RED... looks great, looks not so great. Why?

[Elsie N]

Having no film background has made learning the RED way much easier. And while I am not able yet to shoot and then do post on something that would be considered "deliverable" for a high budget movie, I think I could adequately do a low budget one.

I like that RED is doing what appears to be a shooting machine accompanied by a workflow pathway (and soon, a viewable solution I think) that will make those of us who haven't the time or desire to start at the bottom rung of movie-making to begin somewhere on the ladder where our ability allows.

I fully expect to learn to do things the RED way and thus free up all the time necessary for learning every other app and camera on the market to instead do something productive.

If in the future you find me not shooting RED, then I'm dead.

 

[M Most]

...if William Goldman used Final Draft (which I don't know) he would have been been able to crank out more scripts in less time than if he didn't.

I hope this is a joke, or at the very least a statement about writers by someone who isn't a writer.

 

[M Most]

I agree with you with respect to "Buying the same camera as Peter Jackson won't turn you into Peter Jackson" ... but I gotta say ... I have personally written with a pencil and also Final Draft. My work with Final Draft is MUCH better.

Well, I worked for David E. Kelley for over 7 years and David never even touched a computer. He wrote everything in longhand on legal pads, and for a number of years turned out 3 scripts a week (for Ally McBeal, Boston Public, and The Practice), all of which were often pretty amazing.

Whatever one's personal preferences happen to be, they are just preferences. They don't make you more talented and they don't make you more prolific.

 

[JanneJansson]

New products/cameras will have better features then red cameras, but I love RED's attitude, to make better tools for film makers.

Other company make great products, but have zero ambition of actually making anything that is really useful, but just to make maximum profit.

"I reserve the right to chose camera company based on there attitude."

 

[Tom Lowe]

Well, I worked for David E. Kelley for over 7 years and David never even touched a computer. He wrote everything in longhand on legal pads, and for a number of years turned out 3 scripts a week (for Ally McBeal, Boston Public, and The Practice), all of which were often pretty amazing.

Whatever one's personal preferences happen to be, they are just preferences. They don't make you more talented and they don't make you more prolific.

Take Terrence Malick and give him a 35mm anamorphic Panavision camera with unlimited film stock and you will get a better-looking picture than if you gave Malick a VHS camera with a few blank tapes. Period. End of story.

It's amazing to me that we are still rehashing this same old "A better camera won't make your script and actors better" argument.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

It's amazing to me that we are still rehashing this same old "A better camera won't make your script and actors better" argument.

Post of the day.

 

[M Most]

Take Terrence Malick and give him a 35mm anamorphic Panavision camera with unlimited film stock and you will get a better-looking picture than if you gave Malick a VHS camera with a few blank tapes. Period. End of story.

It's amazing to me that we are still rehashing this same old "A better camera won't make your script and actors better" argument.

Maybe you are, but I'm not. There is absolutely no difference in the quality of the words on a piece of paper vs. the same words on a computer screen. This has nothing to do with inherent quality differences that are solely attributable to the tools being used.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Red Team, are you planning on publishing a book? DVD series? a dedicated reduser thread?

I agree with What Tim has said above, Reducation will put you on the right path.
That said, the options in post are still taxing on the small portion of my brain that is dedicated to things technical.
Looking forward to what Jim and the Team come up with.

Brendan

Brendan, you must not have taken the POST part.

Michael Cioni is giving away all his "secrets" and has finished more RED projects than anyone I believe. (Save maybe Mark P.) At first, we wondered why he would make himself vulnerable... but when he explained that he is the "rogue" and the more people finishing RED ... the RIGHT way... the better for all of us.

Case in point the ASC/CAS test using a standard 2K DPX workflow with improperly exposed footy... you can imagine why RED was pissed off.

Im telling you right now REDUCATION insures you will both EXPOSE properly and FINISH properly. If you work with the "CABOOSE EFFECT" ...

i.e. start with your deliverable, then reverse engineer the workflow. Seems simple, but its NOT how a vast majority of people work.

I have been getting very good results from my RED ONE before REDUCATION... Im now ensured to get GREAT Results...

REDUCATION people... take it, it will pay for itself in spades. Funny in that our session, was probably 90% internationally attended.

My fellow Americans. TAKE REDUCATION. We had DP's and AC's there with 20 to 30 plus years experience who LEARNED A TON!

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I agree with you with respect to "Buying the same camera as Peter Jackson won't turn you into Peter Jackson" ... but I gotta say ... I have personally written with a pencil and also Final Draft. My work with Final Draft is MUCH better.

Only major exposure problems Ive ever encountered came from stuck-in-their-ways DPs who refused my (or other DITs) advice on the subject, and ended up with stuff they didn't like.

I think Idiot proof is great. Stubborn Proof is what Im after.

Thanks again for all the hard work. Bring on Epic and Scarlet!

Take Terrence Malick and give him a 35mm anamorphic Panavision camera with unlimited film stock and you will get a better-looking picture than if you gave Malick a VHS camera with a few blank tapes. Period. End of story.

It's amazing to me that we are still rehashing this same old "A better camera won't make your script and actors better" argument.

Post of the day.

Posts of the day indeed.

