Red at www.cinematography.com, why so much bashing?

[Van Din]

Not aware of any obvious bashing

I thought that would be too obvious.
________
Suzuki rv 125 van van specifications

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The RED has been a tremendous success, no doubt about it. Look at the dozens of RED-shot features at Sundance (and Slamdance no doubt) this year, look at how TV shows are starting to use the camera, not to mention many music videos, commercials, etc.

But with success there is always criticism, some founded on actual working experience, some legitimate, and some irrationally hostile. You generally can separate posts, just by reading them, between the different types. I tend to ignore the overly positive and overly negative ones. The overly positive ones tend to sound like someone angling to get on an advertisement (or angling to get work with their camera) and the overly negative ones tend to sound like someone with bad attitude or a hidden agenda.

Ignore the two extreme ends... and you tend to see people with real-world experience, hopefully commenting on what they are directly experiencing with the RED cameras. That doesn't mean that everything they say is true or accurate, it's just their personal experience. Sometimes the problems they are having can be traced to something other than the camera. But their concerns need to be addressed, if only to correct some mistake they are making.

You have to remember that all sorts of people are using the RED, some with expectations based on mostly shooting on 35mm versus mostly shooting on video, let's say. You have people shooting RED who are moving up from using the HVX200. You have directors, you have producers, you have ENG & EFP shooters, you have feature shooters, etc. And there is also the simple fact that people have different tastes -- even among film shooters, you can see drawn-out arguments over filter, film stocks, lenses, D.I.'s, etc. Over at Cinematography.Com there are just as many D.I. "bashers" as there are RED "bashers". There are people there who loathe Kodak and Zeiss and love Fuji and Cooke. There are people there who would never say a kind word about Panavision or Sony or whatever, even if their feet were put to fire.

Remember the saying "you shall know a tree by its fruit"? Well, people soon reveal all their biases, prejudices, and personal idiosyncrasies within a few posts and after that, you pretty much know what to ignore and what to take seriously whenever they post.

As RED passes from being a "hoax" to being the latest, greatest thing to being something that everyone has tried at some point, you're going to see more and more posts where someone has both negative and positive experiences to report, just like with any commonly-used piece of equipment. Eventually the honeymoon is over and it comes down to the daily mundane reality of using a camera and finding out what it does well and where it can be improved.

--

Speaking of RED usage out there, one day a few weeks ago when I was walking across the Warner Bros. lot to do the D.I. for "Manure" at Warner MPI, I noticed a big shoot going on the backlot streets -- they were using RED cameras, at the time I was going over to do a D.I. on RED footage.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Thank you David for saying some of what I tried to say earlier before my post was erased by some weird glitch. We are on the same page about the extreme viewpoints. Your post was very eloquent and I think sums it up perfectly. One of the reasons I admire your presence here and on that forum as well is that you tend to analyze things objectively and I never sense hidden agendas. Like a true craftsman, you choose the right tool for the job and try to get the most out of it. You don't trash a particular tool, you just choose to not use it if it's inappropriate for the task at hand.

I wish there were more people willing to look at things with the same level of objectivity.

 

[Jon Schellenger]

OMG-

Don't even get me started with that other site. I have been reading the posts there since I signed up for my reservation number. There are some good forums over there, but the RED forum is a complete joke. I just go in there for a quick laugh every once in a while. I agree with David, that there are a few guys in the forum who are the bad apples and bash everything red related. The problem is that they post multiple posts every day and you have to try to filter through the BS. Carl, Phil, Walter, and many others ruin the forum experience. I stopped going to that website when I read Phil's post about how the RED camera was a glorified camera phone.

So- lets just drop this thread now. There is no reason to even carry the negativity over here. This is a place to post questions about the RED, share your footage, and seek help when you need it. Lets keep this forum positive and RED related.

 

[Poi Boy]

Thanks for your post David, always the voice of reason.
Aloha
-A

 

[Nick Ambrose]

David, you really are a class act. Somehow you always manage to take the high-road while still being incredibly helpful.

I think this forum is definitely a better place for your insights.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't claim to be objective, I just try to monitor my own biases and I attempt to separate taste and opinion from technical analysis. But we're talking about an artform, so expressing personal taste is completely valid as long as you don't confuse opinion with fact. If someone says "I don't like the skintones with the RED" then that would fall under taste and opinion, unless they could provide a more scientific analysis. But the fact that some particular aspect doesn't appeal to them aesthetically, well, you can't really argue with that, it's just a taste thing.

Filmmaking is an emotional thing, and if someone has an emotional connection to film technology, I respect that. But that person should admit they are being emotional and should also admit that others may have different passions in regards to imagemaking.

The reason I am always prone to give the film purists a lot of respect is that if not for their high standards, people would have abandoned film for the Sony F900 when it appeared in 2000 -- there were so many people back then proclaiming that "now digital is just as good as film." Now those people are looking very foolish. So we have to be careful in a day and age where a transition is happening from film to digital that the transition is not premature nor happens too fast, because there's no particular reason why it has to be. Film works fine, it's just darn expensive. I think it's an exciting time when we have so many options to choose from -- I dread the day when those choices get narrowed down again.

This is a users site -- people are drawn here for positive reasons, it would be unusual for someone to devote much time here at RedUser if they didn't like shooting digitally.

