Film vs Red in music videos

[Joel Kaye]

I plan my great experiment tomorrow when I will download a R3D file and put it through RedCine. Has anyone ever brought up the anamorphic issue with RED? Anything in the works?

... Sony R1. RAW looks okay. But put it through photoshop CS2, adjust contrast, color, etc. and the final image is perfection. If that same thing can be done with Red RAW through RedCine and RedAlert! then I'm sold on Red.

There's a new anamorphic shooting mode on the camera but I don't know who's shot it and how it works exactly. But they appear to be thinking about it.

If you can make a Sony R1 look good then you'll be able to make RED look good. Grab some R3D files and play with them. Be sure to test some 4K because those do look the best to my eye. RED's the only reasonably priced option outside of film for that look.

 

[6bitgulch]

Then I'm sold on RED. I can take very so so pictures shot in RAW and make them POP as it were.
But interestingly I did come across this somewhere during a websurfing expedition. I will be more careful and include author, etc in the future. And I hope it is okay to paste the message which follows. My conclusion from this is.....
........ if one were to plan a film shoot renting Panavision equipment it would cost (for a 3 wk shoot)
camera: $6700
lens: $4500
1000' mag/14 mag: $2226
total: $13,426
still need lights/grip truck

Now I would instead just about have the RED camera body paid for.

message from another site....
I used to work at Panavision Woodland Hills, so I can probably answer most Panavision questions.

As was said before, Panavision gear is rented, not purchased. They also rent Arri gear as well (among others).

It is really hard to pin down what is good about one system versus another because they all have their own pluses and minuses.

I think the Arri 435 is a better high speed camera than the Panastar, but I love a good old GII for normal work (its simple and reliable).

Talk to a few ACs and you will here stories of a body going down whether it be Arri or Panavision (the last show I was on we went through 2 bodies).

The big difference in renting from Panavision is the lenses, which I feel are the best around, and the service, which I feel is the best around. This is all highly subjective, just my point of view.

I would not really recommend owning sync sound film cameras because of the service required to keep them in good shape. Renting is how its done, for good reason.

Panavision charges a 2 day week (in other words multiply the day rate by 2 and you get the weekly rate). This is very reasonable. They will also work with you to fit your budget (as will most rental houses). No one pays the "book rates" these days.
Here are the rates for a Panaflex GII. This is a fairly standard work horse of a camera:

The camera body, with various accessories (follow focus, cables, rods, long eye piece, matte box, etc) is $2,211 a week.

A 1000' mag is $159 a week and you would want at least 4.
11 minutes of filming with a single 1000' mag.

A 400' mag (really a 500') is $108 a week. You would want 4-6 depending on how much hand held/ steadicam work is involved.

Now the lenses:

The Primo primes go for $300-400 a week each (they all fall somewhere between). You want a full set of these (roughly 9 or so lenses, depends on your needs).

For Zooms:
4:1 is $1,056 a week
11:1 is $1,257 a week
3:1 is $960 a week

This a very basic spherical package.

If you wanted a Millennium XL, in studio mode (the Panavision flagship at the moment) you are looking at $4,299 a week for the body.

Remember you also need insurance of $300,000 equipment, and $1mill. liability.

 

[6bitgulch]

Then I'm sold on RED. I can take very so so pictures shot in RAW on my Sony R1 and make them POP, as it were, in Photoshop.
But interestingly I did come across this somewhere during a websurfing expedition. I will be more careful and include author, etc in the future. And I hope it is okay to paste the message which follows. My conclusion from this is.....
........ if one were to plan a film shoot renting Panavision equipment it would cost (for a 3 wk shoot)
camera: $6700
lens: $4500
1000' mag/14 mag: $2226
total: $13,426
still need lights/grip truck

Now I would instead just about have the RED camera body paid for.

message from another site....

I used to work at Panavision Woodland Hills, so I can probably answer most Panavision questions.