:yesnod:

 

[I Bloom]

Only major exposure problems Ive ever encountered came from stuck-in-their-ways DPs who refused my (or other DITs) advice on the subject, and ended up with stuff they didn't like.

I think Idiot proof is great. Stubborn Proof is what Im after.

Thanks again for all the hard work. Bring on Epic and Scarlet!

I'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft. There is nothing inherently hard to do about making any digital camera look good, it's primarily a matter of obtaining knowledge and experience which in order to be valuable must be hard won.

I guess I take offense to the idea that people who make bad images with any camera and then complain about the camera should be taken seriously.

If camera manufacturers continue to replace the need for real intelligence with artificial intelligence aren't they essentially tossing the baby out with the bath water... I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

IBloom

 

[Simon Baechler]

Why don't you just remove the 160 ASA setting. I've seen it causing more problems than solve. Because people use it outside when it's bright (especially the sky) and that's exactly when you should not use it.
Voilà, the camera just got more idiot proof ;-)

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

i'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft. There is nothing inherently hard to do about making any digital camera look good, it's primarily a matter of obtaining knowledge and experience which in order to be valuable must be hard won.

I guess i take offense to the idea that people who make bad images with any camera and then complain about the camera should be taken seriously.

If camera manufacturers continue to replace the need for real intelligence with artificial intelligence aren't they essentially tossing the baby out with the bath water... I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

Ibloom

gets my nom for non red employee post of the year!

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

While I do understand everyone's concerns, don't you think we're taking it into the wrong direction?

It's not like RED is ditching RAW or becoming an auto-only flip camera.

All the concerns expressed in this thread are a good example of what needs to be tweaked.

 

[Jannard]

I'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft. There is nothing inherently hard to do about making any digital camera look good, it's primarily a matter of obtaining knowledge and experience which in order to be valuable must be hard won.

I guess I take offense to the idea that people who make bad images with any camera and then complain about the camera should be taken seriously.

If camera manufacturers continue to replace the need for real intelligence with artificial intelligence aren't they essentially tossing the baby out with the bath water... I'm getting a little verklempt, talk amongst yourselves.

IBloom

While I completely agree in principle... there is plenty to know without us making the puzzle more complicated than necessary. There is a balance somewhere. Good news is this forces us to look at everything over and over to try to make each piece of the science better.

Jim

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

I agree with you with respect to "Buying the same camera as Peter Jackson won't turn you into Peter Jackson" ... but I gotta say ... I have personally written with a pencil and also Final Draft. My work with Final Draft is MUCH better.

I like this twist of Mark's. Especailly so, because I would guess everybody agrees that buying (and using) the same camera as Peter Jackson does help to develop the eye to recognize good image quality the same way as top level audio equipment train the ear to recognize good sound. I mean, if one has only listened music/shot images with poor equipments, its difficult to develop the ear/eye.

 

[christopher witzke]

You can shove talent through a pile of shit and it will still be talent.... some have it, some see it, some don't have it, and some don't even care.... they just like a good story.

 

[wshultz]

Is there a schedule or times for Reducation availability somewhere?

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Is there a schedule or times for Reducation availability somewhere?

http://www.reducation.net/

Next workshop dates TBD. Been talk of next ones being close to NAB, so people can combine travel.

 

[David Battistella]

I'll give you a topic: Isn't part of the power of photography and cinematography that it's difficult. That it requires diligence and acumen to learn the craft. There is nothing inherently hard to do about making any digital camera look good, it's primarily a matter of obtaining knowledge and experience which in order to be valuable must be hard won.

I guess I take offense to the idea that people who make bad images with any camera and then complain about the camera should be taken seriously.
IBloom

Ian,
I agree but what if we applied this to anything else. Now that you have the internet, would you want it to be less easy? less powerful?

Now that the iphone exists, and is so easy to use, then should they make it more complicated?

With new advancements at RED, should we still be relying on a measuring tape, and manual focus and everything just because that is the way it has been done? I don't think that is what RED stands for, but I'm not RED, I'm just a customer.

The fact is, anyone can know and understand exposure, f-stops, lighting, tendencies of film stocks and sensors. It's not rocket science and the mathematical principles are pretty straightforward.

It's up to the individual artist to explore the tools, but I don't think that the tools should be over complicated or somehow limit the process.

Knowledge of light, lenses, framing, composition, storytelling, mood, texture and the camera itself with make all the difference. The application of this specific "knowledge set" with a specific tool is what will come through the pipeline. The cream will always rise.

But it should be up to each individual to come up with their secret sauce. The camera itself should be a tool that is simple and helps liberate this knowledge.

RED should make the best most simple to use camera in the world (which it pretty much is) and just keep making it easier to use and keep packing it with more enabling technology. The camera as a technological tool should be an enabler. It should free us.

The rest, how many people on a crew, how it is lit and processed and exposed, is up to me and you and our artistic taste. (and the amount of money or sweat equity anyone is going to throw at creating those images.

David

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Although people should learn any new camera and it's post and how to get the best out of it, I don't think that precludes us from making that process easier, less complicated or simplified because none of that detracts from the fact that the camera is fully manual, has great exposure tools and shoots RAW.

Graeme