MikeCurtis
HDforindies.com
Hey all - my take on all this, since I've been side by side with Mark on every shoot - everyone that has seen this stuff lights up when you show them the 4K. We lugged my new 30" Cinema Display up to the cosmetics shoot the other day, and shot some footage side by side with an ARRI 435 (both using Cooke S4 lenses). After hitting stop on the camera, pulled a CF from the Red, walked over to our little tech setup (laptop & 30"), scrubbed through the footage to find the hero still we wanted, and saved it out as a 4K 16 bit TIFF, opened it up in Photoshop, and did some quick and dirty color correction in Pshop within a few minutes of hitting stop record on the camera.
We said "OK!" and the director walked over, took one look, and immediately said "I want THAT."
I then made a quickie demo showing the relative frame sizes comparing to Genesis on HDCAM SR, F900 on HDCAM, Varicam live and Varicam tape resolutions, and pointed out how easy it would be to extract a fully satisfactory SD, 720p, or 1080p from the 4K. He smiled and nodded, and clearly the gears were turning in his head.
Later during the shoot, he walked up and gamed the DP about it, pointing at the Red and teasing him saying "This is what you'll be shooting."
-----
As for Mark's "Film is Dead" comments, my take on that situation is this:
-film as an acquisition media still has greater exposure lattitude
-but it arguably/definitively (take your pick) does not have greater detail/sharpness than Red
-film is expensive
-film processing, telecine/scanning, etc., is expensive as well
-film is a slow, multi-step process to get it to something you can see, requiring a lot of expensive infrastructure and trained personnel in dedicated facilities
One of my ongoing mantras is that technology is only as valid as its price point.
While it can be successfully argued that film has greater lattitude, which is extremely important in making beautiful images, the question becomes "How much is enough?"
And more finicky, "How much is enough how often in common circumstances?"
For all the film purists that have been saying for years that film has better lattitude and resolution etc., then why aren't you shooting Vistavision or IMAX? Why settle for 35mm?
Oh - because those cost even outrageously more money.
Red shoots a DAMN FINE image. The camera cost is LOW compared to other professional solutions (note nearest price competitor is probably Sony's XDCAM HD F350 - 4:2:0 1440x1080 at 35 megabits? NO THANKS.).
I have a buddy that does really, really nice 3D work in Austin. But he'd hit a ceiling on the rates he can charge in that market a few years ago. I explained it this way - for him to get a higher rate, he'd need a client that could perceive how much better he was than the $50/hr chumps, that wanted and needed that quality difference, AND had the money to afford it. If any one of those pieces is missing, you don't get the job or you don't get that higher rate.
Film will start to face that same challenge - OK, it has superior characteristics in some categories (lattitude; that "film feel," visible grain), but Red offers so many advantages in so many other categories (resolution, cost of camera, cost/ease/speed of post & workflow)....how many jobs are going to make sense to go film instead of Red? Across the spectrum of jobs that require an image acquisition device?
I think Red will be entering the market and stealing from both ends - film guys will migrate over to it, and lower end video guys who couldn't afford a Varicam or F900 will pick'em up as well. Basically, I think Sony's new XDCAM EX may be the most expensive camera (and those around that price point) will be the last new format that isn't substantially threatened by Red. And that only because it'll come self contained at about 1/2 the price of a Red One body. As you start to spend more money on a camera, you'll rapidly get reach a point where one says to oneself "Well geez, for just a bit more I could get a Red that is SO much more capable" if it fits your shooting style needs (and it won't for everyone - news guys, for instance).
I talked to a client who'd been planning on buying a Panasonic HPX500, and I told him I thought that was a bad idea. If I recall correctly, that is a 2/3", 960x540 resolution sensor that utilizes pixel shift and records to DVCPRO HD, and lists for roughly $15K without a lens.
The post workflow isn't realtime (just this minute, but keep waiting), but is highly cost effective - our roughly $4500 worth of post gear on set (Macbook Pro & Apple 30") can read in, preview play in real time, and look at full res single frames IMMEDIATELY.
Other digital options? HDCAM SR is a lovely HD tape format...and the studio decks are about $100K with the RGB and other needed boards. Want to clone your masters? You're tying up $200K in hardware capital just to accomplish that task. And at present (unless I missed something happening at NAB) there are no less expensive playback only HDCAM SR decks.
Oh, and those cameras (F23, Genesis, Viper, etc.) all cost several times what a Red does and capture far less resolution.
Compare to film, with the delays and costs involved in processing and telecine. Compare the onset workflow.
In the end, ALL technology can be broken down to pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and at the end of the day, most especially, bang for the buck.
I don't think it is possible to come up with a scenario where a Red One doesn't come out on top of the value and quality for the dollar for commercials and cinematic work.
Red is producing some of the best looking images out there - you really can't argue with that.
That Red is doing it at a price point that is on the low end of professional gear is just phenomenal. And the post side advantages are equally phenomenal.
Film will continue to have its niches, but they will continue to shrink. For commercial work I think it'll be a slam dunk - not only are the images plenty sharp and lovely, but clients all too often lack vision, and the ability to show them near final results promptly on set will be all too compelling for them. They won't want to wait for film.
And they write the checks.
Feature films? Some will still want the aesthetic of film and be willing to put up with the delays. Film still wins in some usage scenarios for high speed work with maximum dynamic range and resolution. (Mitch and crew have done fine work with the Phantoms to pull in more of that work, but the DR and resolution can't compete with high speed specialty film cameras. But they sure can on price!)
