, they will realize that they could have been using much higher quality, by using the imagequality "hidden" in the raw data. But then it will be to late.

If they would have to ask if they can "borrow" or rent - you at least would have the chance to inform the producer.

And in typical rental situations, you never have a single talk with the editor.
It wasn´t necessary so far with 35mm & hdcam, so neither production nor editor will be aware of the possible risks.

For most of the people in this industry, Raw is a new workflow. Therefore, IMHO, it might not be the best idea to have everyone learn that the hard way - for free, on its own. With redquick anyone can use the images, and would probably do not to much harm to workflow and quality. That shall be free. With misused/misunderstood redcine, its different. You can seriously screw up the post-pipeline and image quality and realize it later on.

[laguun]

These concerns would best be addressed by a REDCINE certification program. None of it gets solved by charging for the software. Hell... a lot of crappy cinematographers are going to OWN a RED and that's $30K+.

I indeed see a pricetag on redcine for non-red customers as pragmatic certification program. Not much more.
And once more - i am all for free redcine licenses (multiple) for any red customer.



A producer who hires a guy just because he has RED doesn't guarantee himself a nice product. How do you propose they solve that dilemma? Charge more for the camera?
If a project is promising and has shortcomings there, we usually offer co-production, consulting, training or better DP/AC contacts. However, i would not speculate on this, because this is business which is different for any red-customer and has nothing to do with RedCine or Red in specific, but is a general topic on its own.


I'm assuming that's what people will do. I'd certainly want any of my clients to have a raw backup of their footage.
Naturally, but he would have to have -another- harddisc.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But the whole point of RAW is that the editor *can* export an over sharpened over contrasty and generaly dispicable proxy. Then you deliver the RAW files to a colorist who then extracts his one light DPXs or Tifs.

If these producers are used to 35mm workflow they're 2 steps ahead of an HD workflow in relation to RAW. The CineAlta Workflow needs to be deep sixed and forgotten for all of eternity.

A Negative -> Processing Lab -> Rushes/SDTelecine -> Conform -> Grade workflow is exactly the sort of approach these producers should be taking. Telecines for the avid people tend to suck now so it doesn't matter if they get a poorly created proxy. Rushes already depend on you sending the footage to someone who knows what they're doing. At the conform and Grade stage you're into the the Smoke/Adreneline/Lustre/Scratch areas of the world who know exactly what they're doing with some curves so I'm a little confused who it is exactly that's in a position to screw something up.

Also in a 35mm workflow the video tap already sucks so if some DIT with greater creative aspirations screws up the client video feed it's stll going to be better than most video taps.

[laguun]

If these producers are used to 35mm workflow they're 2 steps ahead of an HD
workflow in relation to RAW.

In theory, yes. However, many will consider red "video" or "digital" and use it in that workflow, not realising the in between steps.



The CineAlta Workflow needs to be deep sixed and forgotten for all of eternity.

sorry, i beg to differ. Extremly.

And i think thousands of buyers will continue doing so.

Red has strong advantages, especially in digital cinematography. But there are many uses in which cinealta & hdcam offer more possibilities.
- any! live scenario, where you need in camera colorcorrection, intercom etc?
- how will you digitize into, lets say, DaVinci or do a tape to tape poogle? I would use HDCAM or D5 HD. What else is there to propose? Maybe DDRs?
- Any festival. Naturally we will see DCI there in the longrun, but as of now, sending an HDCAM (sr) tape to locarno, montreux, venecia, berlinale, cannes etc might spare you $$.$$$ for a DCI encode.
- Workflows with totally limited time. Shoot, send the tape. At once. You can o that with red as well, but you will want a portable HDCAM (sr) VTR. We for sure (and several clients) have that workflow for several projects.
- It will take a long time, years, until broadcasters accept discdrives with r3d. look, P2 has been introduced, like what, 3 years ago? And still i have many broadcasters refusing it as delivery format - not as aquisition format. Simply as they don´t have P2 players, even if they know thats its shot on P2, they want a digi (in sd) or a hdcam (in hd).
- shoot edit master. No render. No transcoding. No copies. Necessary in many situations.
- look at the way Battlestar Galactica is shot. Steve McNutt does most colorgrading in the camera itself, at the set. He -might- change that to red, but with cinealta, its completly realtime, including HD709 preview. Maybe he will change that - but having RT grading on set is a blessing in several situations.
- in what format will you give a master to your client, so that he actually can play it back via hd-sdi?

There is a market for lexus, and there is one for ferrari. Red is great, but there are severeal scenarios in which other workflows make more sense. As of yet, one size fits it all hasn´t arrived in the camera world.

In cinematography, i see red taking a huge chunk for good reasons. In broadcast, i wouldn´t be surprised to see cinealta having a lions share of the hd marketspace for a long time.



