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

[Tim Whitcomb]

Well, that's one view. But another view is that when a device comes along and the manufacturer wants it to be used in an established industry, it can be useful to provide methods and support to allow it to be used in established pipelines, to create established (and still required) delivery elements, as well as to provide new ways of using it that might yield equal or better results, and let those in the industry decide which to use. This is exactly what led to all of the upheaval here regarding the ASC/PGA tests, and it is also what has now led Jim to the apparent conclusion that it is in Red's interest to provide such support after all.

Using methodology that is proven and that works is not "backward," it is, in some cases, prudent if those involved are very well versed in that methodology and well equipped for it, and particularly if elements are involved in the project that don't happen to be R3d files, which is often the case. If new methods have advantages - and I'm certainly not saying they don't - they will be adopted over time. Things don't have to change overnight, especially when there are established delivery requirements to be met.

Mike, I usually agree with you. But I see NO reason for a TAPELESS workflow to adopt to an aging TAPE based workflow...

Sure, it may cost RED some short term market share... but industry stalwart ARRI seems to think RED is on to something. Hence the D21.

This is disruptive technology and methodology... and there will undoubtedly
be bumps along the road and much resistance from the "status quo"

But in the last 6 months.. you also stated resolutely to mark P. that mainstream digital projection WAS at least 5 -10 years away... and then Sony signs a landmark multi Billion $ deal to rollout thousands of digital projectors to the big 4 theaters.

IF my guess (hope) about RED RAY PRO is correct...and they create a sub $50K DCP encoding system (as well as decoding)... then there are going to be more drastic disruptive changes in the very near future.

I dont care how long someone has been on the business. the Tide is changing and those resisting a FILE BASED workflow and digital pipeline better have a solid early retirement plan

respectfully disagree that RED has learned and is now going to play the game... at least I sure (cussing) hope not.

 

[M Most]

Mike, I usually agree with you. But I see NO reason for a TAPELESS workflow to adopt to an aging TAPE based workflow...

Workflows don't adapt. They simply are. Products and the tools supplied by their manufacturers adapt to whatever the market requires, at least in most industries, including this one. Regardless, I think you're misinterpreting what I've been saying, which is that some of the results that have been obtained by mainstream players - and whether one likes it or not, they count because they perform the vast bulk of the work that actually gets seen by the public - have been less than optimal in part because Red chose to not support existing methodologies, such as finishing in a film centric DI pipeline. They are now rethinking that approach and planning to provide better support for those methodologies. So what I've been saying is not exactly wrong in their eyes, either.

Sure, it may cost RED some short term market share... but industry stalwart ARRI seems to think RED is on to something. Hence the D21.

The vast majority of material shot on the D21 is recorded to SRW1 VTR's today. There have been very few shows done as Arri Raw projects. That will likely change with Arri's new products in 2010, but the D21 has been used almost identically to the Genesis and F35, even though it is technically capable of RAW recording. I would actually consider this a good illustration of responding to what their market was asking for.

But in the last 6 months.. you also stated resolutely to mark P. that mainstream digital projection WAS at least 5 -10 years away... and then Sony signs a landmark multi Billion $ deal to rollout thousands of digital projectors to the big 4 theaters.

First, you would need to show me that quote, because as I recall, I refused to put a timetable on it. I just said that film projection would be dominant for some time to come. And worldwide, that is probably very true. Even in the US, deals such as the one you mention have been made on a regular basis for the last 4 years. If you research it, you'll find that such deals were made by Technicolor Digital Cinema, Access IT, Kodak, and the DCIP over that time. The result is that Technicolor Digital Cinema got out of the business entirely, Access IT changed their name and never completed most of the installations they had claimed to have contracted for, Kodak never became much of a factor, and the DCIP put off all deals for at least a year when money got tight. The announcement of a deal doesn't mean imminent completion of all the installations that deal calls for. It means that pending financing and approval, some or all of those installations may eventually take place. The fact is that the digital rollout is proceeding at a much, much slower pace than anyone had predicted, largely due to the financial situation. In fact, the only real driver of new installations right now is 3D, which is why you're now seeing a bit more activity. I still refuse to put a timetable on it, and I still agree that digital projection will ultimately become dominant. But I would also say not to hold your breath, at least not over the next year or so.

IF my guess (hope) about RED RAY PRO is correct...and they create a sub $50K DCP encoding system (as well as decoding)... then there are going to be more drastic disruptive changes in the very near future.

