Professional...

[Charles Angus]

I think Red has come up against what it is and isn't as a camera company.

Put simply, the Red One is not really a professional camera. The F35 is.

And put simply, the F35 is not really a cutting edge camera. The Red One is.

This is the crux of the issue. To be cutting edge in a collaborative industry like TV and feature film production, you can't be too cutting edge, b/c all of the other players have to be in sync, upgrading in lock step.

[snip]

I personally believe Red's heart is more visionary than it is professional.

Bang on.

And keep it visionary.

 

[JPSendall]

The use something is put to doesn't define what it is in my view. For instance, a small camera gaffer taped to a broom handle isn't a professional piece of equipment, whereas a robust fit for purpose "pole cam" is.

So this means when a professional picks up a Pixelvision camera he instantly ceases to be a professional? I would hope the gear doesn't define a man but a man can define the gear.

"Professional to me means attitude to the work. A professional film maker's first loyalty is to the audience, an amateur's first loyalty is to themselves."

I agree that attitude is an important part of being a professional, but a professionals loyalty is to the production team above him (director, producer) then the audience.

When you come to think of it a lot of self funded directed and produced movies are made by people loyal to themselves or their idea, so by your definition they should be called amateur?

Mike Brennan

Yes, because they are self serving. This doesn't mean that when you are thinking of the audience first you can't depict something honest or truthful, in fact the opposite.

Sorry for that last one. Off topic really. But my reply about the gear I think is still true.

 

[Greg Voevodsky]

Reliability, durability, not getting obsolete within a few years ...

Hmmm... I guess Hi tech, computers, cell phones, ipods, ipads, and even Red Cameras must be amateur as they are obsolete every few years... even RED One has been quickly updated with tons of software and now hardware chips.

So, I'd kinda have to disagree... professional is technology that pays for itself - NOW - in the first year or 2. And the company that will stay in business more than a few years... Apple updates most of its tech toys every 2 years... the Japanese, their cars every 4 years... Detroit... um 6+ years... and look where they are... GM is now back to amateur status bailed out by us... as they failed in business unlike Ford... that survived on its own like RED after a hard shift in economic conditions.

I'd say pro is releasing products and selling products and staying in business. PERIOD. RED is pro and is adjusting... for sure.

With Scarlet's updates, the delay is well worth it. Jim knows he had to jump back ahead of the pack with the Canon D5 mark 2, taking the low end... now, he will be ahead but only for a few years... or less... we will see. Canon is showing is 4k camera already and Pani's gh2 with 24p looks great at for $1000 bucks...

I love the to see the coming battles. Its a race between between Sony, Pani, Canon, Nikon and RED - to give us great affordable HD images and replace my EX-1 which beat my x-RED 1 to my hands, on time and under budget.

My EX-1 paid for itself and is ready to be scrapped... grainy and only 1080p - but it was there and did the job with sound (unlike my RED #217 that I sadly passed on.) However, with the money I have made and will make from the finished DVDs and Blu-Rays from Ex-1 on a old Mac laptop, I can now look into new RED and Apple computers. So here we go again...

I hope the Scarlet which is what I asked for in the RED 1 years ago can deliver - a small, modular, auto focus, 2k killer with RAW and now Jim's surprise - Awesome HDR - that can now shoot sunsets that my EX1 "cmos" sucks at (but my old SD Sony PD-150 captured beautifully).... will deliver before the competition does it.

I love RED, but as a PRO - I buy the best that works for the budget at the time of the shoot... I've been waiting 2 years after my EX-1... new productions coming next year... who will win... Scarlet? Pani? Canon? Sony? we will see... who will deliver?! best image, cost, work flow, size and weight.

Good Luck RED... I'm waiting for ya... another 6 months... again... I would buy ya now in a heart beat... in 6 months... maybe not... we'll see at NAB
who is ready and pro and will bought by us "non studio" funded pros still in business. Oh - pro-sumers?!... ;-) ya, we make the special interest stuff, Hollywood or federal grants don't want to make. And yes, some of us can make a good living now unlike most nature photographers who can't do it any more from cheep stock photos, cameras and the net. HD is next.

Damn tech, and internet... or for us entrepreneurs and indi producers... BRING IT...

Red - give us Scarlet - ASAP! Thanks! I'll make you proud. Promise.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Sorry, but NASA are professionals as you can get in the space industry.

