I can afford the RED, but should I?

[MadamImAdam]

I am shooting an out-of-pocket feature film (my third) starting March 2009. It's an adventure film set in Colorado. The brief theatrical exposure I anticipate is important (film critics and acquisitions executives will see it projected in a theater, likely at a film festival), but, as with most indie films, the majority of the eventual audience will see it on DVD and TV.

Right now I am trying to choose the camera I will use to shoot the movie. Shooting will be catch-as-catch-can from March through October, so owning my camera kit is more practical than renting. I have enough money -- about $30,000 -- to buy a basic RED One outfit with a Nikon lens set. The expense would represent roughly 25% of the total personal funds I will use making this movie.

Here's the thing: I own a complete HVX200 kit already. Everything RED-related that I would buy with that thirty grand? I own the equivalent already at the HVX200 level. If I shoot this movie with my HVX instead of RED, I will literally have $30K more to spend on this low-budget movie.

When I think only about the camera, I think, Must have RED! Must have RED! No more noise management! Nikon lenses! The RED One is an awesome camera, and I'd love to own one. However, when I step back and think about the whole production, I am reminded that optical quality and resolution are just part of this whole thing. I keep wondering if spending that $30K on the following would actually add more value to the movie:

--Improve lighting from "fair" to "good." The lights I've been dragging around for 10 years are literally falling apart (I bought them used -- very used). With just part of that $30K I could significantly upgrade the basic kit I keep in the truck and have money left over to rent more exotic lights for special uses on the production's "big days." For instance, I could hang a moon for a night exterior scene.

--Improve production design from "good" to "great." Rent better locations, props, scenery. Is it better to have great stuff in front of an HVX, or good stuff in front of a RED?

--Add value to other aspects of the camera department. Rent a crane instead of making it a ladder shot. Own a dolly and track instead of renting for special occasions, so any scene can have tracking instead of panning. Rent a motion-control head for a couple days, so split-screen vfx shots don't have to be locked off. Thirty grand could facilitate a lot of these little touches.

It's a zero-sum game. Whatever I spend on the RED doesn't get spent in front of the camera. On the other hand, if I get the RED, it will improve the look of everything I do put in front of the camera.

Obviously, this dilemma is ultimately something that only I can resolve. But I would appreciate hearing different points of view on this. If you were in my shoes, what would you do? Is 25% of the budget too much to spend to step up from HVX200 to RED One?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

If you're doing post on this, you should consider what implications RED has vs HVX. That said: The images aren't really compareable....

 

[Zach Nelson]

Why buy for $30,000 when you could rent for a fraction of that.

 

[Simon Valderrama]

Actually i found that's nothing more sad that having a big or complex production poorly rendered by a camera that's not up to what's in front of it.
It happened me once, and it was so frustrating that when i saw RED footage for the first time i thought: i must have RED, so that if my footage will look like crap it will be just because of me.

So i would say, get a RED and then get creative to get the most from your production with what's left!

BTW, the footage made me choose RED was music video "El Principio", photographed and edited by Evin Grant.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4657&highlight=principio

 

[Tim Fassnacht]

Gunleik is onto something here, Do you have an Intel Mac?
And if so, have you considered the extra post-production time associated with offline/online, transcoding dailies, etc?

In this case- Red will take longer as you'll need to consider that you won't have the capability of "Log and Transfer"ing on set like a lot of people tend to do with the HVX. This said, you'll need external Hard Drives on set for a mere data dump (and possibly temp archival) and a second set of storage media in the edit bay to act as target when transcoding (this is assuming you're posting this yourself). You'll be cutting offline and matching to online from you're R3Ds later, not always the case when working with HVX (I've seen a lot of shows that just tend to cut "online" DVCPRO HD). in short, there's much more time (and money) to be eaten on the post end.

On the flip side, you'll have obvious image advantages with the Red that the HVX doesn't even begin to compare too. (DR, DOF, RAW Imagery etc.). You must also consider the fact that on your bottom line, you could likely absorb the cost of your camera package into your personal company (assuming alot here) rather than the productions and write it off as a loss on your fiscal year. This way, of course, you also own the damn thing for the next crazy low-budg film you do.

It's quite the toss up really, and none of can really weigh it ultimately for you but I would definitely keep the floor open for things you may not be incorporating into the big picture as of yet. Best of Luck!

Cheers,

TF

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

Listen to Werner Herzog's advice and steal a Red.

"If you want to make a movie, stay out of the system. Steal a camera. Forge documents. Break into a car. You can make a film for five thousand dollars. There are no excuses anymore. Drive a cab, become a bouncer in a sex club. I worked nights in a factory. I'm a soldier."

 

[Julio Quintana]

You have to choose how you want your audience to feel at the end:

HVX: "That was a very high budget student film"
RED: "That was a very low budget professional film"

I would personally rather cut corners and shoot on RED. No matter what you do, the HVX will make all of your expensive effects and sets look a little amateurish.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

If from your tests the image quality holds up on the HVX200 (including doing a test print to 35mm), then by all means put the money into better lighting, production design, sound crew, etc.

Red will require proper lighting and production design. The images are not going to be great with lighting that is subpar. 4K will just show the lack of lighting and production design in higher resolution.

Post will be tougher with Red. But on a feature that will be spread out over months, you may find that you can set up a workflow that is just fine with Red. You can downconvert to 1K ProRes for editorial and then conform at the end. Perhaps at that point you'll have distribution and someone else can pay for the conform.

