What RED can do that FILM can't?

[miles]

What RED can do that FILM can't?

It can make corporations with monopoly tremble and indie filmmakers salivate.

Lp, m.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Red cannot adjust ISO in camera. In fact, Red can't adjust ISO at all, period. It is what it is. The "ISO" setting you are changing has no effect on the sensor sensitivity, it's simply meta data that changes how your monitor perceives the RAW data.

Thanks for the info Shawn, i didn't know that.

Is it easy to change ISO in post ?

If so, it's even better, better flexibility.

Antoine

 

[Júlio Taubkin]

I'm sure I'll get crucified here for saying this, but... here's a casual observation:
Film makes everyone focus. Everyone on the set knows how expensive it is, and that puts everyone on their A-game. The AD and his team crack the whip, the grips work hard, the ACs measure and mark the focus 12 ways to Sunday. The actors hit their marks, remember their lines, and rarely ask, "are we rolling?"
Even on micro-budget indie movies everyone stays in the game, even if they don't yet have a lot of experience.
I've noticed, on digitally photographed projects, that everyone loosens up a bit, and often the mantra becomes the old standby, "tape is cheap". Maybe the dolly grip does not pay as much attention and misses his mark by a little bit, maybe the actress fumbles her way around the lines a bit more, maybe the AD is wondering if his Porsche is ready to be picked up instead of cueing the other actor...
NOW,
Some wonderful accidents happen, often where performance is concerned, when everyone loosens up. And rolling out over and over again just when the performance is getting good on a 200' mag because that's the only way to jam the camera inside that Mini-Cooper is not very rewarding from a cinematography point of view.
BUT...
When everyone focuses, work gets done. And sloppy operating and relaxed PAs joking with the director instead of locking up the street is a BAD thing.
I bet right now, with 4 minutes on a CF card, everyone focuses. But once we get those hard drives, will many people shooting with Red become sloppier just because we can keep rolling? (although it does not seem to have slowed down people with P2 cards)
And remember, some poor schnook (the editing team) has to review, log, back up and archive all of these files.
I'm speaking here of narrative work, not docs or reality TV, where rolling a lot is a GOOD thing. And, of course I get it... you could certainly end up with a polished turd that lots of professionals focused on, and a rough but lovable piece of art that everyone was relaxed on. I just don't think the latter occurs as often as some people think.
And I'm half-joking, because I believe that the advantages of digital photography outweigh any technical or philosophical shortcomings (otherwise I would not be chomping at the bit for #344)
But those are my observations, nonetheless... Ok, I think I rambled a bit...
Cheers,
Harry

From real life experience, I've never seen a crew working less focused because the camera is less expensive. I Ad'ed in a recent movie shot mostly on a DVX100 (Along S16 and 35) for aesthetic purposes, and in the DVX weeks, nobody took their work less seriously. Honestly, people will give a crap about how much a camera cost, if they get to keep their jobs the next day. There is a pretty simple way to fix a crew that is not working properly and professionally, and most professionals are very well aware of that.

 

[redicule]

I'm sure I'll get crucified here for saying this, but... here's a casual observation:
Film makes everyone focus. ... Ok, I think I rambled a bit...
Cheers,
Harry

this is all extremely valid, not ramble. I would perhaps argue that it's not so much fromat related, but how the set is run in the first place. Something as simple as a clapper board can change the focus of set crew in an instant - I have seen this effect lost on film shoots using code with no sync slates. I have also experienced some very professional video shoots.

The one thing I have noticed about Red is that people approach it more like a video camera, which they shouldn't. I've been asked why would you need a 2nd AC, or a DIT - can't the 1st AC do all that, afterall, it's only video, and no there will be no grips because video cameras don't need grips, they are light.... 35mm DOF, (and yes the camera when built with a pro mattebox & FF & support gets pretty heavy) CF cards changed as regularly as mags, and the data created when you roll continuously because you dont have upfront film costs..... I can see the suicide rate at post houses increasing at the same rate that the data comes in!!!

