comment #1

Yves says ...

Like a friend of mine said, about 10 years ago, "we're looking at the worst digital filmmaking has to offer right now... it will only get better."

comment #2

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

digital is not cheaper. You spend the money in other places. The ONLY thing a digital pipeline can really offers you is seeing what you are getting right there. No waiting to get it back from the lab. What's on the monitor is what you are getting.

That said I think 4k digital camera are kind of a lame idea. I would love to see a 18k digital camera, something the equivalent of Imax resolution.

Why make a new technology that kind of replicates a 100 year old technology.

If you want to do something special make a 18K digital camera the eliminates the noise problems of Imax cameras.

Make the experience of going to the movies new again.

That would be a thing to see.

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

Lots of people have drunk the Kool-Aid on the Red camera, but you should ask around about the nightmares it creates in post. If what you're making will finish on a DVD or on TV only, you might like the Red.

comment #4

storymark says ...

...riiiight. because that's how technology advances. No steps along the way - just jump up to a magical silent portable IMAX camera.... because the crack addict isn't impressed with film quality at a much lower price (and yeah, it IS much lower).

comment #5

storymark says ...

'If what you're making will finish on a DVD or on TV only, you might like the Red. "

Which is the case for most of those who will use it.

comment #6

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

We've had 4k accuition for 100 years and 18k for half that. How exactly would having a digital camera that can do something a camera older than me exactly a big jump beyond the stars???

70mm film wasn't invented yesterday storymark.

Yes it saves you some money upfront but the amount of storage space required for 4k is not cost effective. this techology has a long way to go before it can get us right were we've been for 100 years.

comment #7

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

We've had 4k acquisition for 100 years and 18k for half that. How exactly would having a digital camera that can do something a camera older than me, exactly be a big jump beyond the stars???

70mm film wasn't invented yesterday storymark.

Yes it saves you some money upfront but the amount of storage space required for 4k is not cost effective. this technology has a long way to go before it can get us right were we've been for 100 years.

comment #8

aspiringcrackaddict says ...

And sorry to break it to you it doesn't look like film. My wife isn't a film buff and she knows the difference between Film and Digital.

And why is criticizing Red like trouncing on god.

people need to relax the Red is not the second coming of christ.

comment #9

bdboudreaux says ...

did somebody say Red Camera?

I consider myself a Red Camera convert, meaning that up until I actually edited with it I didn't believe the hype about HD video at all. That includes the Viper and CineAlta. I edited a music video for this British band Mattafix a few months back that was shot on Red. After my assistant and I did a little googling and experimented with some Final Cut settings we had it working perfectly, no post problems what so ever. I was even able to edit on my laptop at home without rendering, but I digress. The thing about it that really floored me was the latitude I had in resizing and altering the image. I'm dying to get my hands on some more Red Camera footage at this point because I want to see how much I can push it.

As far as how it visually compares to film, the video i did looked beautiful. Faces, flowers, etc. But it was also against a white background so I don't know about the depth field or how it handles natural lighting. I guess for that answer I would ask Mr. Wells here, "So Jeff, how did Che look?"

comment #10

corey3rd says ...

a movie exists on film for a few weeks. It's stuck on video for decades.

comment #11

Chris Baumgardt says ...

aspiringcrackaddict,

I was wondering what RED footage you have seen to base your video doesn't look like film comment on. Most of your comments on the RED camera seem to be coming from a position of ignorance. I agree that RED is not the second coming of cinema; however, there are some pretty stunning things about this camera.

1. The footage shot so far has been able to wow and fool many very experienced people into thinking it was film or at least just as good as film and not suffering from the "video" clean look. This is from a multitude of people that have seen actual footage.

2. RED shoots in a RAW format similar to a DSLR still camera and gives you an amazing amount of latitude to play with to make the best looking image as possible. No processing is done to the image in camera like other digital cameras. This changes a lot about post and is mostly responsible for the complaints as people grapple with a new way of thinking about how to setup their post workflow. It isn't bad, it is just new and people aren't always ready for the adjustments.

4. 4K and RED are exciting because there has never been a camera with that kind of resolution that was affordable by the independent or low budget crowd. In fact, most high-res professional cameras can't even be purchased and must be rented every time a new project comes along. This camera is opening up a new world of quality to way more people than in the past.

5. 4K is the holy grail of digital because it is the upper limit of what 90% of the post house computer systems can handle in any kind of timely manner. Everything shot on film today is digitized for post and most of it is digitized at 2K, with the biggest films being digitized at 4K. Thus, a 4K camera like the RED One gives you the same effective resolution as scanned film. As time goes on and the computers get faster, we can worry about even higher res cameras, but right now even film isn't going to do any better. In fact, Red has a 5K camera called EPIC slated for release in 2009.