In an ideal situation you will have great lighting, sound, production design, acting, and a camera with amazing imagery. Reality sometimes forces us to come up with creative solutions. I'm sure you'll find just the right balance. Trust your eyes.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

I played around with a HVX and a Letus Extreme for a while last year and, though I liked the results, it still wasn't good enough. The RED is in an entirely different league altogether. So if you must have the HVX in the equation, then perhaps an EX3 would be your ticket. But definitely not the RED. If using a RED still appeals to you no matter what, then you have already answered your own question.

Good luck, any which way you go!

 

[Ramesh Jai]

You have to choose how you want your audience to feel at the end:

HVX: "That was a very high budget student film"
RED: "That was a very low budget professional film"

I would personally rather cut corners and shoot on RED. No matter what you do, the HVX will make all of your expensive effects and sets look a little amateurish.

I beg to differ. I have a RED One yet I will emphasize that high production values with an HVX will give you better images then RED One with mediocre production values.

 

[Paul Harrill]

Look, the Red looks amazing, but the thing is: It's not about the camera. It's about the script and the performances, and then, after that, the look of the film. People would go see a Judd Apatow movie these days if it was shot on VHS. Why? Because his stuff makes people laugh.

But I digress. If I were you I'd shoot the thing on a Varicam with a P+S with 35mm primes. That camera's rental price has gone down since Red became the hot new kid on the block. It's going to be a workflow you know, and with a 35mm adaptor it's going to produce images that look fantastic. Plus your HVX can serve as B-camera on the shoot; it cuts in well with the Varicam if you use it right. That will save you time -- maybe lots of time, if you're shooting complicated "adventure movie" setups. And time is money.

 

[Gary Stone]

I beg to differ. I have a RED One yet I will emphasize that high production values with an HVX will give you better images then RED One with mediocre production values.

methinks no. from my experience the HVX needs a TON of light. especially when you add a 35mm adapter. add to this lower color sampling, DVCPRO HD compression and lower resolution (a lot lower) of the sensor and it's no contest. RED RED RED RED RED.

 

[Paul Harrill]

And one more thing: Most producers will tell you that the idea of spending 25% of a film's budget on the CAMERA ALONE is just plain crazy.

How much money is in the budget for film festival costs? Here I'm talking about everything from entry fees, press kits, and a professionally done website, to (potentially) a publicist if you get into a major festival, as well as travel/lodging for actors and director to attend festivals.

I bring this up because so few independent filmmakers budget for distribution, and they find themselves broke when their movie's done. It's a bad spot to be in: You've got a "product", yet you don't have the money to take it to market.

 

[Nathan Beaman]

its about content. it doesnt matter what you shoot on if its lacking in other places. If the movie doesnt play out well, all you get is crap with more pixels.

 

[Jason Ing]

Just curious. I'm not being sarcastic.

Does anyone know if there ever has been an INDIE MOVIE shot with the HVX that ever made money? Like $30k... or more? How did your previous two movies do? What did you shoot it with?

 

[Wayne D]

its about content. it doesnt matter what you shoot on if its lacking in other places. If the movie doesnt play out well, all you get is crap with more pixels.

amen to that

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, looking at it from a production standpoint, the RED is a must simply for the various reasons described, particularly for lighting purposes. Plus, you can always save a little and go with Nikon lenses too or just the stock 18-50 if that's your thing. The HVX200 will hold you back, I think. It's better than HDV because it's tapeless but the resolution limit is the dealbreaker. 1080P would be better for 35mm blowup, there's no question, there's no fudge room, it simply will. I would have agreed with the 720P not being too bad back in the first generation HDV days but cameras have come a long way in perceived resolution, DR, etc. (ie. Sony EX1). But with RED, 4K or 2K to 35mm is definitely going to be ideal.

I've played with the numbers and for all the money you would spend on a RED rental, you might as well buy the darn thing. However, even though I say you should buy it, consider what I did back when I was trying to decide whether or not to get one. Do you have a Macbook Pro to do any editing, correction, etc. on set? How many CF cards can you afford? If just a few, how many CF backup drives or external hard drives will you need on set? Do you or your editor have a RAID to be able to easily view and edit your footage? What lenses will you use, PL or Nikon? Rent or buy? Batteries? What kind? Heavy duty tripod? Filters? Which ones? 4x4 mattebox or screw on [depends on lenses]? What about this IR hot mirror filter I've been hearing about? Shoulder mount (ie. RED base pack, Zacuto, Redrockmicro, etc.)? Follow focus? Which one? Built in sound or external double system? Both? If so, have two microphones to do it?

All of this mixes in with your other rental and production considerations, particularly sound and lighting. For me, I decided to go to film school. Had I had the means to do a film right out of college, I would have gotten my RED and all that other stuff, but I decided that just wasn't what I really wanted to do and so I chose something different.

I know, it's a lot to consider but either way, you should try for more than 720P, even if it's a first generation Varicam.

 

[David Mutchler]

Putting together my red package has cost me over $80,000 and counting.

 

[number6]

My advice... wait for Scarlet. If it doesn't arrive in time, consider using the HVX and drag your feet during early production. Then when Scarlet arrives, buy that and throw away what you've done to that point, reshoot with Scarlet, and be done with it.

 

[sander kamp]

You have to think whether image quality is part of the story you want to tell. If the story takes place in beautiful scenery with lots of locked off shots than it's going to look ridiculous if shot on the HVX. But if the story is all about hand-held action in gritty interiors, cars, trains, then the HVX is no problem.

And think about how you are going to support the RED and how you are going to pull focus. You need a really decent tripod that you probably have to rent and a follow focus and gears on your nikon lenses and marks where you actors have to stand and so on. The camera will take a lot more time on the production. And stealing a shot in a public place will be a lot harder with the RED than with the HVX.