All I can say is invest in shares with one of the major HDD manufatures!!!

 

[Häakon]

The truth is that in almost all cases, performance is king. If a take has a great performance but soft focus, I would be that the editor would use the better performance oh, about, 100% of the time.

Absolutely. But it's easier to catch little snags or problems on set using a digital workflow - especially a non-tape-based one - than with a system where it's impossible to see what's "in the can" until after all of the actors have gone home and the location permits have expired. I've been on more than one HD set where a scene was reshot because an issue was found during ingest. It may not be the most efficient approach and I am not making a blanket argument for digital over film in every capacity, but I still maintain that there are workflow advantages to shooting digitally that just physically cannot be achieved when shooting film.

Keep in mind also that as long as the equipment is in proper working order, a mis-focused shot is due to operator error regardless of the format. So while the potential for these errors exists equally in the digital realm, at least there's the potential for checking what you've got. I don't think the importance of that should be underestimated.

 

[redicule]

You can't tell which way around to insert a CF card in the dark by licking it.

 

[redicule]

You can't tell which way around to insert a CF card in the dark by licking it.

 

[mezmo]

.

Because, my future(willing to consider) producer heard the FILM vs RED arguments, he wants to see a demo reel with only capabilities of RED, so I am trying to find out the only points of RED, so that I can previsualise some story/scenes/shots that enhance RED only strengths and the improve our chances

Hi Visakk,
The best way to promote the Red acquistion system is in money saved
by a producer in this area. Even on a low/medium budget around 300-500K US dollars saved in many areas.
This is a lot in acquisition compared to normal 35mm film acquisition. Less for HD.
The money saved can then go to digital intermediate and film-out or
publicity and promotion of the film, or even help buy a release season for the project. These costs are what most low budget films struggle with.
A producer will be more interested in this than camera functions, Red only capabilities,
film/digital differences IMHO.
Mezmo

 

[Blue]

This is NOT a RED vs FILM topic.

Lesson one: Read the name that you have just assigned to the thread before typing.

No apologies. That is simply insane and rattles the f**k out of me.

 

[Harry Clark]

There is a pretty simple way to fix a crew that is not working properly and professionally, and most professionals are very well aware of that.


I cannot explain it other than to say I've definitely witnessed it... and it's nothing so overt as people not working professionally, but there is a subtle change much of the time.
I think it trickles down from the top. The DP and director relax just a little, and everyone loosens up more from there... actors too. I remember when the little DV cameras became a viable medium for small films. Every well-known actor in Hollyood started making little films and spoke of how "liberating" it was to just let the camera roll and roll while they improved into mush. Most of those films were junk, and are thankfully forgotten about now.
I think Red will make people stay on their "A" game, though. The workflow is a lot like film, the files are big, the focus is critical. All that will keep the above the line people and key crew members on edge just enough to give 110% all the time (like most professionals do now)
Just my opinion...
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I have known people shoot features on 35mm Film for $100,000, it would be cool to save $3-500,000 using a Red, I just don't understand where the savings would be made.

If you need a 35mm print then shooting 35mm 1:1.85 will usually be the cheapest way.

Stephen

Hi Visakk,
The best way to promote the Red acquistion system is in money saved
by a producer in this area. Even on a low/medium budget around 300-500K US dollars saved in many areas.
This is a lot in acquisition compared to normal 35mm film acquisition. Less for HD.
The money saved can then go to digital intermediate and film-out or
publicity and promotion of the film, or even help buy a release season for the project. These costs are what most low budget films struggle with.
A producer will be more interested in this than camera functions, Red only capabilities,
film/digital differences IMHO.
Mezmo

 

[Greg M]

Hi,

I have known people shoot features on 35mm Film for $100,000, it would be cool to save $3-500,000 using a Red, I just don't understand where the savings would be made.

If you need a 35mm print then shooting 35mm 1:1.85 will usually be the cheapest way.

