Yes! I agree. Certainly equipment has it’s place in the “quality” chain. Even I sound better playing an expensive guitar but it does not make me a virtuoso. No amount of money or technology will ever replace raw talent. On top of which when it’s all said and done it will always be about the “story”, “message”, “melody” in which case the writer is still the most under appreciated element in the process. At least that’s how I see it.
Posted by Jim Hines on 11/16 at 11:10 AM
I think if you compare RED’s offerings to film acquisition then that’s where you see it make the most sense. No stock costs, no processing and no transfer. And since everyone has a Mac with Final Cut Studio then there is your film transfer/telecine/color correction right there. You don’t need a loader but you need a tech. You’re ACs suddenly become more an electronic specialist than mechanical. I think it’s not far off from film except when you see the emulsion-specific costs suddenly being done in the software. That’s when you save. Of course this doesn’t even get into the discussion of taking the artistry of the colorist out of the equation. We’ve had the editor removed from the equation for a while with all the FCPs abound. With Scarlet we might be taking the DP out next since so many directors will now own camera and post under one roof. Is this a good thing or bad thing? That’s the debate we will have in the coming years. Some programs will be better when the true auteur doesn’t have to answer to anyone. Some will suffer with only one set of eyes on the program. Most will probably end up being “good enough” in a world with tight budgets and deadlines.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 11/16 at 11:21 AM
In my humble opinion, the hub-bub is for good reason. Let me go point by point here:
I don’t think anyone ever thought they could shoot something for $17,500. If they did it was a result of FUD or just not taking the time to do some cursory research. It was never a secret that it would cost between $35-50k to get a decent shooting package together. But even at the $50k end of that spectrum, it’s competing with cameras like the F900, F23/35, Genesis, D20 etc, all cameras well into 6 figures with decent lenses. The $50k for the RED would obviously include a lens or two, have S35 sized DoF, as well as shooting much higher resolution images with much more post latitude for intensive color/vfx work and all at half the price of the workhorse competition. That’s a big deal.
Distribution for indies sucks. Festivals are bloated, the economy is bad, it’s not a great time to be an indie. But that doesn’t mean indie filmmaking is dead. Direct-to-DVD still seems to be a viable market (how many Dimension Extreme titles are there now?) as well as XBOX Live/iTunes/VOD/cable PPV distribution. The RED makes a lot of sense for indie filmmakers who would have been looking at the F900R with a pro35 adapter not too long ago. Just because you shoot 4K doesn’t mean you edit or finish in 4K, 1080p is just fine, you’ve got your HDCAM/Blu-Ray master and easy SD downconvert that definitely looks better than 2/3” HDCAM shot material and if you do happen to make the next Clerks and land a 35mm distribution deal you can always do a new online and reconform to the raw 4K files for a filmout. Your film doesn’t have to look crappy on 35 because you didn’t have much money when you filmed. And RED is starting to gain traction in bigger budget studio pictures (KNOWING, JUMPER, THE INFORMANT, ANGELS & DEMONS) so getting experience shooting and posting RED footage can definitely be considered a good future-proofing career move.
As for HD and acquiring high-res and downconverting, I’ll go back to the fact that you can do you can (and should) edit at lower than 4K, use Crimson to take an FCP EDL of your final locked edit into RedCine so that you relink to the raw 4K files and get all of that RAW latitude for a good one light color correction, spit out a primary color graded edit of your film in 1080p and take that out for secondary/final color grading. This way you’re making the maximum use of the high-res material while not wasting time pushing a bunch of extra data around that you don’t need. But quality wise, assuming you had a competent DP and crew on set, you should be looking at a much better image than something that was acquired 1440x1080 in 3:1:1 color space on a 900.
