worldwide Red and its owner policy puts LA major rental houses in panic

[JD Holloway]

With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

Sure, the end user's ability to generate business with the camera is a different subject entirely, and that is likely reserved for more professional users. But I recall a post on DVXUser at one point from an older gentleman who isn't even in the film business and is interested in Red for his own "home movies" because he's thrilled at the prospect of the quality that the camera will offer and has had enough still photography experience to understand apertures and shutter speeds and how the camera will function. If he's willing to put his own $20K down, who are you or I to tell him that it's an innapropriate piece of gear for his nonprofessional uses?

I do agree wholeheartedly that RED wont "make you an artist" and the camera is just one small part of the chain in being able to effectively tell a compelling story. But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me. If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours. And he will probably learn a good life lesson in the process. :-) But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

I also don't think that many film students are going to be able to afford such a camera, even if it is priced well below anything remotely comparable to it. If they can, more power to them. I for one am happy to see this progress of technology. The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.

I feel I should address my post Haakon.

Part of my concern is partly of my own fear, for my business plan and its future. I love the technology and want it to work for me and for others. I dont want to see REDs gathering dust on shelves...unless they are rental shops. :whistling: I certainly never implied that RED was not for any segment of the population, only that perhaps rentals would be a better route, rather then ownership. I regularly volunteer my time/expertise(what little I have to offer)/equipment to young filmmakers who ask for my help. More professionals should.

The Father who wanted to put 20K down on a camera is, in MHO welcome to do so. Good on him! He fits my Rich Daddy scenario though does he not? I'm quite sure he and his family will very happy with his purchase. I wish I had my RED now to film my Son growing up.

"If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours".

I want to stop good people from failing miserably. Many good people leave the business before they have a chance to seriously contribute to it.
Some are my friends.

"But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego."

I sure hope so. I need more films to watch and talented directors to shoot for, but I sure hope you didn't mean my ego?


All the best

J

[JD Holloway]

There is a guy here, I believe he goes by "planetearth" who I believe is planning to shoot a Baraka-style non-narrative feature on the RED.

I hope hes still willing to let me help him out!

Dale....?

[Bing Bailey]

No tools don't make you a better story teller but it will allow good story tellers match the quality images they want to that story. dv is ok , hd is great , 4k is stunning.

lets face it money keeps a lot of people from creating high enough quality to get distribution. yes for a while studios bought up dv films. but thats changed again and its gone back to were it was. distributors want a certain quality. this like digital sound allows us to do it ourselves and at the highest quality. what jannard has done is going to reverberate for a long time in many markets. I'm just glad someone had the nerve to stick it to the other companies who are probably holding good technology back and feeding us piece meal so they can suck every last cent from us for mediocre improvements and hobbled cameras

having used a pro 35 and f900 I can say easily this is leaps and bounds above that. being able to use pl mount 35mm lens directly is fantastic. jannards making those almost affordable too.

I hope Red Continues to improve and continues to be a torn in all their sides and pulls another rabbit out of the hat for the next generation of red camera/upgrades

[Häakon]

I feel I should address my post Haakon.

Part of my concern is partly of my own fear, for my business plan and its future. I love the technology and want it to work for me and for others. I dont want to see REDs gathering dust on shelves...unless they are rental shops. :whistling: I certainly never implied that RED was not for any segment of the population, only that perhaps rentals would be a better route, rather then ownership. I regularly volunteer my time/expertise(what little I have to offer)/equipment to young filmmakers who ask for my help. More professionals should.

The Father who wanted to put 20K down on a camera is, in MHO welcome to do so. Good on him! He fits my Rich Daddy scenario though does he not? I'm quite sure he and his family will very happy with his purchase. I wish I had my RED now to film my Son growing up.

"If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours".

I want to stop good people from failing miserably. Many good people leave the business before they have a chance to seriously contribute to it.
Some are my friends.

"But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego."

I sure hope so. I need more films to watch and talented directors to shoot for, but I sure hope you didn't mean my ego?


All the best

J

Hi JD,

First let me say that no, I was definitely not talking about your ego. You seem like a really reasonable person; it's a shame I wasn't able to say hi when I was shooting a doc up in Toronto last year. :-)

I've just seen the sentiment of "these young people have no idea what they're doing and have no business even discussing the Red camera" by a lot of people - including some "well respected" industry shooters on several other places on the internet (I'll leave names out of it) and I feel that it's really the wrong attitude to have. The one statement you made seemed to sum up that overall mindset in a way, and I really wanted to address it. But my post was more a build-up of all of the posts I've been reading on the subject, and certainly not aimed squarely at you.

Of course I don't want to see "good people fail," but I also don't think it's anyone's business to tell someone they "should" or "should not" (or even worse, "can" or "can not") use a piece of gear just because of who they are. Whether it's their age or experience level, we all have to make our own choices and take that extra step sometimes. And like I mentioned, I don't think there are a lot of "high school kids" who are going to be shelling over $20K+ for a camera. What I got out of your "rich daddy" comment was that it was the rich daddies who would be buying it for the spoiled kids, not that they would be buying it for themselves. So I apologize if I misinterpreted that part.

