worldwide Red and its owner policy puts LA major rental houses in panic

[Häakon]

I think there's fear in the market - rightfully so. There's been a demand and only a small number of shooters to fill it. Suddenly, the number of shooters is going to skyrocket but the demand is going to remain constant. That means shooters will have to take less money to win the same contracts, and that will equate to lower incomes and all the issues of poverty that go with it.

I understand some of the fear, but I'm not sure the number of shooters is going to go up all that much. At least in the feature market. Perhaps the number of owner/operators will, but just because you own a RED camera doesn't mean a production company is going to give you the job over someone with an established, solid record. If the "pro" guys are worried about losing jobs to "amateur" shooters who happen to have Red cameras, then they're more paranoid than I thought.

Contracts may change more in the lower/end commercial, music video, or corporate market, but that's been happening already. Just have to learn to adapt sometimes.

And for the independents who are saying this is a great thing for indie production, think about like this... You've got 1000+ people who wanted to shoot a feature film but didn't have the means until now. That means 1000 additional films will be floating in the distribution void within a year, seeking an audience. How is anyone's indie film going to get heard in that mess?

Again, I don't think that RED is going to cause any severe influx of independent films any more than DV or 24p did. Sure, it'll cause an influx of 4K films, but as you pointed out, will that mean a lot to the majority of distribution companies or film festivals out there? As I previously stated, my last film was shot on an HVX because that's what our budget could afford. Would I have liked to shoot on 35mm or an F900 or even RED if it was a possibility? Of course, but there's always a limit and you just have to find a way to be creative with what you have. For us, that meant using the M2 to get the shallow DOF we wanted. But it certainly didn't stop us from making the film just because we didn't have a RED ONE lying around...

So your movie is in 4k... so are a thousand other movies, the distributors won't care. Picture quality will become irrelevant and judgments will fall back on what the distributors care about; name actors, big money, and nepotism. There goes the indie movement right out the window.

Agreed, I don't think anyone is thinking that having a 4K camera will be the magic solution to make your movie amazing. It takes a myriad of other (more important) elements to really get a film to shine. But this is an argument that has been beaten to death, especially since the arrival of 24P on the scene. What it does mean is the potential for higher quality, however, and while that may or may not have a direct impact on the way a story is told, people do notice and care - especially the filmmakers. Could Steven Spielberg have shot "War Of The Worlds" on DV? Sure, Spielberg can do anything he wants. But I think a lot of people would have been pretty dissapointed if they saw compressed 4:1:1 video on the big screen. It would be like watching a feature film on YouTube: entirely possible but not the best experience. Yet some people do it on their iPods every day. Anyway, the point is we all have different thresholds for quality demands, but my hope is that most of us - at least those who are actively making films - want the quality of their material to be the best it possibly can, and this camera is another (great) piece of the puzzle.

If Red is going to become a revolutionary tool, then the battlefield must become revolutionary as well. Distribution, potentially profitable distribution, must be readily available to ALL the independents. Audience exposure must be given to every movie in equal portions. The marketing costs of distribution must be rendered irrelevant, and the success of each movie must be placed directly in the hands of the viewing public. THAT is when the revolution will take place.

I'm fired up on this now... I'm going to find a way to make this distribution revolution happen.

I think, again, that independents have wanted something similar to this for a long time - Red or not. There are a handful of "movie showcase" websites that give equal exposure to independent films - the question is, how many people actually actively seek them out and watch each one? Advertising, word, of mouth, reviews, critical acclaim - all the usual suspects - still have the most impact on the end user seeing something. That being said, if you think you have the answer for the little guy, I definitely won't stand in your way.

 

[Roberto B]

With all due respect, I don't like the mindset that any kind of tool can "only" be for a certain segment of the population and that it's absolutely "not" for others.

Sure, the end user's ability to generate business with the camera is a different subject entirely, and that is likely reserved for more professional users. But I recall a post on DVXUser at one point from an older gentleman who isn't even in the film business and is interested in Red for his own "home movies" because he's thrilled at the prospect of the quality that the camera will offer and has had enough still photography experience to understand apertures and shutter speeds and how the camera will function. If he's willing to put his own $20K down, who are you or I to tell him that it's an innapropriate piece of gear for his nonprofessional uses?

