Cancel that thought...

[Zachary Marsh]

Alot of people saying "4K is the future"
And alot of people saying "2K is good enough for now and the future"
Way past time to settle this.

A 4K vs. 2K test on a 40ft. screen is needed...The World needs to see this.

Consumers don't even notice when SD footage is being shown on an HD channel (there are black bars on the side, or the image is expanded and blurred, or the logo of the channel is put up). They don't even notice when SD footage is stretched to fit a wide screen artificially. As a professional who handles post for international broadcast television, I notice. And I pay attention to how they do it. And it bothers me. But I understand that in the end, the people/consumers want a really good and engaging story. Whether it's a news story, reality, or narrative piece.

Avatar pushed compositing and 3D forward as much as it could, yet in the end people thought, "Yeah, it was pretty, but that movie was really stupid." And they were bored. I'm not saying that aesthetics don't matter, or that if you can shoot in a higher resolution that you shouldn't. I'm saying that you DON'T HAVE TO IN ORDER TO ENGAGE CONSUMERS. Black Swan, 28 Weeks Later, An Inconvenient Truth, and The Wrestler were all shot on Super 16. They are great award winning/nominated/critically acclaimed films. And they will continue to be. It's the story.

And lest we forget, someone who knows what they are doing behind a 5D are going to get a better image than someone who buys a Scarlet/Epic with daddy's money and has no idea what they are doing. As a producer, I've noticed that other people hire for the camera and not the skills. And they end up with really poor footage. Want to see a hilarious example? Check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSJFHi36ho -- The footage of the elderly people dancing is all shot on RED. The singer is shot with an HVX. The HVX footage blows the RED footage away. Now, I'm not arguing the HVX is better, just that it's better in the right hands, verses someone who doesn't know what they are doing. There were two different camera operators on this particular project (both of whom I know).

There's no argument here about "good enough". It's an argument about "were you able to engage the audience and tell your story?". When we're still shooting in 1080p in 10 years and people are paying millions of dollars (when a new Paranormal Activity comes out that rocks the world) to see it because they are scared, excited, entertained, or whatever, then you've done your job at the end of the day. And they won't care if you shot with a RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic, or Canon.

[Mike P.]

Do we know which manufacturers have balked over this? I think we have a right to know who thinks this is a test not worth pursuing (and hopefully why).

I understand if you don't want to look like an asshole for outting them jim, but if it's the likes of Arri than I don't know why you'd feel any obligation to extend them any professional courtesy...

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

Although expected, I kind of feel bitter this didnt take place.
I like testing, and all that comes with it.
Will have to work on these ourselves and see what suits us best.

[L. Langer]

Well, Canon just announced yesterday that they will be showing their 4K C500 camera with a workflow presentation, a 4K short shown in 4K, and some hands-on touchy feely with the camera and accessories one week from now in LA at the LA Film School if anyone wants to go and compare whatever they are offering with the RED experience. I'm not saying anyone should go or needs to go, but given the ongoing discussion, I would assume some of you would like a comparison of whatever they are presenting vs whatever you yourself have experienced with your use of the RED cameras.

[Chris Smith]

...
I guess the only thing good that could come from the test is to show how easy set/post is in comparison with other cameras. That would help alot with the "I want an Alexa" problem.. "the Epic shoots 5k and has higher frame rates!" producer: "I don't care, I want the Alexa"

I have an EPIC and Alexa and use the Alexa 99% of the time. It has nothing to do with workflow, post houses have both workflows down easily. It's simply the image. Also, my Alexa shoots 120 fps using the entire sensor which would be my pref over cropping the sensor. 300fps crops the sensor so extremely I consider it unusable. Would rather just rent a Phantom. Dragon will change this of course, but it will also still possibly be stuck with the "RED look". People like myself don't just pay 50-70% more money for an Alexa for the hell of it, there's a very good reason. Producer's reasons for asking for an Alexa is because of results. They don't care how lightweight an EPIC is, or how much you didn't have to pay for upgrades, or how good the community is, or how often Jim posts in the middle of the night. The Alexa has an amazing look and that is all they care about. I feel the same. I wish my Alexa was as lightweight and small as my EPIC, but the image easily makes up for it (and not needing to deal with fan speed management or needing a Pro I/O module helps a lot as well).