Yes you are correct that RED is not the second coming and Yes we should be able to criticize it, but you really should get your facts straight before you dump on something as being worthless. There is A LOT to be excited about when it comes to RED if you are a filmmaker.

comment #12

soap-and-water says ...

Wanted was shot on RED and was essentially indististinguishable from 35mm when the camera was still.

Like, spookily so.

seems like the hardest digital artifact to shake is the smeary/strobey look on quick pans.

would anyone with a technical bent be kind enough to explain this?

also very curious about Che's look because it seems a much more natural light / verite set-up than the studio-bound wanted.

comment #13

Rothchild says ...

Wanted was shot on 35 mm. Only a few FX plates were shot with the Red.

comment #14

soap-and-water says ...

hmm... some very obvious strobey/smeary pans in wanted and i remember the RED site was bragging about the film in the very early days.

That's all i've got, do you have a better source?

comment #15

Rothchild says ...

It was shot on 35.

comment #16

NivekJ says ...

Soap-and-water, James Cameron mentions the strobing problem in an article published by Variety a couple of months ago.

And I quote, "Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all."
-http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1

So, Cameron's been on top of it. I've produced a film shot on RED, and we shot as long as our hard drive would hold, which was hours. With film, our costs would have quadrupled upon quadrupling. With RED, we could shoot however we wanted for however as long as we wanted.

Christie DLP projectors can handle the framerates. If I'm not mistaken, 3-D digital films are projected at 144 frames per second.

"In the case of material captured at the film standard rate of 24 frames per second, these systems work best when projecting at 144 frames per second. There are two 24-fps images for 48 fps, and each image is repeated three times for a total of 144 fps. The images are concatenated, and a train of images (left, right, left, right, left, right, and so on) reach the eyes."
-http://community.reald.com/blogs/real_d_blog/archive/2008/01/28/540.aspx

So, when Trumbull tried out Showscan 60 fps with film, he was severely limited by the physical boundaries of that medium, and the stubbornness of exhibitors to display film that fast.

With digital cinema, it won't matter. Right now, we're dealing with growing pains and death throes. The industry is too used to what they're used to, but once that changes, it will be a very exciting time.

comment #17

hiviper says ...

S&W:

the top post on this page will answer your questions regarding how much of Wanted was shot with RED:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=185175

comment #18

Rothchild says ...

I was told the final cut only had one or two shots from the RED camera. I really wish someone would do a presentation and show the footage back to back and put what they have to good use. That's the kind of thing that would sell me on the camera. Mitch shot GI Joe on film right afterwards, so he must not be completely sold on it.

comment #19

mutinyco says ...

Jackson is using RED along with 35mm for The Lovely Bones.

comment #20

JBM... says ...

According to later posts in the source hiviper posted above the director says no shots from the RED were used.

I seem to remember reading something about Malick's "Tree of Life" production testing the RED but in the end not using it...

comment #21

Three says ...

question for bbeaudreux:

Was any of the music video shot in natural daylight?

In my experience, while most dv cameras look pretty good outside of direct sunlight, the edges become too harsh in the sun. I'm curious to see whether the Red can replicate the softness of film in bright light.

thanks for your input.

comment #22

mutinyco says ...

I think the biggest problem with conversion from film to digital is that so many people want digital to look like film. Well, it's not going to. It's a different format/medium, it's going to have its own look. Just because RED or Viper or the F23 don't look like film doesn't mean they don't look as good as film -- they just look different, and that needs to be accepted. If you like that look fine, if not fine.

comment #23

bdboudreaux says ...

Three -

no it was studio shot. I'm also dying to see some Red daylight stuff. According to Red Camera's website the new Alex Proyas film, Knowing was shot on Red as well as Doug Liman's Jumper. To me the biggest stylistic test is what the footage of Che is like. Because the difference between realistic looking HD footage and cartoony action movie type footage is huge.

comment #24

soap-and-water says ...

holy smokes, thanks heaps for all the data guys.
I was pretty much ready to bet my eyes that at least SOME of wanted was shot on RED.

comment #25

JeffK says ...

Three and Bdboudreax:
I have one thing to say about Red footage shot in daylight: phenomenal. Probably the best argument for Red footage matching a film look. Even in direct sunlight, colors can remain as vibrant as film without looking too perfectly sharp. Just worked on a short film with a Red camera and the owner agreed that daylight is really the camera's strongest suit. So much so that the director agreed to pony up on HMI lighting, make the most of outdoor scenes.