I do agree wholeheartedly that RED wont "make you an artist" and the camera is just one small part of the chain in being able to effectively tell a compelling story. But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me. If a kid buys the camera under his own misguided pretense that it will magically make all of his films amazing and then fails miserably, that's his problem, not ours. And he will probably learn a good life lesson in the process. But there could also be a talented upcomer who can properly take advantage of all of the benefits that Red has to offer, and I see no reason to stifle that based on reasons of ego.

I also don't think that many film students are going to be able to afford such a camera, even if it is priced well below anything remotely comparable to it. If they can, more power to them. I for one am happy to see this progress of technology. The bottom line is that it won't change the ratio of good films to bad films, but it will allow the good ones to be that much better - regardless of who is shooting them.

great value.. great point.. my respect..

they're too much interested on their own business.. that's their problem..

and when they're saying they're not it is when they are more than ever..

who cares who they say? loooooooool

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?s=&showtopic=21527&view=findpost&p=161660

 

[Joel Kaye]

Another thing owning RED allows is for DP's or newbies to get a TON of 35mm experience fast. In a few months of shooting RED every day people who have an eye and some talent are going to grow much more quickly than if they had to wait for a film to come along that they could shoot 35mm style. This is a different kind of shooting than just grabbing a DVX-100 or HVX200. 35mm adapters are very similar though.

The result will likely be that in 2-3 years there will be a lot more competition for DP jobs. The top end guys won't have to worry much - they've got major film experience already.

There does need to be an indie distribution revolution - and it could, but indies will have to become business people who create marketable products. That's something RED can't solve.

 

[Steven Parker]

Another thing owning RED allows is for DP's or newbies to get a TON of 35mm experience fast.

I can't agree with that... as great a camera as Red may be, I'm sure it's a heck of a lot different than shooting 35mm. Knowing your various filmstocks, when can you push it or pull it, knowing when to turn on (or off) that fill light - you can only get that experience by shooting those stocks. Every stock reacts differently and there's going to be a learning curve for the Red responses to light as well.

I think owning a Red will be a good business investment for people who already know how to shoot - how to compose, light, use visuals to emphasize emotions and get thru the day on schedule. Without those skills, no camera in the world could help you make it as a shooter. Pick any great painter - would their work be less powerful if they only had crayons instead of oils?

The rental houses will be fine - there's a ton of DVX/HVX/VariCam/Sony owner/operators out there... and a ton of rental houses supplying them too.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Knowing your various filmstocks, when can you push it or pull it, knowing when to turn on (or off) that fill light

I didn't mention film when I said 35mm. Two different things. Agreed - RED won't give you any film experience. And film won't give you REDCINE experience.

Pick any great painter - would their work be less powerful if they only had crayons instead of oils?

Um - yeah. All of them. I'll just respectfully disagree if you don't think that shooting RED over a HVX200 would make the same DP's stuff look better. It will IMHO. A great DP with an HVX could probably beat a bad DP with RED every time. But that's a different point. They'd both be better off with a better camera. Now someone truly weak would probably be better off with a video camera that has auto exposure and autofocus. They'll figure that out when they get a RED, get frustrated and give up.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Another thing owning RED allows is for DP's or newbies to get a TON of 35mm experience fast. In a few months of shooting RED every day people who have an eye and some talent are going to grow much more quickly than if they had to wait for a film to come along that they could shoot 35mm style.

We've seen something very similar to this with the rise of the DSLR. The instant feedback allows for a lot more "keepers" and photographers are developing their technique much more quickly. Of course, their compositional skills may not be improving at the same rate, but DSLR users are shooting a lot more frames in an average month than 35mm film users were typically shooting and they're developing levels of technical proficiency very quickly.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

DSLRs have really helped people learn photography through instant feedback, low cost of shooting, high quality images, metadata so you know what settings you used, and ease of internet posting so you can get good constructive criticism.

Graeme

 

[Joel Kaye]

DSLRs have really helped people learn photography through instant feedback, low cost of shooting, high quality images, metadata so you know what settings you used, and ease of internet posting so you can get good constructive criticism.