As was said before, Panavision gear is rented, not purchased. They also rent Arri gear as well (among others).

It is really hard to pin down what is good about one system versus another because they all have their own pluses and minuses.

I think the Arri 435 is a better high speed camera than the Panastar, but I love a good old GII for normal work (its simple and reliable).

Talk to a few ACs and you will here stories of a body going down whether it be Arri or Panavision (the last show I was on we went through 2 bodies).

The big difference in renting from Panavision is the lenses, which I feel are the best around, and the service, which I feel is the best around. This is all highly subjective, just my point of view.

I would not really recommend owning sync sound film cameras because of the service required to keep them in good shape. Renting is how its done, for good reason.

Panavision charges a 2 day week (in other words multiply the day rate by 2 and you get the weekly rate). This is very reasonable. They will also work with you to fit your budget (as will most rental houses). No one pays the "book rates" these days.
Here are the rates for a Panaflex GII. This is a fairly standard work horse of a camera:

The camera body, with various accessories (follow focus, cables, rods, long eye piece, matte box, etc) is $2,211 a week.

A 1000' mag is $159 a week and you would want at least 4.
11 minutes of filming with a single 1000' mag.

A 400' mag (really a 500') is $108 a week. You would want 4-6 depending on how much hand held/ steadicam work is involved.

Now the lenses:

The Primo primes go for $300-400 a week each (they all fall somewhere between). You want a full set of these (roughly 9 or so lenses, depends on your needs).

For Zooms:
4:1 is $1,056 a week
11:1 is $1,257 a week
3:1 is $960 a week

This a very basic spherical package.

If you wanted a Millennium XL, in studio mode (the Panavision flagship at the moment) you are looking at $4,299 a week for the body.

Remember you also need insurance of $300,000 equipment, and $1mill. liability.

 

[6bitgulch]

Rendering in Red Alert! is what I was looking for as far as tweaking the image. I agree it is beautiful.

 

[Joel Kaye]

camera: $6700
lens: $4500
1000' mag/14 mag: $2226
total: $13,426
still need lights/grip truck

Yeah - well then add your post costs.

I had a friend who got all his 35mm rig donated including some film to shoot and was stunned at the post costs.

Hell, I shot a 5 minute short on 16mm and still paid $500 for film, processing and telecine. That's not too much (low shooting ratio) but you aren't going to run out and "play around" with that camera. Once I get my RED finally configured the way I want and all the pieces here I'm going to shoot every day if I can. I'll trash most of the footage - but I'll be working it and having fun.

Reviewing Red Alert! today. It appears to do alot of the same things photoshop does for RAW stills

And Red Alert is a pretty limited program. It just gets better from there.

 

[chuckt]

Yeah - well then add your post costs.

I had a friend who got all his 35mm rig donated including some film to shoot and was stunned at the post costs.

Hell, I shot a 5 minute short on 16mm and still paid $500 for film, processing and telecine. That's not too much (low shooting ratio) but you aren't going to run out and "play around" with that camera. Once I get my RED finally configured the way I want and all the pieces here I'm going to shoot every day if I can. I'll trash most of the footage - but I'll be working it and having fun.

Professionals don't just play around with movie cameras.
They rent a movie camera to shoot a specific movie, after rehearsals.
You donot need telecine with film.
Best films ever made were made before telecine was invented.
Even today, majority of the films made (outside USA) are made without telecine.
Some film and a pair of scissors and some scotch tape would be enough for a film editor.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

Professionals don't just play around with movie cameras.
They rent a movie camera to shoot a specific movie, after rehearsals.
You donot need telecine with film.
Best films ever made were made before telecine was invented.
Even today, majority of the films made (outside USA) are made without telecine.
Some film and a pair of scissors and some scotch tape would be enough for a film editor.

I suspect that the majority of films (everywhere) are telecined at some point. While they may still be finished with a good old fashioned glue-and-tape matchback, I'd wager almost all are edited on an NLE from telecine footage.