Would you call profesional formula one racing unprofessional because their cars break down all the time? Because they don't meet national emmissions or standards (tail lights, headlights, etc)?

Professional writers... what published standards do they have to meet?

Mike,

My point was that when the space program started through the moon missions, NASA and the Soviet space program were the only two games in town--and they weren't talking to each other. So the moon mission is not analogous to the feature film and broadcast industry of today.

I don't think it's important (or would even be accurate) for me to name industries and declare weather or not they are "professional."

 

[Sergio Perez]

Professional câmera means a camera that can pass the most demanding requirements of both cinema and Broadcast production. The codec has to be able to survive broadcast degradation and compression, has good signal to noise ratio, and have a picture that can be heavily manipulated in post with the least degradation and artifacts possible. The build should be solid, capable of withstanding the most demanding conditions, like extreme temperatures-Panasonic p2 line's marketing relies heavily on this- should be weather proof, like canon professional stills equipment, and should be reliable on the recording media and image capture parts.

Professional should mean also a tool that could fulfill te creative needs o the shooter, with full manual controls and versatility to allow different solutions for support equipment. It should allow for the best imaging capture scenario in available light, since natural lighting is always the one that portraits better reality. Lighting should be an option for the shooter, and not a necessity for bad slow light.

But it also should be affordable. A professional, unlike the tool, should not be defined by his budget, but by his talent, his vision and his capabilities as such. A good professional can be outshined by a poor one if the poor one has the budget for an expensive professional gear.

I shall continue on a later post.

 

[Peter Moretti]

While an interesting conceptualization, this argument pretty much dispenses with the past 100 years of imaging history, which is a history of constant and rapid technological evolution and experimentation. It has always been characterized by a push-pull energy between standardization and innovation. Industries are inherently conservative - while artists, technologists, and creatives tend to embrace what is new, fun, intriguing.

HDCAM isn't even 20 years old yet, as a technology. Standards change every generation. Every industry standard began with a vision. Same as it ever was.

Meryem,

I agree with you... but I have no idea how my "conceptualization" dispensed with anything.

Anyway, the issue is where does Red want to exist on a spectrum with one end being tried and true, widely used, well understood technology and the other end being cutting edge, quickly changing, less stable, standards-breaking technology.

Maybe Red can be cutting edge, reliable, well understood and widely adopted. But I think it's the first item in that list that gets the company most jazzed to show up to work, and that "cutting edge" can have a difficult relationship with the other members in the list.

 

[JPSendall]

Weirdly what the Canon 5D did was allow a lot of people to copy a certain "pro" style, shallow depth of field. There is some very beautiful shots out there on the 5D but I would consider a lot of them are produced by amateurs, people who are just playing, making "test shots". Did the Red One fall into this area? I think it did but very little as the people with money who bought it as amateurs were in the minority. However it would be interesting to know how many of those amateurs are actually now professionals making a living out of it. There is still a bit of a stigma around Red that it isn't a real pro camera which I think is unwarranted and wont last much longer.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

For a camera I think the bottomline should be atleast 10bit in a good codec if not raw, fullraster 1920x1080p, alot of framerates options and good postproduction tools. Reliability, durability and extenable. The camera shoud also have good support for fast turnarounds.

But who wants to go for the bottomline?

 

[Eric Lange]

Mike,

My point was that when the space program started through the moon missions, NASA and the Soviet space program were the only two games in town--and they weren't talking to each other. So the moon mission is not analogous to the feature film and broadcast industry of today.

I don't think it's important (or would even be accurate) for me to name industries and declare weather or not they are "professional."

Actually I think the space industry and the film industry have a lot in common.
My father worked at NASA for ten years, and quit. He was soon picked up by Stanly Kubrick to act as the principal production designer on 2001 a Space Odyssey. That was his first film and worked on many since then (lucky break but a trial by fire). In both the space industry and the film industry new and very creative solutions are being sought to very difficult technical challenges that have to be solved and executed in a very short period of time. The same level of pressure is there, the only difference is that in the film industry you CAN gain recognition (sometimes) for your individual talents, contibution and work, whereas in a large government agency, this doesn’t happen unless you are a figure head like Von Braun.