Graeme

I wasn't even thinking that - but you're right. I used to manage a camera store back before digital got big. I shot a ton of film and looked at hundreds of customer photos every day (doling out the kind of feedback you're talking about). But despite years around cameras and a lot of shooting MY photography got much better when I first got a Nikon D-100 and I started taking WAY more photos and could watch the histogram and bring it into Photoshop etc.

Yeah - that's what I think RED will do. And frankly, it's a damn good reason to own one. Shoot the heck out of it. Try everything. If you get to the point you feel you're expert then sell it and rent when you need it. Regular video cameras just aren't going to give you the same experience RED will. And if you do shoot some amazing stuff you've got it in 4K.

No brainer.

 

[Joe Carney]

This leads to another issue. Wouldn't it be great to set up a forum section on cinematography issues? Maybe those with 35mm experience could offer tips and advice to others? Not film, but lens, light, framing...? I don't mean the lens tests, but real world advice.

As for why to get the camera? For me, it's because I want to make independent scifi and horror films, which means lots of green/blue screen shots and low light shooting. From what I've seen so far, Red will allow me to pull pristine keys compared to what I could do before and get low light shots like nobodys business.
No more dealing with HDV compression issues, or even the limitations of 8bit 4:2:2. Red will offer a tremendous boost for those us wanting to do genre movies.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Red will offer a tremendous boost for those us wanting to do genre movies.

It should offer up a tremendous boost to people working in all kinds of production. People who have a way to own and use a piece of equipment on a regular basis are a lot more likely to come up with interesting ways to use it. I'm always taking my HD100 and doing some kind of tabletop tests with it. I was throwing a bunch of light through water in a fish tank a couple of nights ago and using Braun hand mixers to generate "water spout" swirls and patterns in the water and then kind of shaping it with shutter speed. The compression artifacts actually weren't too bad most of the time. The kind of things people will come up with when they have full-time access to a camera like the RED will surprise a lot of people. Once the tools are powerful enough and readily accessible the only practical limitation starts to be imagination and creativity.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Red will allow me to pull pristine keys compared

Compared to other video cameras yes - but I've seen F-950 uncompressed plates that are shot as well as possible and it's still not point and click. Great comps usually require multiple masks, great color and lighting matching, wrapping the background light around the foreground and more. But a good artist should be able to tear it up with RED footage if it is what we hope it is. No jaggies, low noise.

 

[Steven Parker]

I didn't mention film when I said 35mm. Two different things. Agreed - RED won't give you any film experience. And film won't give you REDCINE experience.



Um - yeah. All of them. I'll just respectfully disagree if you don't think that shooting RED over a HVX200 would make the same DP's stuff look better. It will IMHO. A great DP with an HVX could probably beat a bad DP with RED every time. But that's a different point. They'd both be better off with a better camera. Now someone truly weak would probably be better off with a video camera that has auto exposure and autofocus. They'll figure that out when they get a RED, get frustrated and give up.

You're right - you didn't say film, so moot point for me. And you all bring up excellent points about feedback from working digitally.

But it's weird... I know that technically, in terms of format specs, resolution, etc, a Red blows an HVX out of the water (and many other cameras as well)... but does that mean the final images are better only because they are higher rez, bigger aspect ratio, etc etc ? (I know - everyone's gonna flame me with shouts "YES!")

Hope I didn't offend you, joelnet. Just thinking out loud about the emotional impact of imagery as opposed to tech specs. Sometimes lo-fi works.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Hope I didn't offend you, joelnet. Just thinking out loud

None taken - it was a logical train of thought. Believe me, half my messages are edited 'cause I was thinking out loud when I hit "submit". (Now if I only I had a "preview post" button whenever I'm in a screenwriting meeting with other writers!)

As far as RED being a better camera I think the combination of 11 stops along with 35mm DOF/Bokeh and a much better codec will all add up to much prettier images. I don't want to bash on the HVX - but it's a pretty noisy and pretty soft... but not in a good way.

Film is soft in that there's still a ton of resolution but the edges of things don't have that video feel. That's a good thing to my eye. Hopefully RED and it's CMOS sensor will be more like that. The images they've posted look exactly like that to me.

Compare a portrait shot with a Digital SLR to a point and click rangefinder shooting the same portrait on film. Film isn't going to win the day. The DSLR lens will win the day. Same thing with moving images..