You can buy a Qube Master DCP encoding system today for about $30K, and that includes a server. I have not seen any indication from Red that they intend to produce digital cinema packages - only that they intend to provide their own codec for highly compressed digital encoding of a single file, and a box to play it out on. However, if they really want to place these in theaters that are playing studio supplied material - which means just about every multiplex screen in America - they are going to need to provide something that the studio distribution apparatus can support, and the studios have already committed to the DCI originated DCP spec, which already supports 4K, 3D stereoscopic material, and a encryption/security model that is very tightly controlled by the distributors. I really don't see that changing, no matter how "disruptive" one might think Red Ray is. In fact, my guess, based on both that reality and some statements Ted has made is that Red Ray is likely to be presented more for things like special venue projection, corporate needs, and personal screenings than it is to mainstream theatrical use.

I dont care how long someone has been on the business. the Tide is changing and those resisting a FILE BASED workflow and digital pipeline better have a solid early retirement plan

respectfully disagree that RED has learned and is now going to play the game... at least I sure (cussing) hope not.

You keep talking about "file based" as opposed to...whatever you're posing it against. I'm not talking about that at all. Digital intermediate work has been done as a file based workflow since its inception. I'm talking about established formats for deliverables and the established means of producing those formats in a predictable, repeatable way - film, for instance. if you have been reading Jim's comments on CML in the last few days, I think you would understand that the need to accommodate that has indeed been recognized and is being addressed.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Our new website due soon is going to have an extensive REDUCATION section with tons of knowledge, interviews, and guides.. something that is long overdue.

Ok this post may clutter this thread abit but I want to add my appreciation to this! Thanks!!:thumbup1:

 

[David Battistella]

Mike, I usually agree with you. But I see NO reason for a TAPELESS workflow to adopt to an aging TAPE based workflow...

Sure, it may cost RED some short term market share... but industry stalwart ARRI seems to think RED is on to something. Hence the D21.

This is disruptive technology and methodology... and there will undoubtedly
be bumps along the road and much resistance from the "status quo"

TIm,

I think the market will take care of this. I guess it will come down to who will invest in tape to tape based HDCAM SR rooms right out of the gate.

There will be a lag time between when any of that happens. I am also still shocked at how many believe that the enormous cost means that it is the best solution.

Working with R3D files through FCS FCP then COLOR is a very high quality solution right now. I know that there are those who will say "well, what do you do if there is a client over your shoulder" to that I say it will be very short order before this becomes the accepted way of doing things.

In many aspects of the business, cost will be a factor (the money is no object clients are the exception), but it won't be long before the educated client knows more about the workflow than they can be sold on.

Interesting times.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I think you're taking Mike Most's statements as a provocation and an attack when I believe they are meant as just the opposite. Mike is a respected part of the established professional industry and as always, delivers a clear, level-headed perspective of practical functionality. Up until now, RED has essentially been the left-side-of-the-road camera in a right-side-of-the-road industry. It is not impossible to use it within the established system, but it doesn't lend itself to it. This is not about which system is better or worse; it is about the way people work now. Metric may be more effective for some work than Imperial, but in many cases it is simply a headache to insert a single metric measurement into an otherwise completely imperial design.

And as Mike stated, RED is now recognizing this as an issue and addressing it.

 

[christopher witzke]

Good post Mitch!

Paradigms can't change overnight..... but if RED makes it easier, it will happen sooner.

 

[Steven Parker]

Our new website due soon is going to have an extensive REDUCATION section with tons of knowledge, interviews, and guides.. something that is long overdue.

Hopefully this will include official definitions with guides to using and mis-using Linear Light, PDlog685/985, Lanczos, etc etc etc... I've sorta wrapped my head around most of it, but trying to explain it to others is tough, especially those who ask a lot of questions!

Thanks

 

[Todd M.]

I think you're taking Mike Most's statements as a provocation and an attack when I believe they are meant as just the opposite. Mike is a respected part of the established professional industry and as always, delivers a clear, level-headed perspective of practical functionality. Up until now, RED has essentially been the left-side-of-the-road camera in a right-side-of-the-road industry. It is not impossible to use it within the established system, but it doesn't lend itself to it. This is not about which system is better or worse; it is about the way people work now. Metric may be more effective for some work than Imperial, but in many cases it is simply a headache to insert a single metric measurement into an otherwise completely imperial design.

And as Mike stated, RED is now recognizing this as an issue and addressing it.

I liken this whole discussion to the age-old AVID/FCP debate. When FCP was introduced all the established industry players said it couldn't compete. Meanwhile, hundreds and thousands of indie filmmakers took the tool and learned how to make it work for their needs and start delivering material. Along the way Apple did have to make changes and adopt more industry standard practices in order to grow and improve the product. At the same time, AVID recognized that Apple was expanding the market for these products and needed to compete on a rapidly changing playing field. They had to make just as many changes to their business model/product offering to compete in those changing times.