What I honestly see is that there is an air of dissention and perhaps even jealousy by some of the more established crowd, in that independent productions are now finally able to make films (movies) with a level of (visual) quality that rivals the good ol' 35mm without having to completely break the bank. Previously, this meant you needed either studio backing or a "rich daddy" in terms of an investor or two to help you get your movie off the ground. Now, after the initial investment of the camera, you can shoot as much as you like (and save for the cost of the hard drives to store your footage on), you don't have to cough up anything else for acquisition costs. This IS a big deal. We should all be overjoyed that such a technology has enterted into our lives. I think some people feel threatened in that the quality attainable in their "elite craft" has now been opened up to a whole new sector of filmmakers. But that's the reality, and it's only going to continue to expand. As I mentioned previously, RED is not going to make any bad movies good. It will, however, make good movies that much better. I don't think "great visual quality" should have to remain a privilege of the rich few. With RED, it won't any longer.

Just from my own experience, for intstance, I shot a film last year called "The Faithful" and it was extremely important for me to have 35mm DOF and be as high resolution as possible. I wasn't interested in making a DV movie. Our budget just would not afford us to shoot film, so the best solution I found was to go the HVX+M2 route and get the best results I could that way. I'm very proud of the film and think it turned out quite nicely, but would I have preferred to have shot it on RED last year rather than a hacked system through two lenses and a noisy chipset? Of course I would have! And it wouldn't have changed the cinematography, lighting, acting, or story one bit, but it sure would've made the film look nicer. As a DP I care immensely about that, and the bottom line is that anyone who makes films wants their stuff to look as good as it possibly can. Red is a huge step in helping anyone do that - regardless of if they're shooting on a "pro" level/budget or not.

It seems to me this sort of thing was discussed around the time that DV was introduced, in that it was enabling people to "make movies" on the cheap and with their own computers and that was blasphemous to a lot of industry professionals. The obvious difference here, though, is that while DV did blow the doors open for independent film production, the quality was nowhere near the level of traditional 35mm film. With Red, we're there (or getting damn close), and thus I can certainly understand why people see it as a "revolution" of sorts.

The times, they are a changin'...

[Brainstorm]

... or some OLDER person. You don't have to still be a teenager to have ambitions!! :red_bandana:

I'm with you on that one Eric! I'm not a teenager anymore either... but I still want to "rock the cinema" like an idealistic "angry young man"!!!

[JD Holloway]

The times, they are a changin'...

Hell ya.

And while dusty DPs (no names) may try to protect their craft, rental houses and broadcast companies will try and protect their investments. They have driven DVXs out of the broadcast game and have put serious pressure on HVX's too, limiting them to a small % of any given program (in my local anyway). They've used excuses like compression and lenses etc. I wonder what they will have to dream up to say RED is unworthy for broadcast.

Its single chip?
Its communist?
It rocks?

J

[Chris Kenny]

Hell ya.
And while dusty DPs (no names) may try to protect their craft, rental houses and broadcast companies will try and protect their investments.

Rental houses that carry cine gear are going to like Red just fine. It's going to create a lot more demand for their pricey PL-mount lens inventories.

[JD Holloway]

Good point!
And matte boxes, filters, pro sticks, follow focus', etc etc etc

[Mark B.]

I think there's fear in the market - rightfully so. There's been a demand and only a small number of shooters to fill it. Suddenly, the number of shooters is going to skyrocket but the demand is going to remain constant. That means shooters will have to take less money to win the same contracts, and that will equate to lower incomes and all the issues of poverty that go with it.

And for the independents who are saying this is a great thing for indie production, think about like this... You've got 1000+ people who wanted to shoot a feature film but didn't have the means until now. That means 1000 additional films will be floating in the distribution void within a year, seeking an audience. How is anyone's indie film going to get heard in that mess? Even if it's good, or great, or the greatest, it doesn't mean that anyone will see it. Distributors will have so many options, they'll be able to pick and choose and pay almost nothing for their movies because there will be such a gigantic glut of independent films. So your movie is in 4k... so are a thousand other movies, the distributors won't care. Picture quality will become irrelevant and judgments will fall back on what the distributors care about; name actors, big money, and nepotism. There goes the indie movement right out the window.

If Red is going to become a revolutionary tool, then the battlefield must become revolutionary as well. Distribution, potentially profitable distribution, must be readily available to ALL the independents. Audience exposure must be given to every movie in equal portions. The marketing costs of distribution must be rendered irrelevant, and the success of each movie must be placed directly in the hands of the viewing public. THAT is when the revolution will take place.

I'm fired up on this now... I'm going to find a way to make this distribution revolution happen.

[Brainstorm]

So your movie is in 4k... so are a thousand other movies, the distributors won't care. Picture quality will become irrelevant and judgments will fall back on what the distributors care about; name actors, big money, and nepotism. There goes the indie movement right out the window.

Hi Lowkus,

When did distributors ever care about anything other revenue? That's always been the bottom line, whether they're a niche distributor flogging "indies" or a big studio flogging "blockbusters".

What has changed over recent years is that having name actors and/or massive special FX sequences hasn't necessarily guaranteed filling cinema seats. It seems audiences are actually becoming a little more discerning. Putting Ben Affleck on the surface of an asteroid just doesn't cut the mustard anymore... if it ever did!

The other thing is, you can't have it both ways – making 4K available to a handful of indies, then trying to artificially limit the amount of films being produced for that market is exactly the same as the "experienced DOP's" trying to talk RED down so it doesn't intrude on their turf.

But you're right. The key thing to ensuring the health of the "indie movement" is building new means of distribution and finding different screens for people to view them on.

At the end of the day, it's the audiences who'll decide what types of film live or die. Let's hope they choose substance over crap on a more regular basis.

Cheers
Brainstorm