ProVideo Coalition.com: Stunning Good Looks by Art Adams

I’d like to encourage everyone reading this to pick up a copy of this month’s Wired magazine (Sept. 2008, page 128) and read the article. Then I’d like you to write to both Wired magazine’s editorial department (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) and the article’s author (Michael Behar, whose email address is listed at the end of the article).

This is one of the SLOPPIEST pieces of journalism I have ever read pertaining to the film industry. Here is the email I just sent to both the author and the editorial department:

I’ve just read your article about the RED camera (“A Star is Born,” Sept. 2008) and I’d like to correct a number of errors.

On page 132 the article states a digital cinema camera requires a 35mm-sized sensor to give filmmakers control over depth of field, color saturation, tonality “and a half dozen other other factors that 35mm film provides.” The 35mm-sized sensor affects only resolution. Tonality and color saturation have little or nothing to do with sensor size.

The article implies that depth of field has something to do with analog capture versus digital capture. The “Analog Advantage” box on page 133 says “Analog film lets moviemakers control the depth of field; 2k and HD cameras force everything into focus.” This is just plain wrong: depth of field has to do with optics and sensor size, and nothing to do with analog or digital capture.

For a given angle of view and subject size, cameras with smaller sensors require a wider lens to capture the same angle of view than a larger sensor camera would. The RED’s 4k sensor is similar in size to a 35mm film frame, so the same lens on either camera will produce roughly the same angle of view and depth of field. So will the same lens mounted on the Vision Research Phantom HD camera, the Panavision Genesis HD camera, the Dalsa Origin HD camera, the Arri D20 or D21 HD cameras, and the soon-to-be-released Sony F35 HD camera, all of which have 35mm film-sized sensors.

Other professional HD cameras, such as the Sony F23 and the Panasonic Varicam, use a prism block with three 2/3” sensors attached. The smaller size of the sensor means that lenses must be approximately two times shorter in focal length to capture the same image size as seen on a 35mm sensor. Shorter focal length equals wider lenses equals more depth of field, so more of the image ends up in focus. Super 16mm film cameras capture frames that are roughly the same size as a 2/3” HD sensor, and the resulting image has the same depth of field as the F23 and Varicam—even though the capture medium is analog film. Analog versus digital capture has nothing at all to do with depth of field.

The comparison chart on pages 132-133 is misleading. The cost for a RED camera body is $17,500, and that buys you a black box with a lens mount and the word “RED” printed on it. The accessories required to turn it into a full-featured production camera can cost well over $100,000. This includes lenses, monitors, hard drives, tripod/fluid head, filters, viewfinder, follow focus, matte box, etc. “Camera Operator Magazine,” put out by the Society of Camera Operators (soc.org), recently published an article entitled “How a $17,500 Camera Cost Me $100,000” by cinematographer James Mathers, a RED owner.

To compare the monthly rental cost of a Panaflex camera PACKAGE to the CAMERA BODY ONLY purchase price of a RED is extremely misleading, as the Panavision package will contain all the accessories needed to make that camera a complete and reliable production tool. The RED, at its $17,500 base price, does not. If all you ordered was the base RED camera, and you didn’t own any other motion picture equipment, you’d have a very expensive (but cool looking) door stop.

I’m curious about Bengt Jan Jonsson (page 160) who is quoted as being “cinematographer” on the TV series “Bones,” implying that he is the primary (first unit) cinematographer. I know the gaffer on that series and he is working with cinematographer Gordon Lonsdale on the current season. IMDB.com lists no one named Bengt Jan Jonsson as working on that show. He is certainly not the primary cinematographer as this article leads us to believe.

Mr. Jonsson is quoted on that same page as saying that if one proposed using the film workflow in Hollywood today, one would be taken to the “city square and hung.” How ironic, then, that the show he is supposedly shooting (“Bones”) is, according to the spring/summer issue of Camera Operator Magazine, shot on 35mm Kodak film using Moviecam film cameras.

The RED camera is fairly spectacular for what it does at the price it costs, but it has had a lot of growing pains. I do like using the camera more than many other HD solutions that I’ve tried to date because it is the most film-like camera available at that price point; but the RED’s greatest strength has not always been its technology—it’s been the marketing.

Last but not least, on page 133 it says that the article is continued on page 163, whereas it really continues and ends on page 160. This makes me wonder just how much fact checking went into not just this article but the entire issue.

The Best of Stunning Good Looks

Art Adams | 08/30

A directory of my best articles, sorted by topic.

