Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Wired magazine has a hot article about RED and JJ

I think it goes a long way toward enlightening the average (non-camera-enthusiast) person as to why the film industry is so excited about this camera.
I finally have a good short article to hand to my wife or my dad when they hear me get all geeky about my new set of tools.

Best article I've read so far about RED. Of course I'm also a big fan of most of the writers who contribute to WIRED : )
 
Sean Michael 808 said:
I think it goes a long way toward enlightening the average (non-camera-enthusiast) person as to why the film industry is so excited about this camera.
Click to expand...

I like this summation Sean.. definately not a technogeek article at all.. but a good glimpse of what RED is to the average non-film / camera industry crowd.
 
This is an article done by Wired... not American Cinematographer.

Jim
 
I'm Bengt Jonsson, one of the cinematographers quoted in the article.

I feel a need to correct a few items

Although I am often the 2nd Unit Cinematographer for BONES, I am NOT the main unit Cinematographer. This position is brilliantly occupied by Gordon C. Lonsdale. I wish that I had been sent a copy for corrections. Bones is only a fraction of my work, as I often shoot commercials and music videos, and features.

I stand by what I said, but in the context of our discussion I was responding to the perceived difficulty with the RED workflow, and to dramatize how in the big picture, film too has it's own complicated workflow. Bones is shot on 35mm film. And it looks amazing.

Red is a powerful camera system, but it is important that proper and complete information is set forth.

Bengt
 
Jarred Land said:
.. definately not a technogeek article at all.. but a good glimpse of what RED is to the average non-film / camera industry crowd.
Click to expand...

... which is why the technogeek attitude at Provideocoalition.com to the small mistakes of this article is over the top.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Digital isn't replacing film, it's displacing film. Film will always be. Just as I still listen to vinyl records on tube amps, film will always be, although vastly displaced in number.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I hope you are using a quality tube amp that doesn't use one of those awful (Hoik! Splat!) output transformers.:tongue:

And did you get the full package deal, with the leather armchair, briar pipe, 60s type heavy black plastic rimmed glasses and a selection of Dave Brubeck LPs made from virgin vinyl?

While there is absolutely no substitute for a tube guitar amp, I kinda draw the line at using one for ordinary listening. But I suppose it keeps you warm in winter.
 
Not only does it have output transformers, but the pre-amp is just a transformer. Leather armchair - yes. Pipe - no. Spectacles - Oakley's finest (Thanks Jim). For music, I'd prefer the Beatles :-)

And yes, keeps the room warm in winter. Yes, it's very much less than measureably perfect, but does it look like I care? Start an audiophile thread on general chat if you want to talk more.

The mention here is that I prefer the old, imperfect way, for aesthetic reasons, and that I can, many years after transistors and cd's totally took over, still get and enjoy older equipment. Same will happen with film, I'm sure.

Graeme
 
I don't think I'll be subscribing to Wired Magazine... they are just now printing 2 year old news? I need information faster than that.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Digital isn't replacing film, it's displacing film. Film will always be. Just as I still listen to vinyl records on tube amps, film will always be, although vastly displaced in number.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Coming from a slide film photographer I'd have to say that's an extremely well said statement, unfortunate as it may be across all spectrum's of media. :pinch:
 
I liked the Wired article. It had some bits and pieces of history that I found interesting. But I take issue with one of the "Facts" in the article. I am personally very skeptical that it costs $12,000 dollars a year to "Preserve a 4K digital Master of a feature film." Somebody prove it to me and I'll shut-up about it.

What's great about Wired's readers is that they expect the "Future" to actually arrive someday. Building an expectation in the minds of the movie-going public that Red IS the future is a good thing. I think more articles in magazines that don't necessarily focus on the film industry is better than American Cinematographer. Why waste your time with the entrenched critics? The camera is building a new community of users, a new group of professionals in a globalized "Market Space".

The movie business' center of gravity is changing, moving away from the guilds and unions and tipping towards what is attractive to private equity and bowing to corporate accounting pressures, just like other industries.

Building the brand equity in the minds of the people that buy tickets (and watch the DVD special features) and convincing them a better experience awaits them thanks to the new Red camera is a prejudice worth building in the minds of the film goer.
 
And of course, if 35mm were archival, why do we need a remastered Star Wars or Little Mermaid....

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Not only does it have output transformers, but the pre-amp is just a transformer. Leather armchair - yes. Pipe - no. Spectacles - Oakley's finest (Thanks Jim). For music, I'd prefer the Beatles :-)

And yes, keeps the room warm in winter. Yes, it's very much less than measureably perfect, but does it look like I care? Start an audiophile thread on general chat if you want to talk more.

Graeme
Click to expand...
Plasmatic (in measured tones punctuated with gestures from the stem of his briar pipe):
No offense old man, but I'm afraid any discussion between those devoted to pursuit of true sonic excellence and those content with the tragic deficiencies of .... output transformers .... is never going to end well. You think "Film vs Digital" arguments can get heated? Ha! :clown2:

(Sorry, couldn't resist. I lifted that almost word-for-word from a pdf of a hardcore nutjob HiFi magazine one of my customers gave me :) )

Actually one of the most violent flaming matches I've ever seen online was on a sewing forum, if you can believe that. In the "embroidery" folder someone mentioned how you could scan a commercial printed pattern and iron it onto fabric by first printing it onto overhead projector film. Someone then brought up the subject of copyright violation and it was on for young and old! I've never seen so many captial letters and exclamation points.

Don't worry, I make good money "tuning up" audiophile tube amps. They're easy to work on, hard to blow up, the parts are easy to get and their owners tend to have have deep pockets. Like film cameras really.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
I am personally very skeptical that it costs $12,000 dollars a year to "Preserve a 4K digital Master of a feature film." Somebody prove it to me and I'll shut-up about it.
Click to expand...

Four terabyte RAID-5 Array amortized over 10 years: $250/year
Second array for double backup (new every 10 years): $250/year
Convert away from deprecated file formats every 10 years: $1,000/year
Rackspace, monitoring, dead hard drive RMA, etc: $1,000/year

That leaves almost $10,000/year for standard Hollywood Accounting and embezzlement. ;)
 
Actually learned a lot about RED reading that article. I retract what I said in an earlier post number 28.
 
Jannard said:
Is it a good article?

Jim
Click to expand...

Rethoric. You dictated it on the phone...

"Standing nearby is the man who developed it—a handsome guy with a neatly trimmed goatee and a pair of sunglasses perched atop his clean-shaven head."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top