Also professionals do just play around. They do spec work, they shoot their own projects, they do music videos - while the big names probably don't, the rest do at some stage. Fact is the only way you can ever really get any good is a little play around - and these types of jobs are a great place for that. But they have to get done on the cheap usually.

Professionals don't exist in a vacuum, they become what they are, and they do so by struggling through their own 'play'. For many of the people who are buying RED One cameras now, 35mm simply isn't cost effective, while RED may be. Even in the world of label-backed videos, the budget is likely to be tight, and RED just may make more sense for some jobs.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Professionals don't just play around with movie cameras.
They rent a movie camera to shoot a specific movie, after rehearsals.

The best advice I think I ever got about lighting was from a DP that had about 15 years experience - he said... make sure you play around. Keep experimenting, keep trying things, keep having fun. If you end up just going through motions you'll turn into Chuckt and just relive glory days long gone by in cynical forum posts.

Well, he might not have said it EXACTLY like that.

The idea that a guitarist would rent a guitar every time he needed to do a show is as laughable as the idea that renting a camera only when you need it is a good idea. The only reason people don't own movie cameras and shoot them all the time is it costs too much.

There's ZERO doubt in my mind that experience is ultimately the best teacher. There used to only be one way to get that experience. Now you can buy RED and go get years of experience in a fraction of the time. Shoot 1000 shots in 5 days. Do 160 hours of focus pulling in a month.

Owning a guitar doesn't make you a great guitarist. Fair enough. But if people could only rent guitars because they cost $3k a day there would be a lot less good guitarists out there.

And those elite guitarists would sit around telling each other that only a few really talented people could run one of those babies because they are so complicated. Guitars a serious business and you just don't play around with one.

Yeah Chuck, the good old days are good because they're GONE.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

"Film can never be a true art form until it's as accessible as pen and paper" - Jean Cocteau

 

[precious]

Well, I guess I'm rather discouraged. :sad: I downloaded off the Red site both stills and video that Red proudly states are Hollywood motion pictures shot using Red One. I thought it would be fun to run, side by side, with a Hollywood film that was shot with 35mm film. I choose 3:10 to Yuma. You know, forget all the tech talk and just look at the END RESULT. I hate to be the one who says the emperor has no clothes, but in my opinion video from Red looks like, well, video. 35 mm is SHARP and CLEAR and RICH. Details jump out. It's gorgeous. At least in 3:10 to Yuma.

On the other hand, the video from the RED site looks as though you were looking through a slightly milky ground glass lens, at least in comparison. And I don't even think it's all that subtle. I can now spot video a mile away. I hope I'm just seeing bad video due to technique. I would LOVE to see side by side comparison of RED footage and then 35 mm that was even just close. Somebody send me the footage that everyone says looks so much like film they can't tell the difference. Don't get me wrong. I WANT Red to be as good as 35mm. I can't afford film so my dream of making a movie is over if I would have to go to film. I've downloaded other sites that have footage shot with RED, and that was even worse. To this date, if shot on panasonic HVX 200 or RED it all looks VIDEO. It was that video look from my Panasonic HVX200 that made me discouraged enough to sell it planning to buy a RED ONE.

Who can afford a Panavision 35 mm camera ($3000/day at least), purchase film and have enough of a budget to have an actor or two in it? At least no indie filmmakers I know. It's just that film is really so beautiful and I want my 'film' to look like that!

I totally agree with you. red one videos look like better quality videos and not film. I can always tell the difference.

 

[6bitgulch]

It's true. RED even admits their not there yet. It's akin to the alchemy days and the search for the sorcerer's stone. I will probably wind up getting a RED Scarlet to be used in documentary work. But for my feature I'm going to beg and borrow to go with Panavision. I've got 90 minutes to shoot. You better believe when I hit that record button I want it RIGHT on take one. I can only hope that I can do it with 20 reels of 1000'. That means I can mess it up only half the time. Hey, if Clint Eastwood can do it, maybe I can!