This entry is a guide to my best articles, sorted by topic. Enjoy!

The ‪ARRI M40‬ Outshines the Competition at NAB 2012

Jeremiah Karpowicz | 05/25

See why this light is in such high demand

We asked John Gresch, ARRI Vice President of Lighting Products, to tell us more about the products ARRI had to show at NAB 2012 and he gave us some details about the ARRI M40. It…

FOR-A to Introduce the FT-ONE—World’s First Full 4K Super Slow Motion Camera—at Cine Gear

PVC News Staff | 05/23

FT-ONE will record up to 1,000 frames per second

FOR-A Company Limited, a leading manufacturer of video and audio systems for the broadcast and professional video industries, will debut the FT-ONE full 4K high resolution…

You must be registered to comment. This is an effort to reduce spam. Please REGISTER HERE.

I have NEVER found Wired magazine to be anywhere near accurate in ANY article it publishes about film or digital film.

I would suggest that a BASE RED Package is around $35,000 for a minimum package. That’s with a lens and gets you out shooting day 1. This of course if you have a lot of gear already, which most people do, who are buying this camera. They have an edit bay, they have a tripod, they have lights, etc.

The cost comparison between a film package and the RED, must include Stock and processing for both. That includes lab, telecine, and Non-linear Editing for film, and Trans coding, and Non-linear editing for RED.

Posted by ThomasKoch on 08/16 at 11:30 PM

To compare, in a table, a Panavision package at $25k/month with a RED camera at $17.5k seems to be criminally negligent journalism. I think that you’re absolutely right that it would cost $35k to get a working RED system going, assuming you own a film package that you can draw accessories and lenses from. The Panavision package even includes a viewfinder at no extra charge, and you don’t get that with a RED.

I don’t think I’ll be renewing my Wired subscription. They wrote about something I knew a lot about and got it completely wrong, so who knows how often they’re writing about things I don’t know about and doing the same thing.

Posted by Art Adams on 08/17 at 12:31 AM

For the record: RED’s Jim Jannard says, via the Cinematography Mailing List (http://www.cinematography.net) that he was not shown the Wired article copy before it was submitted.

Posted by Art Adams on 08/17 at 11:08 AM

I do believe that REDs greatest strength is technology NOT marketing. Second greatest strength is price NOT marketing. I really love my RED camera, for a little under $40,000 I get images that are stunning. This price includes lenses.

Even though you may think that it is misleading to compare a rental package to the cost of the camera, I think it makes a very valid point.

Your writing is also misleading, stating that “accessories required to turn it into a full-featured production camera can cost well over $100,000” is more of an opinion. Most Red Cameras Packages at rental houses cost $50,000 without lenses.

My point here Art is that maybe you should not be that harsh on this Wired article, calling it “criminally negligent,” “totally wrong” and ¨one of the SLOPPIEST pieces of journalism I have ever read pertaining to the film industry” only makes you seem a little too radical.

Respectfully,

Julián Baños

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/17 at 11:14 PM

Sorry if I come across as a bit hard on the article, but it really is sloppy. The depth of field bits are wrong, the cost comparisons are wrong… the story is very interesting but the technical details are just wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the cinematographer of “Bones” isn’t the correct person, and the quote attributed to him is laughable given that he supposedly shoots a show that uses film.

And as you say, most RED packages cost a rental house $50,000 without lenses. If you’re putting together a complete package you’ll need lenses. Those will put you over $100k easily. But the article is targeting ambitious filmmakers, not rental houses.

The article compares the monthly rental cost of a complete Panavision package with the price of a RED camera body, making them appear to be equivalent. They aren’t even close. It’s a cost effective purchase over time, or if you already have a lot of film gear, but if you’re starting from scratch you aren’t going to get anywhere with a RED body for $17.5k. You need a lot more stuff.

Have you read the article?

RED’s greatest strength, for a long time, was the marketing—because the cameras didn’t work well enough for full-on production work. They sold like crazy even before they were built. That’s marketing strength. Until build 15 the camera was, by my standards, unusable for professional work. Build 15 works pretty well. Build 16 seems to be THE ONE, and I hear talk of a build 17.

There are still situations where they apparently don’t work terribly well, particularly in vibration-prone environments like car mounts and helicopters. But I do like the pictures and I’m constantly looking for opportunities to shoot with RED’s. For the price I can have a rich “RAW” image that I can grade myself or have professionally graded, and that’s worth quite a bit.

I like the camera. It took me a long time to get past the marketing and a number of the usability frustrations, but I like the camera.