If you love your RED camera, then love on it all day and rejoice in the fantastic technology at a fairly cheap price, but I wouldn't go making assumptions on why other people choose the cams they choose. Just putting in my 2 cents as it bugs me every time I hear people give what I feel are false justifications why they think people all don't use REDs all the time. There is no "Alexa problem". RED is leading the way for getting a lot of stuff for less money (although BlackMagic just made a major dent in that ratio) and ARRI is leading the way in best image. Producers would rather the latter as they aren't camera owners. Same with colorists. They like that the image looks almost perfect straight out of the gate rather than messing with secondaries to get all the colors in order and that saves a lot of time and money. There are many, many reasons beyond things that RED owners enjoy about their cams. Many things to consider. No camera is THE answer. I wouldn't see it as a problem that you can't get everyone on the planet to use the same thing you own.

Personally I don't care if the Zacuto tests exist or not as I can do my own Red vs Alexa tests all day in my pajamas. But I certainly don't understand what all the animosity is about it.

[Marc Wielage]

I just don't understand why other companies aren't doing what you do? Why do they have to bring out cameras with "meh"-specifications and a ridiculous price tag?

Well, there's also a lot of cheap crappy cameras out there with lower price tags. Not all 4K cameras (or 3K or HD) are that ridiculous, and there are markets served by a certain quality level and price level.

I think one of the big issues for Red is the whole "direct sales" thing. If the camera was sold and serviced by a traditional dealer network, and advertised and promoted as most other production cameras are, then there might be less of a perception that "Red is a Cult" (as one hostile DP told me a few weeks back). I understand Red's reasons for doing this, and I appreciate that selling direct does keep costs down. But it makes buying and renting a little more of an issue, compared to (say) Sony and Canon.

Me, I try to be as agnostic as I can about cameras, both as a colorist and as an occasional sound/post guy. I love working with great pictures, and I think there are many ways to capture them. I don't care what people shoot with, as long as it looks good and they know what they're doing. There's many movies shooting all kinds of different cameras these days, and some of them look extraordinarily good. Avengers looks very nice (Alexa). So does Dark Shadows (film). So does Dark Knight Rises (Imax). So does Spiderman (Red Epic). I think all these movies will do very well, critically and financially.

I admire Red for democratizing part of the filmmaking process, but the truth is, the camera is only a small piece of this process. The cost of lighting and grip gear, lenses, studio space, insurance, the need for great scripts, sound equipment, photographic expertise, storage space, editing, monitoring, color correction, mixing... all of these things are still complicated and require time, skill, and money. Maybe this is obvious to some, but 4K becoming the norm does not so much legitimize Red's design goals but rather, ignite a dozen new competitors. That's great for people who like more choices, but it also complicates the decisions (technical and creative) faced by both neophyte and experienced filmmakers.

I'm more concerned about the really down and dirty cameras that are problematic to deal with in post. This is particularly a problem with clients who think nothing of mixing 8-bit and 10-bit cameras, 4K and HD cameras, Raw and Rec709 cameras. Post was a nightmare two years ago... I see it getting worse, with every new camera that gets introduced bringing along with it more non-standardized color spaces, weird resolutions, motion artifacts, compression problems. The jungle is getting more clogged with this stuff, not easier to navigate.

I appreciate Red's concern about the fairness of a digital camera test, but I think they need to get the involvement of an organization like SMPTE, or the International Cinematographers Guild, or the ASC, or something like that to do an across-the-board test with a bunch of cameras and one person lighting it. Factory reps can be responsible for setting up the camera or at least monitoring the results. I've been told that Zacuto did reach out to Red to get them involved, and I'm still unclear on why that didn't happen. (Maybe I missed that thread.)

But ultimately, all these cameras can do fine. There's tons of shows shooting crap EOS-7D stuff that looks acceptable (though not ideal). Heck, Shane Hurlbut's Act of Valor made $75M and was (largely) shot on the 7D. My gut feeling is that audiences are becoming so numb to dodgy picture quality, I'm not sure they care. I think 90% of them look at story and characters more than anything else. The technical elements are still important, but are not nearly as critical as some believe. I think great lighting, great lenses, and high resolution are worthy goals, as are good sound, good sets, and all of that, but in an age of iPads and horrible cable compression, I see standards being driven down, not up. I don't see a way to reverse this trend, not in this economy.

[Zachary Marsh]

I've been told that Zacuto did reach out to Red to get them involved, and I'm still unclear on why that didn't happen. (Maybe I missed that thread.)

But ultimately, all these cameras can do fine. There's tons of shows shooting crap EOS-7D stuff that looks acceptable (though not ideal). Heck, Shane Hurlbut's Act of Valor made $75M and was (largely) shot on the 7D. My gut feeling is that audiences are becoming so numb to dodgy picture quality, I'm not sure they care. I think 90% of them look at story and characters more than anything else. The technical elements are still important, but are not nearly as critical as some believe. I think great lighting, great lenses, and high resolution are worthy goals, as are good sound, good sets, and all of that, but in an age of iPads and horrible cable compression, I see standards being driven down, not up. I don't see a way to reverse this trend, not in this economy.