I work designing various kinds of 3d imaging systems (software and hardware; my own company), and sometimes it is shocking to see how conservative the engineering and software industry really is compared to what is actually possible. It’s nice to see a company (i.e. RED) that is not afraid to be creative and push the limits of what is possible, for me that’s a breath of fresh air in an otherwise very conservative environment.

I think Jim would be pleased (on some level) that people compare what they are doing to NASA; I would personally compare him with private entrepreneurs that are trying to set up commercially viable private space systems, Branson, Burt Rutan, Elon Musk, Space X and many other private enterprises.

Basically, Film/Movie industry and Space industry both can be characterized by extreme pressure, and it’s bloody hard to have theses creative juices really flow under such pressure unless you have ice water running in your veins (or a small measure of Whisky next to the drawing board). I take my hat off to anyone who can function in these two environments and remain relatively human; being a professional is not all that it’s cracked up to be…(especially if you want a happy life).

There’s no reason why amateurs, (i.e. people who love what they do, by its original definition) can’t have access to professional equipment, and RED has certainly provided an excellent tool for anyone who likes creating dynamic media (whatever it may be), but it doesn’t have to look “Amateur” (if you know what you are doing); that really levels the playing field I believe, and it’s never been easier or cheaper to produce “professional” looking results or acquire the knowledge and technique to do so. Isn’t that the whole point????

Ta.

Eric

 

[Eric Lange]

Alexander,

The Apollo program was absolutely not professional. It was bleeding edge, Nazi scientists were members, astronauts were dying, no one knew if it would work and it was all started by the edict of a single man: JFK.

A commercial airline is professional, NASA is not. Did Chuck Yeager fly for TWA? Astronauts were test pilots not commercial aviators. If you want to be NASA you have to accept that shit will blow up pretty often. That is not an option in a professional environment.

Professional for an existing industry requires working within an established infrastructure. The Apollo program did not do this because there was no existing aerospace industry at the time of Mercury and Apollo. NASA and its Russian counterpart were the only players, and they obviously weren't trying to adhere to each others protocols.

The technology from the moon missions trickled down to professional industries for decades. But in the 1960's it fit into no one's paradigm b/c NASA was making up the paradigm as they went along.

Genius is not necessarily synonymous with professional.

I do feel I have to set this one straight (a little).

A lot of movies ARE instigated by a single person’s vision, like Stanley Kubrick, George Lucas etc. etc.

Secondly, I have not known of any large film production where at least one person did not get killed, usually a technician, and numerous near misses. On balance I think US film industry has killed many more people than NASA has killed astronauts. So people that have been killed on set, can be attributed to “lack of professionalism”, safety chains on lights not being applied, faulty structures and lack of safety precautions. If you strap yourself to an ICBM you know there’s a good chance that you might get killed; but being killed for helping to make a movie is less excusable.


If it wasn’t for the space industry, this conversation and RED cameras would NOT be taking place untill at least fifteen years from now, as the space industry enabled the early development of the semiconductor industry. No ICs/semiconductors. No digital cameras.

Jim and the RED team are “amateurs” as they LOVE what they do, and yet can deliver a cutting edge professional tool driven by the passion to deliver stunning imagery. The fact that they do this practically alone and do not have the resources and infrastructure of SONY, Cannon, etc, means as AMATEURS they have to function and perform better than the so called “professionals”. This is much more difficult, and something I can relate to, hats off to them.

[Let’s just hope Jim is still as passionate about creating new cameras fifteen years from now!]

Seriously if you want to talk professionalism, we don’t want to get into a debate as to how “Amateur” the film industry really is...

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I agree with you... but I have no idea how my "conceptualization" dispensed with anything.

Mostly by asserting the tyranny of industry standards as if they defined professionalism. In an industry which changes as rapidly as imaging, the distinction (that you attempted to make) between a visionary and professional is a false dichotomy. You are asserting that RED is visionary and not professional - perhaps you were merely over-stating the case to make your point, or perhaps you actually believe this to be true.

But I say, that is BS, based on the realities that have defined industry standards. Standards are more evolutionary than rigid, and they are re-defined by each and every generation. Only the people entrenched in what they are doing right now think otherwise.

R3D, for instance, is not a gimmick, even though RED is good with the gimmicky naming - it is rapidly becoming a standard for RAW imaging against which other RAW images will be measured and deemed good, bad, or ugly. The fistfights and showdowns have already begun.