As for the web, HD on the web isn’t a pipe dream or anything, you don’t have to deliver 640x480. iTunes pushes HD content, Vimeo has some nice looking 720p streaming and frankly the XBOX Live marketplace seems to be positioning itself to be a viable distribution channel, and they take HD as well. So even going to the web, yeah, I’d rather shoot RED than an HVX200. Obviously there’s a cost involved, but the people on the low end of the spectrum would mostly be looking to rent something anyway and while you can great images from the HVX or the new Sony XDCAM EX cameras, if you can squeeze out the budget to rent a RED, why wouldn’t you?
That said, you’re absolutley right that what matters at the heart is the story, the idea. If that sucks it doesn’t much matter how great your video looks. Poop in 4K is still poop. But some of the shorts and student films and low budget features that do have great stories and great ideas can look almost as good as big budget studio films at a much reduced cost and I think that’s a good thing. Sorry that was so long, but those are my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/16 at 12:16 PM
Agree with Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/16 at 12:17 PM
I like this quote from Luke:
“Poop in 4K is still poop.”
But here’s the real question: What does poop in 28K look like? My bet is ... chicken salad!
Posted by Scott Simmons on 11/16 at 12:34 PM
i think stu machewitz hit the nail on the head with red right now. totally missed the mark on my ideal camera.
i want a 35mm sized sensor, with at least 120fps, and don’t need over 2-4k image.
granted, i am not doing photography any longer, but i usually did not want to have to put together a massive rig to take a photo. i loved my nikon f4 for that reason, took amazing images and was a solid body to boot.
with a 35mm sized sensor, you can use normal photography lenses, film lenses, etc. you get real bokeh and dof.
in order to get that now with the new setup, your looking at at least 30k or something. oh well. sony and canon don’t have to run just yet!
Posted by eric james wood on 11/16 at 01:30 PM
Well, even though some (many? most?) jobs don’t require the features of a RED, it certainly does have some handy features that are not to be overlooked:
- RAW format, meaning you have a lot more ability to alter or recover a shot after the shoot
- more pixels, giving you flexibility to reframe a shot after the fact, or scale it down to sharpen it up
- ability to overcrank for slow-mo effects
For more, read the following piece on why Artbeats has come to like the RED for stock footage shoots (including more pleasing roll-off characteristics than their F900):
http://s3.artbeats.com/assets/articles/pdf/seeing_red.pdf
Or, read about the various shoots Art Adams has been doing with the RED:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams
Now, a completely separate matter you bring up has to do with distribution of indie films in order to make your money back. I currently live in a state (New Mexico) that has very handsome incentives for film production, as well as financing for indie films. The bottleneck everyone here is hitting is distribution. This exists no matter what tools you are using. Which make me feel really bad for the legions of indie filmmakers who have been thrilled by advances in tools over the past several years (meaning there are fewer excuses about why you can’t turn a quality script into a quality product), only to find they’re still hitting a brick wall.
And another separate issue is the attempt by RED to position the new cameras as also being DSLR competition. Nope - the price involved in allowing Epic and Scarlet to shoot large frames at full rate has pushed their cost way above DLSRs like the Canon 5D mkII which shoot full-res for stills, and reduced res (but still HD) for video. Which is what will probably push me personally, in my own situation, to get a 5D instead of a Scarlet.
Posted by Chris Meyer on 11/16 at 01:53 PM
Of course, the problem with web distribution is that the cultural expectation is that content be free or really cheap. And while the number of commercial movie screens are finite, the vastness of the Internet makes getting an independent film noticed as easy as calling attention to a single grain of sand in the Sahara.
Chris Meyer does have a good point - RED is pushing other manufacturers to incorporate hi-def video acquisition into the DSLR line That’s a good thing. RAW footage acquisition opens up a wide range of possibilities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/16 at 03:36 PM
i’m with Chris on this
i’m gonna get a canon 5D mark2—
RED doesn’t do anything for me… or LOW budget shooters
$50K is WAAAY too expensive for me
and i can use my old nikon and Leica lenses on the canon
& i can see through the lens
& it has BETTER low light than the RED
i don’t see using above 1080x1920 res for a long time
in the unlikely event i need to shoot above 30fps, i can pull out the old ARRI IIC and run 400 ft of film through it ...for the rare occasions that 80FPS is needed…
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086
i still haven’t seen any RED footage as good as this in low light
5D mark 2—-
better low light, cheaper, more lens selection, through the lens viewing, full size 24x36mm sensor,
how is RED better on anything but overcranking ?—and overhyping, since this is vapourware anyway.. nobody has actually touched one…
i’ll go with Chris down to the canon dealer… this month, not XX months away…
Posted by billS on 11/16 at 05:27 PM
“how is RED better on anything but overcranking?”