 

[Tom Lowe]

As David alluded to, 90% of the bashing there comes from 2% of the membership. The usual suspects.

But generally speaking, c.com is not a very friendly place, IMO, as online forum communities go. I'm not sure why this is. When Jarred wanted to switch to real names here, the strongest argument AGAINST the switch was just to look at c.com. They've had a real-name policy for a while, but it doesn't seem to have made the place any more friendly. Things get said there that I suspect would never be said in person.

Still, there are plenty of knowledgeable people there, and some good info to be found. Just make sure to wear your bullet-proof vest.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I've been over at Cinematography.Com since about 1997? maybe 12 years or so -- it was worse before the real names policy. We had some real a--hole trolls that would come and go, re-registering under new aliases, etc. And there are a few posters still there today who started being a lot more polite after they had to sign their names to their posts.

The tone is just a reflection of the particular personalities involved, for better or worse. It's a dysfunctional family, perhaps, but it's a family nevertheless.

I've seen some of the work by the members and I tend to cut more slack to the particularly talented folks -- they can back up their attitudes and big egos with real work at least. Even if some those folks have a limited or biased view, it hasn't hurt their artistic output. It's the less-productive-but-highly-opinionated types that I have less patience with, people who constantly deride "x" as looking bad, or praise "y" for looking great, yet show no particularly aesthetic skill or visual sensitivity in their own work.

 

[Shawn Booth]

Once again, thank you David for your time and candor - your thoughts and wisdom.

 

[michael zaletel]

Reminds me of when Scitex and Quantel people used to bash Photoshop users or when film photographers used to bash digital photographers. When are people going to realize it's all about talent and what you do with the tools. Only the most talented people can afford the most expensive gear and so by default the "portfolio", if you will, of established, expensive equipment is always going to be better than the portfolio of any technological breakthrough, especially one that opens wide the marketplace to the less skilled.

Why ANYONE or any Studio, in these economic times, would still shoot a major feature, or anything else, on film instead of RED is completely beyond me and can only be explained by the above "Photoshop Fear" principle, especially now that all of the workflow issues have been worked out.

-shooter

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Why ANYONE or any Studio, in these economic times, would still shoot a major feature, or anything else, on film instead of RED is completely beyond me and can only be explained by the above "Photoshop Fear" principle, especially now that all of the workflow issues have been worked out.

-shooter

I'm a big fan of Red, but I have no problem admitting there are still many reasons to shoot film. Not all of them technical.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Because film looks great, that's why. It's not always about fear nor workflow, sometimes it's just about the look you want to achieve. No digital cine camera matches the dynamic range of color negative film for one thing.

Your post implies that we've reached some sort of equivalency when we're just at the threshold of that. I still see areas that need improvement in digital cine images; it would be a big mistake to abandon film prematurely.

When I see a digitally-shot movie on a huge theater screen that has the richness of "Thin Red Line" or "Days of Heaven" or "Lawrence of Arabia", then we can start talking... but I'm still waiting.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

I love my Red Cam. it has broadened my creative horizons.

But who can honestly doubt the truth of what David Mullen just said? I have never understood those who seem to rejoice in the early demise of film. Film still rules!

Rob

 

[Chi Ying Chan]

Because film looks great, that's why.
When I see a digitally-shot movie on a huge theater screen that has the richness of "Thin Red Line" or "Days of Heaven" or "Lawrence of Arabia", then we can start talking... but I'm still waiting.

Me too.
Anyone tested the Vision3 250D,will test it after Chinese New Year.

Regards
Chan Chi Ying
DP HK

 

[Jose Alvarez]

I love RED functionality and the "RED Look", but if I could shoot film for the same price I can shoot RED, I would choose film every time! That's my opinion in a nutshell.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I love RED functionality and the "RED Look", but if I could shoot film for the same price I can shoot RED, I would choose film every time! That's my opinion in a nutshell.

Hi,

A no of people @.com share your philosophy, some of those people often do get the necessary budget to shoot on film. I often find I can get away with a smaller lighting budget on film (tungsten & less fill) making the final cost the same.

Stephen

 

[Yannick Hagman]

What's your dayrate prediction for the fixed lens Scarlet, Stephen?

 

[Mark Toia]

Hi Shawn,

I don't think it was as bad as that, just there were very high expectations about RED One when it was first released.

Stephen

Your expectations weren't met?
wow. tough.

Looking at my companies great profit margins in a economic down turn and quite a few cinematography awards from ad's we shot on the RED camera , I will say my RED expectations were well and truly met. I couldn't be happier.

Hey checked your web site out Stephen, youve got some nice work there, Congrats.

 

[ericyoung]

Because film looks great, that's why. It's not always about fear nor workflow, sometimes it's just about the look you want to achieve. No digital cine camera matches the dynamic range of color negative film for one thing.

Your post implies that we've reached some sort of equivalency when we're just at the threshold of that. I still see areas that need improvement in digital cine images; it would be a big mistake to abandon film prematurely.

When I see a digitally-shot movie on a huge theater screen that has the richness of "Thin Red Line" or "Days of Heaven" or "Lawrence of Arabia", then we can start talking... but I'm still waiting.

Recently watched DVD extras of DejaVu by Tony Scott, which shot both Genesis and film. Genesis for night and timeportal shots and film for daytime exteriors. Perfect example of using the right tools for the shots they wanted.