I would add that I believe RED is in the process of re-defining many of the standards for the forthcoming generation. In this, they aren't acting alone. But they are acting in ways which are attracting and deserving attention. And in ways which are getting major industy-driven projects accomplished.

If they ever unleash RED-RAY, EPIC, and SCARLET on the world, it could all get quite interesting. But the clock does tick, even for RED...

 

[Liam Hall]

I have not known of any large film production where at least one person did not get killed, usually a technician

Really? I can only think of a handful of deaths caused by on set accidents/stupidity.

Indeed, every shoot I'm on health and safety is taken extremely seriously - by a professional of course

 

[Eric Lange]

Really? I can only think of a handful of deaths caused by on set accidents/stupidity.

Indeed, every shoot I'm on health and safety is taken extremely seriously - by a professional of course

Admittedly that’s a slight over statement (on my part),but not far off the mark at least for the early seventies through to the mid eighties, where from an industrial safety point of view, things were a little wild or undefined by todays standards.

I was mainly thinking through the 60’s 70’ and 80’s, but it seems since the 90’s things are a lot safer (on set at least) , but as you know stupid things do happen. Not necessarily the focus of the thread to dig up and recount all the needlessly tragic and stupid ways that good people got killed, especially with respect to those involved and their families (not least of which to get sued as a result of an indiscrete post on REDUSER).

This is not current, but makes for an interesting read, and this is only stunts,

www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/harts1/HARTS_library/film8.txt

With software now, at least structural engineers can simulate more accurately and much more cheaply the performance of unusual structures and rigs, and now with CG it’s much easier to remove supporting elements, such as struts, stantions and wires in post. In the past these would have to be virtually free floating structures, almost unsupported, much more dangerous, and the things that people were required to do were more dangerous as well; I’m sure in previous film making eras doubly so.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Mostly by asserting the tyranny of industry standards as if they defined professionalism. In an industry which changes as rapidly as imaging, the distinction (that you attempted to make) between a visionary and professional is a false dichotomy. You are asserting that RED is visionary and not professional - perhaps you were merely over-stating the case to make your point, or perhaps you actually believe this to be true.

But I say, that is BS, based on the realities that have defined industry standards. Standards are more evolutionary than rigid, and they are re-defined by each and every generation. Only the people entrenched in what they are doing right now think otherwise.

R3D, for instance, is not a gimmick, even though RED is good with the gimmicky naming - it is rapidly becoming a standard for RAW imaging against which other RAW images will be measured and deemed good, bad, or ugly. The fistfights and showdowns have already begun.

I would add that I believe RED is in the process of re-defining many of the standards for the forthcoming generation. In this, they aren't acting alone. But they are acting in ways which are attracting and deserving attention. And in ways which are getting major industy-driven projects accomplished.

If they ever unleash RED-RAY, EPIC, and SCARLET on the world, it could all get quite interesting. But the clock does tick, even for RED...

Meryem,

First of all, in truth, the US film industry has been reluctant to change through out its history, forty years of which were dominated by the Studio System where talent, production and distribution were controlled by a handful of vertically integrated monopolies. So your characterization of breakneck technological advancement really doesn't jibe with the past.

And you can say that standards are BS and that "visionary vs professional" is a false dichotomy, but you are ignoring the many complaints that people have had concerning using Red in professional production and post production workflows as they are currently incarnated.

In my opinion, a professional tool does not have these problems. So there you have it: on one end a professional tool that every professional shop can work with seamlessly, or a visionary tool that can yield superior results but is not well integrated into many players' workflows. Of course both sides are adapting to each other when it comes to Red, but it's not there yet in a lot of people's eyes.

This is the reality. You allude to it, yet also make it sound like it does not exist or doesn't matter (sometimes); yet it's partly the reason of this thread. And the slow pace of technological change in the industry (not rampant creative destruction) is cited as one of the founding reasons for Red Digital Cinema.

As for R3D being a gimmick, of course it's not. I don't know if you thought I alluded to that or you were just bringing it up for another reason.

Anyway, the reality is what it is. And I described it using the term "professional" as it means to me, which was the starting purpose of this thread:

"I'd love to hear your take on what exactly professional means to you."

 

[Eric Lange]

So this means when a professional picks up a Pixelvision camera he instantly ceases to be a professional? I would hope the gear doesn't define a man but a man can define the gear.

....


Sorry for that last one. Off topic really. But my reply about the gear I think is still true.