RED refuses to participate in a competition where they don't get to grade the material, where they don't get to make their own measurements for what's good and what isn't, and where they compare things that don't matter in the long run.

And you're totally right. I argue above about the quality of the story. And about the importance of the people behind the camera knowing what they are doing. All those things will help a production tremendously more than having a RED on the set. Although having a RED is great.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

If I'm honest the Zacuto tests are more about entertainment value then testing, I mean if I were able to attend one of these screenings they do it would be different but in reality I'm going to watch them the same way more people watch them and that's through Vimeo.
Compared too what you see most of the time which is a website written by someone who conducted the tests on his own and just happened to post the results this is much more interesting and doesn't matter to me anyways because if I were given the budget to do a feature film sometime in the next year or so I wouldn't shoot on Red or Alexa or even f65, I'd get Panavision cameras shoot 35mm with anamorphic prime lenses because I'm the kind of snob that thinks thats how films should be made.

[Adam Beck]

If I'm honest the Zacuto tests are more about entertainment value then testing, I mean if I were able to attend one of these screenings they do it would be different but in reality I'm going to watch them the same way more people watch them and that's through Vimeo.
Compared too what you see most of the time which is a website written by someone who conducted the tests on his own and just happened to post the results this is much more interesting and doesn't matter to me anyways because if I were given the budget to do a feature film sometime in the next year or so I wouldn't shoot on Red or Alexa or even f65, I'd get Panavision cameras shoot 35mm with anamorphic prime lenses because I'm the kind of snob that thinks thats how films should be made.

At least your honest. That can't be said the same for all.

[Marc Wielage]

RED refuses to participate in a competition where they don't get to grade the material, where they don't get to make their own measurements for what's good and what isn't, and where they compare things that don't matter in the long run.

Well... I think if you established some rules and applied them to everybody equally, I'm not sure how that's a problem. Hell, you can take any camera -- Red, Sony, Canon, Arri, whatever -- and screw it up and make it look awful. Color-correction is the responsibility of the filmmakers, not the manufacturers. I know of a case where an Arri D21 was used on a project, and the company was very unhappy at the director's choices for the final made-for-TV movie.

Measurements are specious. I've always felt that movies and TV shows are about guts and emotion more than they are about levels on a scope. There's a famous Duke Ellington quote: "if it sounds good, it is good." I think filmmaking is like that. I don't care how it looks on a scope if the picture on screen tells the story and it's what the director and cinematographer want. To me, all the measuring devices just tell us when we're about to drive off the road, or if we're truly getting into illegal-broadcast areas. Even for DCP delivery, there are places you can't go; there are even worse limitations for 3D.

Side story: I once worked for Kodak when we had an event where we needed to compare newly-introduced filmstocks, and the decision was made to do all the transfers digitally in a D.I. suite, to show how the stocks compared in 2K. I kind of questioned this approach, but hey, I was just a foot-soldier. Two surprising things emerged: 1) all the film stocks looked pretty close and were all good; 2) with little digital tweaks, we could make them look damn near identical. Kodak did not like this. In some cases, the differences were deliberately exaggerated or changed in order to compliment the sales message.

Later on, after the demo, some of the DPs were (understandably) very upset, because they felt there had been a lot of digital tinkering for the demo. (This was not true -- what they saw was pretty close to a straight-across best light transfer.) But the comparison would have been more honest if everything had been printed directly to film. Ultimately, the demo was not an effective one for Kodak.

Trying to create an even playing field for a vast comparison like this is fraught with trouble. I guarantee you, you could set up killer tests with five world-class DPs and come up with five completely different conclusions. I think right now, the differences between all digital cameras over $20,000 is like comparing different high-end film stocks. None is flat-out perfect; none is a clear winner in all categories; none solves all problems; all require skill and artistry to use. Each has design flaws and limitations. Life is like that.

As far as I'm concerned, comparing high-end Sony, Arri, Red, and Canon cameras is like comparing great BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, and Infiniti automobiles, all (say) in the $80,000 price range. At this point, none of them is a Rolls or a Bentley, but they're all very serviceable. I'd call 35mm film at this point a "comfortable, well-maintained, 1970 Rolls Royce": dated, without a fancy GPS or the latest gadgets, but still classy and serviceable, provided you have the money.