To be fair, even the Scarlet delivers the full sensor-size image in RAW format at full frame rate. The 5D mkII drops down to an H264 compressed HD image for motion.
“and i can use my old nikon and Leica lenses on the canon “
To be fair, the RED has lens adaptors to take Canon and Nikon lenses.
“& i can see through the lens”
Good point - the REDs aren’t true “single lens reflex” cameras. Plus you make other good points too. And despite their small size for video cameras, the REDs are no where near as ergonomic as a Canon DSLR. But again, that’s from my perspective, where I shoot as much on hikes as I do on a tripod.
This, plus the cost difference, are what tilt me toward the 5D mkII instead of the RED Scarlet S35. But again, that’s based on my situation (stills, abstract footage for backgrounds, some quick B-roll inserts, some podcasts). There are many other circumstances where the RED would be preferrable.
- Chris
Posted by Chris Meyer on 11/16 at 06:12 PM
well, to be fair, people said similar things about HDV when it came along. AS in one bunch said “Hollywood is dead, we can all make HD movies now” to “It’s Fake HD, crappy MPEG2 compression, useless.” along with all the inbetween, including the truism, that “it’s not the kit it’s the talent”. Well, HDV didn’t bring the walls of Hollywood tumbling down, and neither will the red. On the other hand, in the past six months I’ve seen three feature films shot on the Sony Z1 (Searchers 2.0, Unrelated and In Search of a Midnight Kiss), the former on BBC TV, after being shown at the Venice Film Festival, the latter two at the cinema, each having been blown up to 35mm.
Yes it’s the talent that made these films, the the case of Searchers 2.0, talent with up to a three decade track record. However in each case part of that talent involved picking and the best tool for the job within practical and financial restraints. utilising. I doubt any of the c=film crews of the three films I nmentioned picked an inferior camera thinking, “It’s OK, our talelent is enough, we don’t need a better image” - and had they had access to/the money for better cameras thery would prpbably have chosen them, provided those opportunities didn;t compromise their overall intentions. (of course I think the Dogma95 films might be rare examples where the filmmakers did choose lower quality kit for “artistic” reasons.)
The red is extraordinary (and I admit I was a cynic, and to some degree still am) as at a $50,000 price point it approaches and challenges cameras costing four times the price. Plus for the impecunious, you could get away with a much cheaper set up with a large set of compromises. (but isnt that laways the way?)
Anyway, the touted $200,000 price tag for an F35, does that include recording system, lenses, and accessories?
BTW: “Good point - the REDs aren’t true “single lens reflex” cameras.” - niether is the D1 on movie mode, as the reflex mirror has to lock out of the way to enable movie shooting.
Posted by Dylan Pank on 11/17 at 05:10 AM
Sorry, I meant “neither is the _D5_ on movie mode”
Posted by Dylan Pank on 11/17 at 05:17 AM
“Am I missing something on the distribution end? Does any indie film, save the breakthroughs (like “Little Miss Sunshine,” for example, which featured actual name-brand actors) *ever* make back their money? Is there actually a career path here?”
Well, whether or not a low budget indie movie makes it’s money back or not, it can still set you on a career path.
Ask Robert Rodriguez, Justin Lin, David Cronenberg, the colleagues of the late of Stanley Kubrick, John Carpenter, Bill Forsyth, Neil LaBute, Jim Jarmusch, Rose Troche, Robert Townsend, or any of the many successful filmmakers who started off making low budget movies that didn’t necessarily make their money back yet started them on successful high profile careers. plus that’s just the directors, what about the actors, producers, cinematographers, writers, editors who now have successful careers.