But this article is technically awful. If you haven’t read it, you should.

Posted by Art Adams on 08/17 at 11:28 PM

I agree with a lot of things you are saying, the article has many technical flaws and I am glad you are calling them. Nevertheless, the whole article should not be dismissed.

I got my cameras on May and my cameras have accomplished many professional (maybe over 30 TVCs and Music Videos) and many unprofessional (my stuff) shoots. This is all B15 and B16. Marketing played a very minor roll on getting all this footage done. And I believe that a lot of their marketing was very simple: Technology and Price.

Also, not all lenses are Optimos, Ultra/Master Primes and S4s. I have done things on High Speeds, 18-50 RED, Nikkors, Zeiss ZF and old Cooke Zooms that are just truly amazing and well under the price you suggest.

Maybe Wired should hire you, or Adam for their next article on digital cinematography. With accurate writing on the technical side, this could have been a better article.

Cheers,

Julián

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/17 at 11:54 PM

I’m Bengt Jonsson, the cinematographer quoted in the article. You can imagine how my heart dropped when I read the article when they credited me as the main unit cinematographer of Bones.

Although I am often the 2nd Unit Cinematographer for BONES, I am NOT the main unit Cinematographer. This position is brilliantly occupied by Gordon C. Lonsdale. I wish that I had been sent a copy for corrections. Bones is only a fraction of my work, as I often shoot commercials and music videos, and features.

I stand by what I said, but the context of our discussion was responding to the perceived difficulty with the RED workflow, and to dramatize how in the big picture, film too has it’s own complicated workflow. Bones is shot on 35mm film. And it looks amazing.

Red is a powerful camera system, but it is important that proper and complete information is set forth. Thanks Art.

Bengt

Posted by bjonsson on 08/18 at 01:14 AM

WIRED spends most of its time trying to rile people up…

last month had an article on why we should start building nuke power plants everywhere…

ignore them…
they are just a loud-mouth drunk trying to stir up a argument..

Posted by billS on 08/18 at 06:41 AM

Hi Bengt-

This has happened to me before as well, where I called in a crew listing for ICG and instead of being listed on second unit or a VFX unit I was suddenly the “A” camera operator. Very embarrassing. :(

I’m speaking to the author and supplying him with a more detailed list of corrections. I’ll let him to how to give you proper credit.

You should update your IMDB listing! That’s a good credit to have.

Thanks for dropping in!

Posted by Art Adams on 08/18 at 10:31 AM

Hi Art,

It’s worth striving for accuracy in a rant about inaccuracy. You say that “The 35mm-sized sensor affects only resolution,” which you later contradict, stating that it affects DOF. The later is more true than the former, since you can have small sensors with very high resolutions, such as those in point-and-shoot still cameras. I think it would better be said that the sensor size predominantly affects DOF and angle of view.

You say “For a given angle of view and subject size, cameras with smaller sensors require a wider lens to capture the same angle of view.” I think you mean “require a shorter focal length lens,” since for any given angle of view there is only one “wideness” of lens.

In only nitpick because I agree with your points. Nice work. I unsubscribed from Wired long ago because of these kinds of inaccuracies.

Posted by ProLost on 08/28 at 10:42 AM

You actually make a pretty significant technical mistake in your article:

“This is just plain wrong: depth of field has to do with optics and sensor size, and nothing to do with analog or digital capture.”

No, depth-of-field has to do with magnification, subject-to-camera distance and aperture opening.

“The smaller size of the sensor means that lenses must be approximately two times shorter in focal length to capture the same image size as seen on a 35mm sensor.”

BUT - the smaller size of the sensor means that the image must be magnified more to present the same-size projected (or printed) image. This increases the size of the “circles of confusion”, thereby decreasing the depth of field.

In actual fact, the size of the sensor has little (directly) to do with depth-of-field, if equivalent (for the sensor size) focal lengths and apertures are used, and the image is projected to the same size, you’ll get similar depth-of-field.

You make a similar mistake here:

“The 35mm-sized sensor affects only resolution. Tonality and color saturation have little or nothing to do with sensor size.”

Again, sensor size is not directly related to resolution. You can have a larger sensor which has less resolution than a small sensor. The resolution is related to the number of pixels, and the ability to resolve details, not the sensor size.

It’s similar with film emulsions. You can have a fine-grained film in 35mm format that shows more detail than a grainy film in medium-format, for example.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/28 at 03:58 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

Wired Magazine Gets the RED Totally Wrong