So where will film hold best? In two ways I think. One will be larger feature films where the comfort and history and money will keep film where it is for many, and the other will simply be inertia - those highly skilled individuals that are comfortable working with film will keep on working with it.
And that will make room for the entrepreneurs willing to learn something new to sweep in and take the jobs those traditionalists miss.
OK, that's enough of a rant for now.
-mike
We said "OK!" and the director walked over, took one look, and immediately said "I want THAT."
I then made a quickie demo showing the relative frame sizes comparing to Genesis on HDCAM SR, F900 on HDCAM, Varicam live and Varicam tape resolutions, and pointed out how easy it would be to extract a fully satisfactory SD, 720p, or 1080p from the 4K. He smiled and nodded, and clearly the gears were turning in his head.
Later during the shoot, he walked up and gamed the DP about it, pointing at the Red and teasing him saying "This is what you'll be shooting."
-----
As for Mark's "Film is Dead" comments, my take on that situation is this:
-film as an acquisition media still has greater exposure lattitude
-but it arguably/definitively (take your pick) does not have greater detail/sharpness than Red
-film is expensive
-film processing, telecine/scanning, etc., is expensive as well
-film is a slow, multi-step process to get it to something you can see, requiring a lot of expensive infrastructure and trained personnel in dedicated facilities
One of my ongoing mantras is that technology is only as valid as its price point.
While it can be successfully argued that film has greater lattitude, which is extremely important in making beautiful images, the question becomes "How much is enough?"
And more finicky, "How much is enough how often in common circumstances?"
For all the film purists that have been saying for years that film has better lattitude and resolution etc., then why aren't you shooting Vistavision or IMAX? Why settle for 35mm?
Oh - because those cost even outrageously more money.
Red shoots a DAMN FINE image. The camera cost is LOW compared to other professional solutions (note nearest price competitor is probably Sony's XDCAM HD F350 - 4:2:0 1440x1080 at 35 megabits? NO THANKS.).
I have a buddy that does really, really nice 3D work in Austin. But he'd hit a ceiling on the rates he can charge in that market a few years ago. I explained it this way - for him to get a higher rate, he'd need a client that could perceive how much better he was than the $50/hr chumps, that wanted and needed that quality difference, AND had the money to afford it. If any one of those pieces is missing, you don't get the job or you don't get that higher rate.
Film will start to face that same challenge - OK, it has superior characteristics in some categories (lattitude; that "film feel," visible grain), but Red offers so many advantages in so many other categories (resolution, cost of camera, cost/ease/speed of post & workflow)....how many jobs are going to make sense to go film instead of Red? Across the spectrum of jobs that require an image acquisition device?
I think Red will be entering the market and stealing from both ends - film guys will migrate over to it, and lower end video guys who couldn't afford a Varicam or F900 will pick'em up as well. Basically, I think Sony's new XDCAM EX may be the most expensive camera (and those around that price point) will be the last new format that isn't substantially threatened by Red. And that only because it'll come self contained at about 1/2 the price of a Red One body. As you start to spend more money on a camera, you'll rapidly get reach a point where one says to oneself "Well geez, for just a bit more I could get a Red that is SO much more capable" if it fits your shooting style needs (and it won't for everyone - news guys, for instance).
I talked to a client who'd been planning on buying a Panasonic HPX500, and I told him I thought that was a bad idea. If I recall correctly, that is a 2/3", 960x540 resolution sensor that utilizes pixel shift and records to DVCPRO HD, and lists for roughly $15K without a lens.
The post workflow isn't realtime (just this minute, but keep waiting), but is highly cost effective - our roughly $4500 worth of post gear on set (Macbook Pro & Apple 30") can read in, preview play in real time, and look at full res single frames IMMEDIATELY.
Other digital options? HDCAM SR is a lovely HD tape format...and the studio decks are about $100K with the RGB and other needed boards. Want to clone your masters? You're tying up $200K in hardware capital just to accomplish that task. And at present (unless I missed something happening at NAB) there are no less expensive playback only HDCAM SR decks.
Oh, and those cameras (F23, Genesis, Viper, etc.) all cost several times what a Red does and capture far less resolution.
Compare to film, with the delays and costs involved in processing and telecine. Compare the onset workflow.
In the end, ALL technology can be broken down to pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and at the end of the day, most especially, bang for the buck.
I don't think it is possible to come up with a scenario where a Red One doesn't come out on top of the value and quality for the dollar for commercials and cinematic work.
Red is producing some of the best looking images out there - you really can't argue with that.
That Red is doing it at a price point that is on the low end of professional gear is just phenomenal. And the post side advantages are equally phenomenal.
Film will continue to have its niches, but they will continue to shrink. For commercial work I think it'll be a slam dunk - not only are the images plenty sharp and lovely, but clients all too often lack vision, and the ability to show them near final results promptly on set will be all too compelling for them. They won't want to wait for film.
And they write the checks.
Feature films? Some will still want the aesthetic of film and be willing to put up with the delays. Film still wins in some usage scenarios for high speed work with maximum dynamic range and resolution. (Mitch and crew have done fine work with the Phantoms to pull in more of that work, but the DR and resolution can't compete with high speed specialty film cameras. But they sure can on price!)
So where will film hold best? In two ways I think. One will be larger feature films where the comfort and history and money will keep film where it is for many, and the other will simply be inertia - those highly skilled individuals that are comfortable working with film will keep on working with it.
And that will make room for the entrepreneurs willing to learn something new to sweep in and take the jobs those traditionalists miss.
OK, that's enough of a rant for now.
-mike