Then of course there are those that hit big right out of the gate (Edward Burns, Kevin Smith, Darren Aronofsky, Spike Lee)
Yes it’s a massive gamble, yes it relies on great talent, determination, and not little luck and opportunism. Not many people end up making a career on the fringes (Jon Jost?) but then the same is true of painters, writers, musicians who supplement their art with other jobs, often teaching.
Posted by Dylan Pank on 11/17 at 05:40 AM
The RED ONE, be it just because of it’s rolling shutter problem, is completely useless for any sort of professional application.
RED’s are gimmicks. RED ONE has not made a dent in Sony’s or film stock markets. They are gizmos made for amateurs who want to play at being filmmakers and have too much money on their hands. All of their amateur productions could be shot on DV and the results would still be the same except that they’d still have more money in the bank.
As for what Dylan just wrote, all the people you mention started making 35mm films with known/semi know actors and with small budgets which would equal at least 2-3million dollars today.
RED helps nothing. If you can’t convince a producer to launch your project, if no one will finance you it means that 1-You are not experienced enough to command a feature film project 2-Your idea isn’t good enough and 3-no distributors will want the film once it’s done.
Now stop wasting your money on expensive gears that will get you no where. Get experience on real crews, try to launch real projects that will go somewhere and if all fails get a job and shoot HDV projects as a hobby.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/17 at 10:25 PM
this subject of RED- ROLLING SHUTTER problem has appeared a few times… does anybody have any video or info on this?
i have seen video of the nikon’s problem with an (extremely bad) version of rolling shutter…
any links, etc relating to the RED rolling shutter problem would be appreciated
thanks
!!
Posted by billS on 11/17 at 11:23 PM
I am withholding a committed opinion on this for now, but I’m leaning toward Bruce’s point of view. A good number of lower cost video camera’s that are now available at much lower cost, will produce awesome looking video. Many quality components can be added in post. You can do stuff today, with a credit card, that would have been thought of as a joke if you had spoken it just a few years ago. However, I can also remember reading that Bruce believes that 525 lines SD video is good enough for most people, so take that into account…
Posted by DanConklin on 11/18 at 09:59 AM
Dan wrote:
>However, I can also remember reading that Bruce believes that 525 lines SD video is good enough for most people, so take that into account… <
Woah! I still claim the title of “The World’s #1 Digital Television Cynic,” but even I will admit that HD is here to stay. And it wasn’t going to NAB that showed that to me, but going to CES, where I saw the revolution coming from the bottom up. Sub-$1k 1080p palmcams recording to flash cards? Yeow. Once BluRay burners drop below $100, NTSC is finally over.
OTOH…
I have been thinking about all this a little more, adn can’t de3cide what the various RED cameras are for.
Are they to “empower” (Jeez, I hate that term) indie filmmakers to have a film-like experience and look?
or is it to put Panavision and Kodak out of business?
Somehow, I think it fails on both counts.
Good reading all these comments, though. Keep ‘em coming.
PS: Not only do I want to get my hands on a Canon D5 mkII, I want to be there with Chris Meyer when he gets *his* hands on one! <g>
BAJ
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/18 at 04:13 PM
“As for what Dylan just wrote, all the people you mention started making 35mm films with known/semi know actors and with small budgets which would equal at least 2-3million dollars today.”
Robert Rodriguez, El Mariachi
Justin Lin: Shopping For Fangs
David Cronenberg: Stereo
Stanley Kubrick: Fear and Desire
John Carpenter: DarkStar
Bill Forsyth:That Sinking Feeling,
Neil LaBute: In The Company of Men
Jim Jarmusch: Permanent Vacation
Rose Troche: Go Fish
Robert Townsend: Hollywood Shuffle
Edward Burns:The, Brothers, McMullen
Kevin Smith:, Clerks
Darren Aronofsky: Pi
Spike Lee: She’s Gotta Have It.