I bet we hear some people saying RED feels soft too when they see footage. But I think that's because people who are used to sharpened video. If you've got a DSLR that let's you turn off in-camera-sharpening it's really apparent.

 

[dalemccready]

There have been many instances when being forced to shoot DV commercials that I feel like I'm wasting my time with good lighting and think to myself "this would look so much better on a decent format".

So I think it is possible that people will benefit from the added resolution and depth of Red without neccessarily having added that value themselves.

That kind of is the point of pushing this technology isn't it? Everyone wins.

But as they say:

"If you know how to light, it doesn't matter which stock you use. If you don't know how to light, it doesn't matter which stock you use"

 

[Joel Kaye]

I feel like I'm wasting my time with good lighting and think to myself "this would look so much better on a decent format".

So I think it is possible that people will benefit from the added resolution and depth of Red without necessarily having added that value themselves.

I just know from shooting straight HD vs. using a 35mm adapter the 35mm stuff looks way better to me instantly. Sure it's harder to move the camera and focus - but just having some pretty bokeh slide behind a character helps a ton.

Most people at this point know lighting for DV/HD is different and requires more precision than lighting for film. Film exposure is much more forgiving. I'd argue that if you can make it look really good on DV then when RED shows up you'll kick butt. Time will tell though. Again - there may be some frustration at first, but get out there and shoot a couple hundred hours in a month and watch how fast you gain ground on the big boys. That's my plan anyway. (Yeah - I'll be deleting a lot of stuff)

 

[Michael Brennan]

Subtle

Subtle

Film exposure is much more forgiving. I'd argue that if you can make it look really good on DV then when RED shows up you'll kick butt. Time will tell though. Again - there may be some frustration at first, but get out there and shoot a couple hundred hours in a month and watch how fast you gain ground on the big boys. That's my plan anyway. (Yeah - I'll be deleting a lot of stuff)

Controlling the dynamic range on location for a given budget for DV/HD/RED is usually more difficult than film.
Having done that what then counts is the part between black and peak white. Subtle lighting is more apparent on large screen displays and cinema.

I'm not sure shooting and lighting for DV will give you all the experience you need to instantly translate to higher res system with greater recording depth.
But a well setup, decent monitor ensures a fast learning curve.



Mike

 

[chace]

How True!

How True!

But the backlash from "established" shooters who are so vehemently opposed to younger/amateur/independent filmmakers even giving the camera a moment's thought is quite odd to me.

It's odd isn't it? I think the establishment at CML was a little miffed at being ignored in the development process of RED.....along with a marketing approach that they feel is "devisive"....their words, not mine. The "revolution" ..."you're with us or against us"....and on and on, left the established shooters/EFX-types at CML feeling like outsiders in a business where they consider themselves to be industry leaders. (hmmm)

My first posting at CML led to a listmum censoring my emails. I was labled a "disciple of RED hyperbole"...and consequently, every other email was not allowed. The tone of CML is set by the owner and cemented by the advertisers and long-time posters there. Please keep in mind, many of them are terrific individuals...very talented...and don't have a chip on their shoulder....but there are several who dispise anyone who doesn't "pay their dues" shall we say. They consider their craft worthy of respect....a craft that took many years to perfect....whatever.....and here are you guys....the barbarians banging at their gate. ha

As for many of you that post here who are just starting out....hang in there. Don't let the establishment get you down....we all gotta start somewhere. There are just as many talented people that post here anyway....and a nicer tone of support to boot! Thanks for that Jared.

Anway, I think there is a comaparison to Folk Art in here somewhere. Most folk artists are self taught...outsiders....who may not be the next Monet or Rembrandt, but who created a new form of art....and one that has been recognized world wide.

Keep in mind...there are many ways to tell a story visually. Some stories don't need a CML DP....or 12K's...and a crew of 100.

Anyway, I personally can't wait to see what many of you create. Exciting times! I think we all owe JJ a round of drinks for sticking his neck out and creating a handheld Dalsa.


chace
dir
backyard.com
venice

#770-something

 

[Robert Jackson]

But a well setup, decent monitor ensures a fast learning curve.

It's not state-of-the-art or anything, but I have a pain-Jane 30" Apple Cinema Display that works really well as an on-set monitor, IMO. I have to use a component to DVI converter, but the RED could probably feed it some recognizable DVI signal.