I bring up this example because I think it illustrates that the burden of change is not isolated only to the new market entrant. Established players must change their game as well. RED is wise to finally establish and endorse some good practices for workflow. But I also think that the advancement of the new tools provided by RED will incite many changes to the status quo as well. The good news is we the filmmakers/cinematographers/photographers/etc. will be be beneficiaries of this change and advancement of the tool-set available to us.

People can argue until they're blue in the face about what will happen but the only constant is included at the end of Jim's posts... "Everything is subject to change. Count on it!"

EDIT: Not to imply your post is wrong Mitch, just wanted to add a bit to your POV.

 

[M Most]

I liken this whole discussion to the age-old AVID/FCP debate.

I don't really see it that way at all. Avid and Final Cut are intended to produce the same final product, on the same mediums - videotape, if that's the deliverable (which it often is, even now) or something else if it's not. What I've been talking about here is the need to produce a film deliverable, which is at the heart of the entire subject being discussed. And in almost every case at the studio level, that film deliverable is the primary deliverable target, because at this point in time it's still very dominant in distribution. There are very established methods for doing film targeted DI's, and up to this point, Red hasn't really offered a lot of help for that. This has nothing to do with burdens of change or new tools. It has everything to do with accommodating the intended marketplace as it currently exists. That requires either information that Red has not seen fit to supply regarding the workings of the sensor and true, direct access to the Raw information, which they have also chosen not to provide. Without these things, third parties cannot really fill the gap in providing optimized ways of working in a film centric finishing environment, at least not accurately. The only issue I'm pointing out is that Red has to this point concentrated almost exclusively on electronic delivery, something that may be the future but is not the present. They have now announced their intention to better and more directly address the need for film friendliness, much to their credit.

 

[David Battistella]

I think you're taking Mike Most's statements as a provocation and an attack when I believe they are meant as just the opposite. Mike is a respected part of the established professional industry and as always, delivers a clear, level-headed perspective of practical functionality. Up until now, RED has essentially been the left-side-of-the-road camera in a right-side-of-the-road industry. It is not impossible to use it within the established system, but it doesn't lend itself to it. This is not about which system is better or worse; it is about the way people work now. Metric may be more effective for some work than Imperial, but in many cases it is simply a headache to insert a single metric measurement into an otherwise completely imperial design.

And as Mike stated, RED is now recognizing this as an issue and addressing it.

I hope you can see that I do not disrespect anyone here on REDuser, but I think it's a good free and open discussion where a lot of useful information is being discussed.

David

 

[David Battistella]

The only issue I'm pointing out is that Red has to this point concentrated almost exclusively on electronic delivery, something that may be the future but is not the present. They have now announced their intention to better and more directly address the need for film friendliness, much to their credit.

Mike,

Baselight is a great tool for RED filmouts and I have done a few with that tool with a good team that extracted the frames to DPX from R3D to finish with the baselight.

The SDK came very late, and this was a problem. RED was not providing anything other than RED CINE, RED ALERT and REDLINE as a means to extract the Data. The company I worked with did a great job of extracting frames from teh RED, testing workflows and finding the best method to finish to film with R3D material. The prints looked Great!

I agree that on some level it is RED's job to make the path to extracting R3D simpler, but it is sure not their job to tell you how to finish. There could be a "best practices" paper written by them, but then they would be held to that and it's a hard spot to be put in.

The key again comes back to education and research when a new tool is presented. Plaster City has made many RED prints. A couple of major hollywood films have been released as prints shot on RED.

Are those houses supposed to tell us all how they did it? They could share that with RED, but is it then RED's obligation to share that with us?

David

 

[Todd M.]

I don't really see it that way at all. Avid and Final Cut are intended to produce the same final product, on the same mediums - videotape, if that's the deliverable (which it often is, even now) or something else if it's not. What I've been talking about here is the need to produce a film deliverable, which is at the heart of the entire subject being discussed. And in almost every case at the studio level, that film deliverable is the primary deliverable target, because at this point in time it's still very dominant in distribution. There are very established methods for doing film targeted DI's, and up to this point, Red hasn't really offered a lot of help for that. This has nothing to do with burdens of change or new tools. It has everything to do with accommodating the intended marketplace as it currently exists. That requires either information that Red has not seen fit to supply regarding the workings of the sensor and true, direct access to the Raw information, which they have also chosen not to provide. Without these things, third parties cannot really fill the gap in providing optimized ways of working in a film centric finishing environment, at least not accurately. The only issue I'm pointing out is that Red has to this point concentrated almost exclusively on electronic delivery, something that may be the future but is not the present. They have now announced their intention to better and more directly address the need for film friendliness, much to their credit.

