Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Variety strikes again...

Ted,

I remember all the latent mis-information regarding Red workflow. It continues even in DP friends of mine who don't test the camera before using it. (you know who I speak of)

And knowing that a big part of your job is informing people about Red I understand your frustration.

But in the end the truth is in the results. We are using Epics for Spiderman because we tested EVERYTHING out there and felt Epic provided exactly what we desired in a capture device.

And I guess you have to be patient.

Your friend,

Peter
 
Wow, that was a really poor article. So, are CCD's the future? Geez...

I thought I was reading a testimonial from Arri.
 
Tonaci Tran said:
With the Hobbit, Priates, Spiderman, and Aliens..not to mention the multitude of other unannounced projects hitting... I'd love to see them try this again. They will just end up looking foolish IMO. To omit Social Network, is already quite absurd.
Click to expand...

The writer is either an complete fool, or we will start to see full page ads for ARRI Alexa in Variety very soon - which is the ONLY explanation I have for such a totally pathetic, unbalanced article.

I'm sure we will see plenty more attacks as folks get really threatened. And I'm sure the lower resolution folks will try hard to spread FUD about how you can see defects in actors faces, etc. YAWN.

For the record, I'm sure you can find a few hundred actresses in Hollywood that WISH they looked as good as Nicole looks in Rabbit Hole.
 
After reading Ted's post, I've decided to cancel my intentions to someday subscribe to Variety.
 
I always find the argument that "x" film stock or digital camera has "too much" resolution a bit silly because (1) there are always lower-resolution alternatives, formats, etc. and (2) it's so easy to toss away resolution but you can't create it if it doesn't exist. You can use filters, older lenses, post processing, whatever, to soften an image -- it's not rocket science! Ultimately, it's often better to oversample detail than to undersample it and have to artificially sharpen it later. Plus half the ways that a project gets distributed end up lowering resolution anyway, so do you really want to start out with less resolution except for certain projects where that's the artistic intent?

I mean, sure, if you don't need resolution and are happier with a lower-resolution camera, film stock, lens, whatever, then fine, use what makes you happy, but we should have access to the best tools possible and not be limited to lower quality levels.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
It's all about The Hollywood Reporter. Great new website, daily PDF, print edition.
Click to expand...
Mark, ThanksForTheLink!! First impression is of IMDB Light... that is, all the latest news of note in a very concise and uncluttered format. It seems the headlines are well written in that they inform the reader of the content of the story as opposed to competing with other stories for the readers' time.

Thanks for the heads-up.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
it's so easy to toss away resolution but you can't create it if it doesn't exist. You can use filters, older lenses, post processing, whatever, it's not rocket science! Ultimately, it's often better to oversample detail than to undersample it and have to artificially sharpen it later.
Click to expand...

Amen. I should just use this as my email signature.
 
It's sad that the magazine would seem to turn a blind eye to some facts and somewhat misrepresent truths. Unfortunately, that just seems all too common, not just in this instance and not just pertaining to RED.

On the other, it's great that RED is taking the next step forward with EPIC. And it's great that, especially with the Epic-M schedule, DPs, Directors, and Producers are "seeing RED" in a new light every day.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Ultimately, it's often better to oversample detail than to undersample it and have to artificially sharpen it later. Plus half the ways that a project gets distributed end up lowering resolution anyway, so do you really want to start out with less resolution except for certain projects where that's the artistic intent?
Click to expand...
David's post gives me an opening to ask him or anyone with knowledge, something I have wondered about for some time.

That is, will a distributor be more apt to bid on an Independent movie shot in high resolution RAW due to the probability they would have to spend less dollars in post in order to get the movie ready for release?
 
What you don't want is over-sharpened false detail or any kind of video-like skintone detail type plastic alternative. Good measured resolution, not forced, is what we do, and it's the right thing to do.

I do have to laugh that Variety think that R3D is proprietary, but that Apple ProRes is not. Perhaps they need to be bought a dictionary this holiday season?

Graeme
 
Elsie N said:
David's post gives me an opening to ask him or anyone with knowledge, something I have wondered about for some time.

That is, will a distributor be more apt to bid on an Independent movie shot in high resolution RAW due to the probability they would have to spend less dollars in post in order to get the movie ready for release?
Click to expand...

No. Distributors RARELY "bid" on films independently produced prior to post being complete. Sometimes it does happen - if the cast gets really exciting and a mini-major or studio is tracking the project closely - but most of time - distributors acquire "finished" independent films. They rarely care what it was shot on - but they do care very much how it looks.
 
Red has become a victim of Whack-a-Mole syndrome. Stick your head too far above the crowd in any field of endeavor and you become a target.:emote_whack:
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
No. Distributors RARELY "bid" on films independently produced prior to post being complete. Sometimes it does happen - if the cast gets really exciting and a mini-major or studio is tracking the project closely - but most of time - distributors acquire "finished" independent films. They rarely care what it was shot on - but they do care very much how it looks.
Click to expand...
I probably didn't provide enough information... I really meant a film that is made and shown in a festival setting after post being complete.

What I'm curious about is if the story is good and the post work is less than top-notch, would a distributor (knowing that the movie could be re-cut from original RAW footage and then run through post) bid more based on that bit of knowledge or would they only bid based on story?

It has been my understanding that many festival movies are put through a complete makeover before release, and I was just wondering if starting over with original unprocessed RAW footage might not be preferred.
 
Last edited:
In the past year I've read a few books about marketing (I am by no means an expert) and I have noticed a few things about the companies or products that I admire most.

- They make a great product
- They treat their customers and their potential customers with respect
- They market their product to the people they admire most (which means it's not for everyone)

Which means that in the end, these companies and their customers are happy.

I admire RED.

Don't lose any sleep Ted.

No rhyme intended.
 
At the time when "The Hobbit" hits the big screen and will make over one billion dollars at the box office, Red-Ranters will start to rethink, I think.

m2c

Peter
 
Stephen Aldridge said:
In the past year I've read a few books about marketing (I am by no means an expert) and I have noticed a few things about the companies or products that I admire most.

- They make a great product
- They treat their customers and their potential customers with respect
- They market their product to the people they admire most (which means it's not for everyone)

Which means that in the end, these companies and their customers are happy.

I admire RED.

Don't lose any sleep Ted.

No rhyme intended.
Click to expand...

Stephen - I don't claim to be an expert in anything, but I have spent a few years kicking around marketing. Historically, marketing is often broken down to the "Four Ps" - one of which is PRODUCT. A lot of people think of marketing as just advertising but the whole marketing process starts with knowing the needs of your target customer and designing a product to best meet those needs. I think you nailed it when you pointed out that RED started in the right place - with a great PRODUCT. Without that, no amount of promotion, aggressive pricing or "cool" advertising is going to make a product successful. That doesn't mean RED can skip all those other steps and processes, but it sure makes selling easier when you have a product that people lust after because it solves their problems and meets their needs!:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top