Pixel Vision was freakin awsome, where is it now?

By far the most impressive dynamic image acquisition and storage system ever devised by man….

 

[Darrin Taylor]

Professional

Professional

To me professional means to be paid via contract.

The contract is important because a professional agrees to give a certain outcome for a certain price on a certain deadline. And has a reputation of not breaking that contract.

What makes someone perceived as a professional is their ability to meet the quality outcome the price outcome and the deadline outcome. Meeting the quality without cost and schedule is more in the world of art.

Some think that the ability and willingness to pay makes them professional.
I am able to pay and probably willing and I am the least professional camera guy on this site (I promise).

But Red and Red fans need to keep in mind that professional cuts both ways.

It may turn out that telling the customers what you intend to do but find yourself unable to do when circumstances change may not be perceived as the most professional course of action.

I think Red can be a professional camera company where only movie professionals buy their cameras and make money. Thats what the red one is. Thats what the epic family is.

But the scarlet was intended by price and placement to be below that level of camera. This was the camera for the wedding videographer, the student filmmaker, etc. I think Red has a real reputation issue in delivering a product to this segment. To a segment that doesn't necessarily consider itself professional.

The artist is free to do what he wants. The professional isn't free to do what he wants. The professional is bound by what he has agreed to do and will try and make good by that to whatever degree is reasonable.

 

[Kevin Wild]

Wow...I do not have time to read everyone's opinion on this, but I do think this is related. John August (screenwriter of Go and many Tim Burton films and others) wrote and presented an entire article based on this topic. Read this and I think you'll find MUCH of it applicable to this thread:

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/professional-writing-and-the-rise-of-the-amateur

 

[Erik Franzén]

Wow...I do not have time to read everyone's opinion on this, but I do think this is related. John August (screenwriter of Go and many Tim Burton films and others) wrote and presented an entire article based on this topic. Read this and I think you'll find MUCH of it applicable to this thread:

http://johnaugust.com/archives/2006/professional-writing-and-the-rise-of-the-amateur

Read the whole thing. Bloody excellent writing! Thanks for the link :beer:

 

[Eric S.]

Etymology

Etymology

Using "professional" to describe inanimate objects' worth is an etymological leap and a relatively recent one. In the early 15th century, professional was used to describe religious orders (or "professions" from "profess," to affirm belief). Around 1747, it expanded to careers in general, since religious orders were occupations which required specific knowledge, much like any career.

The evolution of "profession" from an affirmation of belief to an occupation is reasonable, considering the religious orders were considered professions. You profess belief, you join the order, you make your living serving the order, etc. But ignoring the original meaning, professional has essentially referred to making a living from a craft for over 250 years. Thus, any tool that someone uses for his / her career can be considered professional (of or related to the profession). That includes gaffer tape to clothespins to 12k HMIs.

I realize that many other companies have labeled their products as "professional." I also realize that language evolves and changes. But consider this: Canon could accurately call the 5dMII a professional filmmaking tool since it has been used on pro shoots. But that would be somewhat deceptive, wouldn't it? Given a RED and a 5d, we know which one your average DP would use more often.

Marketers are trying to use "professional" to indicate top-level quality. After all, if skilled people use them for their very livelihood, they have to be good. But the word has been diluted by trying to only describe the high-value tools that professionals use. A paramedic could use both a $50k semi-auto defibrillator and a $.50 pair of gloves in the course of saving a cardiac arrest victim. Or perhaps that paramedic is off-duty, witnesses a heart attack, and uses a public $2k AED to save the life. The professional is the person who defines the tools he / she uses. The tools a professional uses can vary greatly in price and purpose. Further, just because someone makes a living doing something doesn't mean that he / she is necessarily better than an amateur. Intriguing thought, isn't it?

Ultimately, RED is already a professional tool. The RED One has been used on many paid shoots. Consequently, you can't make a "more professional" Epic or Scarlet. It's not (yet) a synonym for good or better. It either is, or is not, related to the profession. RED definitely is.

 

[Matthew Bennett]

To me professional gear means that during the course of any given day, it will get the sh*t beaten out of it. It will be trampled, beaten, tweaked, stomped, thrown roughly into storm cases, cursed at, run far past it's breaking point, tossed from a truck into a pile of metal at the end of day.

If it's a 'professional' piece of gear, it will survive to live and work again.