I’ll give that three or four of those were shot on 35mm. Which were shot “with known/semi know actors and with small budgets which would equal at least 2-3million dollars today”?
Posted by Dylan Pank on 11/20 at 02:04 PM
Would-be filmmakers have had “enabling” and “empowering” camera fantasies for a long time. 16mm was supposed to be the democratizing factor until Hi8 came along, which in turn was quickly displaced by DV, which was *really* going to change everything (unlike Hi8).
And DV did change everything, if you forget that about as many DV features made it into commercial distribution as did 16mm and 35mm indie features in prior years, the constant number being and remaining quite small.
Even filmmakers with minimal resources tend to confuse production value with commercial potential, when in fact there is no correlation on the indie side of the business.
So whatever the virtues of the Red cameras, much of the Red mania is built on a delusion, though it’s certainly possible that quality 3K or 4K footage will give the filmmakers greater pleasure than the heavily aliased ultra-low budget footage of early hi8 and DV years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/20 at 02:07 PM
Just to comment on Dylan Pank’s list: most of these films are quite old, and include some one-shot wonders. It’s no longer clear that the career path which once existed, exists today.
It’s also worth noting that this list of films is, at best, mixed. If we aspire to meritocracy, it’s a pretty disheartening collection of movies. A lot of people who would be dismayed than encouraged by some of these successes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/20 at 02:12 PM
jrds, hey, look up, is it a bird, is it a plane? No its the point sailing way over your head!
Of course some of the films are old, as I can’t demonstrate directors’ careers with films made in the last three years. We’ll have to look back at the coming careers, or not, of Alex Holdridge, Joanna Hogg and John Carney for example, to see if a careeer path is still there.
As for the quality of the list, again, not the point. The point is low budget films gave these peoples careers. it’s also worth pointing out that in the majority of the names are straight, white, men, or all three which makes a point that such likely to gain traction in the film industry.
As for “one shot wonders” no, all of the filmmakers on that list have had or still have professional careers making “35mm films with known/semi know actors and with small budgets which would equal at least 2-3million dollars [at LEAST] today”.The fact that the filmmakers tend towards populist genre films only underlines that it is one entry point-so while we’re on that track: Christopher nolan, Peter jackson. Sometimes it’s not about the films they made for $10,000, bu the film they go on to make for $200m.
Anyway if it’s about “meritocracy” a quick trip to Blockbuster or the local multiplex would leave you suicidal. Sure we get the Joe Carnahans from the no-budget world, but we also get the occasional Richard Linklater, just like the world of commercials and pop videos gives us the Michael Bays and the David Finchers, or state funded film programmes here in the UK bless us with a Lynne Ramsey but then curse us with all manner of mindless crud.
Posted by Dylan Pank on 11/20 at 02:59 PM
Dylan Pank writes “As for the quality of the list, again, not the point. The point is low budget films gave these peoples careers….”
You’re arguing, in effect, that quality has nothing to do with success, which may well be true, but renders the whole endeavor pointless, unless you’re convinced you can predict which mediocre product will succeed and which will fail. In any case, such a marketplace is not a rational basis for a career. Without meritocracy, careers are certainly possible, but I’m not sure on what basis one pursues success.
“Of course some of the films are old, as I can’t demonstrate directors’ careers with films made in the last three years.”
Exactly the problem: you’d have great difficulty in the last 3 (or 5 or even 10) years, because things have changed, distributors figured out that these film don’t make money, and the novelty of non-Hollywood films has long been exhausted. Your list represents another time altogether. Different financing arrangements, far less competition, much lower marketing costs, different audience demographics, etc.
I don’t know what Robert Townsend and Rose Troche are doing today, but if you say they have thriving careers, I’ll take your word for it. But Jarmusch and Lee go back more than 20 years, and Kubrick (needless to say) far longer than that. These are hardly pertinent examples of what’s possible today.
State funding provides an entirely different model, but I had assumed we were talking about the American system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/20 at 04:55 PM
I call blogbaiting!