A Negative -> Processing Lab -> Rushes/SDTelecine -> Conform -> Grade workflow is exactly the sort of approach these producers should be taking.

Thats one good solution, I agree.

Or direct to online, as we usually do with cinealta, completly skipping offline.
However that requires r3d-aware online editing and finishing solutions, and as of yet there is only scratch, which never really aimed to be an editor. The ideal system would allow editing, finishing & raw processing of r3d in one place. But i suppose that is rather IBC/NAB2008.



Telecines for the avid people tend to suck now so it doesn't matter if they get a poorly created proxy. Rushes already depend on you sending the footage to someone who knows what they're doing. At the conform and Grade stage you're into the the Smoke/Adreneline/Lustre/Scratch areas of the world who know exactly what they're doing with some curves so I'm a little confused who it is exactly that's in a position to screw something up.

However if you use Clipster, Iridias Speedgrade, GenerationQ, Pablo, Filmlight (just to name some other popular finishing systems), 500$ for a redcine are the least of your concern.



Also in a 35mm workflow the video tap already sucks so if some DIT with greater creative aspirations screws up the client video feed it's stll going to be better than most video taps.But thats the point - for video tap/telecine, the clients doesn´t need redcine. He has redquick as wrapper.

p.s.
i have to quit the studio and hape a little nap, so i can only answer by tomorrow.

[Priyesh P.]

A producer who hires a guy just because he has RED doesn't guarantee himself a nice product. How do you propose they solve that dilemma? Charge more for the camera?

...and this problem already exists. How many bad cameramen own Arris?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

In the end no matter how I see you slice this it turns out being a personnel and producer problem not a software marketing issue.

It's my experience that in the end competence always wins.

I ask again. How is this any different from an HD DIT position except that with RED once his ineptitude and lies are uncovered you not only get the satisfaction of firing his ass but you also have a 'negative' to hand off to his more expensive and competent replacement. Sure it takes a good day with a render farm to re-process all the footage (I'm assuming by the fact that you think critical color decisions made on set carry through to the end of production that you're assuming that you're onlining at 1080p).

If this was a F900 production (such as Battlestar) then the DIT (who is trusted by the DoP and is very talented) will do all of the grading on set. If you got a shitty DIT on an F900 production and he's aggressive with the camera settings then you've lost a lot of valuable data that probably can't be retrieved and you really wish that you'd hired a good DIT.

Avid can be had for less than $2000 now. You don't see a bunch of college students editing feature films because they cost less.

Dumb people make stupid decisions. Such is life. No software pricing structure is going to change that. I've never seen the cost of a vector scope stop incompetence.

[Sebastian Cramer]

Thanks Gavin,
I completly agree.
When I'm looking at the footage which has been posted so far over the last days, I don't really know, what happend there. The stuff doesn't look like I was expecting it to be. And it looks to me, beside some focus issues that have been discussed, there already have been some problems with outputting the stuff, resizing questions etc.
Starting this whole thread was mainly about getting the software to test by myself and hopefully sooner or later there will be some RAW files on the net. At this point I don't really care if it is limited, has watermarks or whatsoever. I would like to tweak the RAW files myself, so I don't depend on the output of other people but get a better impression what to do or what better not to do.
To my feeling this is what a lot of RED enthusiasts would love to do for themselfs.

Ok, having #112 isn't much of a waiting, so in a few weeks I can play with it. But it simply would save a lot of time to get used to Red Cine issues upfront.
Guys, aren't there other people out there who think the same? Come on, am I alone here?

[erbp]

But it simply would save a lot of time to get used to Red Cine issues upfront.
Guys, aren't there other people out there who think the same? Come on, am I alone here?

You're not alone. I don't get mine until December, but I would love to spend the next few months testing RAW data and finding the limits. It's been sort of excruciating not being able to tell where the problem lies in some of these first images.

[jbeale]

It's been sort of excruciating not being able to tell where the problem lies in some of these first images.
We've already seen some very good images over the past year from Red, I think the hardware has shown us impressive results in experienced hands. So I think most significant apparent problems are going to end up just being improper exposure and RedQuick settings.

[Joel Kaye]

We've already seen some very good images over the past year from Red, I think the hardware has shown us impressive results in experienced hands. So I think most significant apparent problems are going to end up just being improper exposure and RedQuick settings.

It sure appears at this point EVERY RED is going to REQUIRE a good colorist somewhere in the food chain. The real question is - is color correction like improvising music? Or more like math? ie - How many are great shooters but won't have the eye for post? They are going to be competing against guys that can do both very well.

And what about all those DP's that protect their livelihood by getting the look in camera? Dinosaurs?