Thanks for the reply Mike, but I think you do not recall your history correctly.

AVID was designed originally to replace moviolas, steenbecks and the like to create a non-linear editing system that could digitally replace celluloid flatbed editors, but still deliver a film print through a conform process.

FINAL CUT PRO was (originally) designed for the broadcast world that was based around videotape.

The fact that you now see both systems as "videotape" delivery systems proves exactly my point: it's a race to the middle. FCP can deliver a film print just as easily as AVID these days. And AVID can deliver a videotape master just as easily as FCP.

I am completely aware of the 'established methods' for delivery you speak of; I've been through them several times. I understand that film is still the dominant delivery format and as I said in my earlier post, I'm pleased that RED is being proactive about bringing film-centric individuals into the fold with increased outreach and an improved knowledge-base. But as my original analogy was meant to illustrate, I think you will find the established practices changing as well to accommodate the enhanced capabilities that new tools like the RED camera bring to the table.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Thanks for the reply Mike, but I think you do not recall your history correctly.

AVID was designed originally to replace moviolas, steenbecks and the like to create a non-linear editing system that could digitally replace celluloid flatbed editors, but still deliver a film print through a conform process.

FINAL CUT PRO was (originally) designed for the broadcast world that was based around videotape.

Err... Todd... I actually think your history is a little off. Avid's Film Composer product was not released until later. Until that point, Media Composer was just about timecode and video. Michael Phillips is on this list - he can clarify, since he's the guy that won the Technical Academy Award for the invention and development of Film Composer. ; )

Also, maybe you're confusing terminology on the FCP thing? Broadcast (to me and many others) means news, sports, concerts, and other direct-to-air or direct-to-tape productions.

Final Cut was originally developed by the same core team that developed Premiere and was at first just going to be the next generation of Premiere. Then Macromedia got the team, etc. But Final Cut was not originally designed for the Broadcast world. That just came with time.

FCP can deliver a film print just as easily as AVID these days. And AVID can deliver a videotape master just as easily as FCP.

For film - do you really want to go down the path of comparing FCP's film tools to Avid's? Or laying off longform masters from FCP vs. Avid? Really?

While FCP is obviously an incredibly strong tool, there is no way you can say with a straight face that FCP can deliver a film print just as easily as Avid.

Or you can prove me wrong, and do a mixed 3-perf and 4-perf project with SlowPAL transfer on FCP and deliver an accurate matchback list after the edit.

I understand that this isn't the main thrust of your post - but don't sugarcoat things either!

Lucas

 

[Cail Young]

Or you can prove me wrong, and do a mixed 3-perf and 4-perf project with SlowPAL transfer on FCP and deliver an accurate matchback list after the edit.

I am probably* the biggest FCP fan in the world. But if anyone ever approaches me to handle post on a job involving a neg pull... Avid all the way.

 

[M Most]

Err... Todd... I actually think your history is a little off. Avid's Film Composer product was not released until later. Until that point, Media Composer was just about timecode and video. Michael Phillips is on this list - he can clarify, since he's the guy that won the Technical Academy Award for the invention and development of Film Composer. ; )

Well, actually I can provide some history of Avid, since I was one of the first group of people to be shown the prototype Media Composer way back in 1987 (I think, it might have been 88), running two different interfaces (neither of which bore any resemblance to what it would eventually become) on an Apollo minicomputer by its original inventor, Bill Warner. I was working for Lorimar at the time, and this was shown to us in a private suite at the original MGM Grand (it's Bally's today). Magneto-optical drives for storage (Bill basically had to write a video compression scheme, as there really wasn't any at the time), postage stamp sized highly pixellated frames, one interface that resembled a film editing bench, and another that resembled a Quantel Harry. A year later they were showing a very different version on an Apple Macintosh - but still with postage stamp images. Over the next few years, it was adopted by commercial editors, but it was still pretty crude. It wasn't until 1992 (I believe, might have been 91) that the first 24 frame version - later renamed to Film Composer - was supplied to Steven Bochco's show, "Civil Wars" (in part at the behest of my boss at the time, Larry Chernoff of Encore Video), and the rest is essentially history. So the quick answer to the original question (I think) is that Avid was essentially born out of one man's vision to put the entire video editing process, including the media, into a computerized form and let it evolve however it would evolve. And that evolution took some time. But during at least the first 3 or 4 years of its life, it was used almost exclusively for commercials. Delivering cutting lists for film was not even on the radar in those days.