Red is catching on in TV production (episodics), and is PERFECT for commercials. And even some heavy duty big budget features are shooting on Red.
Posted by Mike Curtis on 11/21 at 02:09 AM
jrds, make your mind up. is this about artistic integrity or it’s about marketability and demographics. If distributors really have figured out that these films don’t make money, why did films (from the last 5 years) like just off the top of my head, Primer, In Search of a Midnight Kiss, Unrelated, Mutual Appreciation, Hannah Takes the Stairs, Nights and Weekends, Tarnation, Once, get released.
I’m not saying all these films are brilliant (though I will say in general they’re above a lot of the cinematic effluent that flushes down my local multiplex every week).
I’m not saying they’ll all go on to make any money (but then most studio films lose money)
I’m not saying the directors will necessarily ever work again, let alone end up directing Batman sequels.
I do say they got made AND released because the filmmakers had access to the tools to make them, and took the chances they would have taken (both artistically and careerwise) that they wouldn’t have . Will it change Hollywood? No because we’ve been here before, hence the relevance of the older names in the list. Francis Ford Coppola admits that the brat pack failed to change Hollywood because they believed that changes in, access too and ownership of the technology would change the game. They were wrong.
There was a similarly utopian belief in the transformative power of super16 in the eighties and DV filmmaking in the 90s, as their is about RED now. It’s overly optimistic, and no using a RED won’t make your script, acting, directing or editing better at a price point filmmakers who previously would have shot on 16mm can afford, even if only on rental.
These kinds of films have always been niche, they will continue to be so. That doesn’t invalidate them.
“I don’t know what Robert Townsend and Rose Troche are doing today” Having your workplace internet block IMDB and wikipedia must be a bitch
well Troche directed two more feature films and is now directing episodic TV, Townsend has just completed a biopic on Sonny Liston. I’d say they’re both doing pretty well.
“State funding provides an entirely different model, but I had assumed we were talking about the American system. ” I assumed we weren’t that limited on this website. But then you know what happens when you assume.
However it’s beside the point, I was merely pointing out that as another route into a film career beyond privately/self financed low budget production. It was to counter your argument that the films I listed (and I _assume_ by extension the named directors themselves and their subsequent films) were of a poor quality. Something I’d argue with on balance. Maybe they’re all not the best directors, and those probably aren’t their best films. But generally on balance I’d say it’s an above average list.
Posted by Dylan Pank on 11/21 at 01:22 PM
Ah, that sharp wit, Dylan. I’m not sure, however, what it is exactly you’re claiming.
That distributors are still guilty of folly on films like Primer and Mutual Appreciation? Agreed.
That less than stellar talents like Rose Troche, with origins in low-budget features, manage to make a living in the movie business? Agreed.
That for the last 30 years or so non-industry folks have had the tools today to make films at low budgets? Agreed.
That there are systems other than the American commercial financing and/or garage budget approach to art or alternative feature films? Agreed.
But that all this proves about the business I don’t know. If your point is that’s it still possible to get rich and famous making ultra-low budget movies, despite the fact that the relationship between quality and success is obscure or downright perplexing in these movies, I’d counter that it’s still possible to win the lottery or earn a fortune making ceramic pots.
It’s not so much a question of expecting technology to compensate for poor writing, as the simple fact that without money, good writing usually won’t be realized on screen. You also forget that low-budget successes tend to be genre successes; the films are marketed less as self-contained entities, than low-budget curiosities. Trouble is, that product line ran out of a appeal quite a few years ago, when every one and his uncle started making movies.
But to the extent a $50K investment in Red improves your odds, best of luck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/21 at 04:56 PM
I’m sorry jrds, but you and others are missing the point and are WAY out of touch with the real value that is being presented in the form of technological advancement to independent filmmakers. Back in 2003 when the DVX was released I was in my first year at AFI. A friend was about to buy one and I said I’d contribute $500 to the price if he would let me use it to shoot a feature over the summer. Having 24p capabilities and the increased quality that the DVX provided over similarly priced cameras was invaluable. Did it look like film? Hell no. Did it make a huge amount of money? Absolutely not. Nevertheless, the film RAW FOOTAGE had a great festival run and provided me with the opportunity to produce and edit a feature film over the course of a few months while still in film school. This experience and credit served me very well when I left.