Stephen

I agree Stephen, we shoot primarily commercials and I'm not seeing a significant savings. There is a cost savings, its just not huge as some peple say. You have no film cost and you will have post savings, on a $100,000 budget that might amount to $5,000 to $25,000 in cost savings depending on a number of factors. More than likely closer to the lower end.
What you do gain is a much better workflow, assuming you have an appropriate facility and superior vfx workflows.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I agree Stephen, we shoot primarily commercials and I'm not seeing a significant savings.

Hi,

Thats been my experience, I just shot 9 days of S16 there is no way we could have afforded a Red, Viper, F23, or F900R.

Stephen

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Stephen & Greg:
For projects like yours I completely agree, but I think the reason there are so many relatively inexperienced filmmakers on this site with reservations is that we think that we can apply the HDV model to the production (cheap as chips..) but capture the image with a camera that wouldn't disgrace any fully funded feature film. So if you consider the quality jump it is a MASSIVE cost saving.. Or to be more truthful it is making the impossible possible. Arguably RED will make the most difference to artists and independent filmmakers.. people with ideas but little money. As soon as I get mine I'm going to film all kinds of stuff, much of it fun and interesting but likely to be no-budget..

But Stephen, I'm confused. My experience of S16 in the UK is that it is pretty expensive. If I own a RED camera and have a decent post workflow going in-house then I know I'll save a packet on previous S16 projects. I guess it depends on the particular project and what your setup is..?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen & Greg:

But Stephen, I'm confused. My experience of S16 in the UK is that it is pretty expensive. If I own a RED camera and have a decent post workflow going in-house then I know I'll save a packet on previous S16 projects. I guess it depends on the particular project and what your setup is..?

Hi,

Camera rental cost 1.5 day week, both weekends were attached to the week so we got 9 shoot days for the cost of 1.5. The one light pass from the lab is so good we don't need to do any more telecine. In total we shot 10 x 400' rolls. Total crew including director was 3! This was a micro budget production.

I was shooting in Switzerland, however lab & telecine in the UK works out at £72.00 per roll, Kodak gave us the stock half price as it's for a charity.

Camera Hire, Film & telecine for 9 days cost under £2,500.

Stephen

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

ok fair play, that is pretty cheap..
Although, I guess when you get your RED camera the cost will be £0 or £2500 in your pocket..

BTW, I like your website: fast loading images rather than quicktimes.. great idea.. And the stills look nice! ... I need to get old Pierce on my website :innocent:

 

[Stephen Williams]

ok fair play, that is pretty cheap..
Although, I guess when you get your RED camera the cost will be £0 or £2500 in your pocket..

BTW, I like your website: fast loading images rather than quicktimes.. great idea.. And the stills look nice! ... I need to get old Pierce on my website :innocent:

Hi,

The problem is there will be £0 for me, thats what happens with the 35mm Kit!

There are some wmv's if you click the left picture of the commercials. They seem to open with quicktime fairly fast.

Stephen

 

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

Hi,

Camera Hire, Film & telecine for 9 days cost under £2,500.

Try that in Norway....

 

[Stephen Williams]

Try that in Norway....

Hi Eirik,

I often rent equipment from other countries when it's cheaper.

What do film rental houses offer in Norway, I got a 3 day week with 50% discount fairly common IMHO.

Stephen

 

[Jim Arthurs]

In total we shot 10 x 400' rolls. Total crew including director was 3! This was a micro budget production.

That's amazing.

The best I've done was in 1998; I shot a 90min feature on 16 x 400', regular 16mm, using a mixture of borrowed NPR's and SR1's. One light telecine on night rates, no discounts from Kodak, and the total cost for all things film related was $7,000 US.

The total budget was 10,000 US, leaving just 3,000 for all those other pesky expenses like cast, crew and food. Belive it or not, that money took it through final BetaSP masters, original music, and first rate (if I do say so myself) VFX by pulling a lot of favors. Heck, even the cost of VHS box art and shrink wrapping was covered in that number...

"Before God and Country, I first must tithe to Kodak"