As Lucas pointed out, Final Cut had nothing to do with broadcast, at least not in its original design at Macromedia. Even after Apple purchased the program, its original market was that of Adobe Premiere - i.e., basically hobbyists and occasional adventurous music video and commercial editors. Broadcast came later, when third parties came along with hardware that Apple themselves didn't want to build.

If we're going to talk history, let's get it right. History didn't start in 2003.

 

[David Battistella]

I am probably* the biggest FCP fan in the world. But if anyone ever approaches me to handle post on a job involving a neg pull... Avid all the way.

If it is shot film I agree totally. If it is shot on RED. No difference.

David

 

[M Most]

AVID was designed originally to replace moviolas, steenbecks and the like to create a non-linear editing system that could digitally replace celluloid flatbed editors, but still deliver a film print through a conform process.

One more thing...

Nonlinear electronic editing was being used (mostly for television, but for some features as well) long before Avid was on the scene. Beginning in about 1984, systems such as Editdroid, Ediflex, Touchvision, CMX6000, Montage, and Laser Edit were doing true nonlinear editing using multiple copies of source material, stored on either laser disks (in the case of Editdroid, CMX6000, and Laser Edit) or videocassettes (VHS in the case of Ediflex and Touchvision, Betamax in the case of Montage) to do "virtual" cuts by cuing successive cuts on different transports and switching between them in real time. Ediflex was probably the most popular (thanks in large part to Lorimar and Viacom, which ultimately settled on it as their "house systems"), and was used to cut everything from Dallas to the Newhart show (there were single camera and multicamera versions). These systems were around for a full 7 or 8 years before things like Avid and Lightworks became acceptable. In fact, the script based editing that is now in Avid software was purchased from Ediflex, where it was developed for both the original Ediflex (and called the "script mimic") and later the Ediflex Digital.

 

[Todd M.]

Err... Todd... I actually think your history is a little off. Avid's Film Composer product was not released until later. Until that point, Media Composer was just about timecode and video. Michael Phillips is on this list - he can clarify, since he's the guy that won the Technical Academy Award for the invention and development of Film Composer. ; )

Also, maybe you're confusing terminology on the FCP thing? Broadcast (to me and many others) means news, sports, concerts, and other direct-to-air or direct-to-tape productions.

Final Cut was originally developed by the same core team that developed Premiere and was at first just going to be the next generation of Premiere. Then Macromedia got the team, etc. But Final Cut was not originally designed for the Broadcast world. That just came with time.



For film - do you really want to go down the path of comparing FCP's film tools to Avid's? Or laying off longform masters from FCP vs. Avid? Really?

While FCP is obviously an incredibly strong tool, there is no way you can say with a straight face that FCP can deliver a film print just as easily as Avid.

Or you can prove me wrong, and do a mixed 3-perf and 4-perf project with SlowPAL transfer on FCP and deliver an accurate matchback list after the edit.

I understand that this isn't the main thrust of your post - but don't sugarcoat things either!

Lucas

I certainly am guilty of oversimplifying the issue but it was in an attempt to assess the broader scope of how RED will affect what we are seeing or will see in the near future in relation to film delivery workflows.

When I began editing with an NLE ~'99 I had no access to high-end gear but I wanted to make movies. I started with Pinnacle software on the PC and after many months of saving I was able to purchase a PowerBook and FCP. At that time AVID did not have a solution that was affordable for me. FCP allowed me access to tools that previously had only been available to much larger budget productions. This is why I made the original analogy. RED has absolutely done that same thing for many filmmakers and cinematographers.

In my experience with FCP I have not had any major issues that could not be overcome in shooting and delivering film. But, I had the benefit of extensive resources including books, forums, whitepapers, consultants and post-houses who had laid the groundwork before me, and I planned my workflows accordingly. I was simply applauding Jim's recognition of the need for RED to play a roll in further developing these same types of resources for the RED platform so people who wish to shoot the format can plan their workflows in the same manner.

 

[Todd M.]

If we're going to talk history, let's get it right. History didn't start in 2003.

This is my fault for not explicitly stating this when making my analogy about competition between FCP and AVID, but I did assume people would understand that the analogy was referencing that time period when they did actually begin to compete for the filmmaking market. Which as you rightly point out was not until about 2002-2003. When FCP finally became 24 frame capable and AVID started pumping Xpress Pro into the education market to try and capture the next batch of indie filmmakers.

 

[christopher witzke]

yep.... heck, if RED continues to make REDCINE better and more user friendly with more capabilties and plugin-able filter tabs... and continue to offer it for free with the purchase of their cameras ( along with lifetime upgrades ), then it could become THE best workflow out there.