RED is only furthering the advancement of technology in digital video camera development. Nothing more. They are helping to raise the bar on what is expected at any given level of the price/perfomance matrix. The idea is not that it can equal film on every level today, but that they are taking the necessary steps to one day achieve that. I’m assuming that you are a DP and I’m guessing that you might actually take stills every once in a while. Do you take them on a digital SLR? How about the recording industry which is essentially entirely digital these days? How about the print business before that? These technological innovations don’t happen overnight, it takes hard work in the development of these technologies, but if everyone thought like you, we would still be using the gas and oil lamps and lanterns; I’m sure people thought they worked pretty well at the time, while this wonky electricity thing, well, that might kill you!
Innovation is the driving force in economics. If you want to make money you innovate. Those that accept this fact and embrace the advancement of technology ride ever greater waves of success. Those that don’t, languish in their own complacency and fall ever further into the background. Just take a look at James Cameron, whether you like his films or not, Titanic set a new standard for the use of VFX in film and Avatar is about to do so again… and his success is heretofore unmatched.
Speaking more specifically to the original blog entry, RED isn’t trying to create a whole new market of high-quality independent films, they are providing better photography tools at equivalent price levels. I understand concerns that the RED One may not be the best acquisition format for feature films right now. But not “getting” a camera system based on one arbitrary segment of the Pro Video world is, no offense, just narrow-minded. I know hundreds of commercial and music video shoots that have been very impressed with the cameras always-advancing capabilities (as well as more than a few feature films). And the argument of (paraphrasing here) “why do we need such high quality acquisition for TV and web” just shows a real lack of understanding of filmmaking in general. To me, I always try and acquire the highest quality image I can within the constraints of my budget. I think if you did a little bit of research you would find that the vast majority of one-hour television dramas are shot on 35mm film… they can afford to and it looks better.
We can agree to disagree that the RED is a valuable and logical progression in the advancement of motion picture technology. One thing is absolutely certain though… time will prove one of us to be correct about the value of this innovative company.
Disclosure: I have no affiliation with RED whatsoever, nor do I own one (though I hope to soon). I just appreciate people who think outside of the box.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/22 at 04:04 PM
thank you , Bruce for posting the “i don’t get it”
i do not use RED, nor will i ever….
so…
can this site start a section called
RED FANBOY
or RED stuff
or RED for the those who actually give a crap
and have all the
“red codec now available for nokia phones”
or “RED releases pictures of stuff that won’t be on sale for years”
in one area
that the rest of us can IGNORE that section
because we do NOT use it… or CARE
it just clutters up the website
and i can’t get to Jay Rose’s stuff easily, with all these useless posts on RED
THANKS
!!!
Posted by billS on 11/23 at 04:07 AM
This is amazing. Bashing technologies that you don’t understand or can’t afford is not the way to go. Several of these posts reflect a lack of understanding of what’s going on with Red and other technology innovators. Todd M. summed up a lot of it in his response, so I won’t pile on. Those who know me, know that I am not a Red fanboy. I see Red as an important new tool that is right for some projects, and perhaps not the best choice for others. I suggest that those who are new to the industry, or have very little experience with cameras do some extra research on a particular camera system before going to forums and ranting and raving. All this does is draw a line in the sand.
Having an informed opinion is one thing. But bashing a camera or camera company just because you’re sick of the hype, or you have an agenda just seems unprofessional to me. And Bill S, I like audio and I like Jay Rose. But how does having articles about Red affect your experience on this website. Should we get rid of the After Effects articles too. There’s a lot of those. I’ve never seen so much hostility towards a company. I don’t get it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/11 at 09:36 AM
