Red One vs DSLR on Macbook for Post

[TylerPavey]

So I'm sure this is a topic that's been talked about to death, but as a director with a big decision to make, I felt that I should make sure that all my editor's specifications were included and that my specific situation was addressed...

I'm going into production on a low budget independent feature film in a month. My cinematographer owns a Canon 5d mkII and we've been gearing up to shoot on it, but for obvious reasons, we would both prefer to shoot Red One. The problem is that my editor will be working on a new Macbook Pro with the following specs:

Quad 2.2 gigahertz processor
8GB of RAM
6TB Raid system with FireWire 800
Final Cut X (though feel free to use 7 at a template)

The primary reason for leaning towards DSLR at the moment is a concern for the post flow on that system. Will a computer with these specs be able to manage a 100 minute film shot on Red, and what is the best post workflow to maximize quality and minimize system lag? We need to be editing parallel to production, so I need a system that will allow us to shoot and edit in the same day. The more detailed you can be, the better (even if it's just pointing to other posts that have good breakdowns of these issues). I could really use the help.

Again, sorry if this has already been discussed, I just couldn't find anything on the forum specific enough or comprehensive enough.

All the best,
Tyler

 

[paulherrin]

I think you'll be kicking yourself down the road if you decide to shoot on a dslr just so that editing might go a little faster. I really would recommend NOT editing anything more than a short on a laptop, unless you're up on a mountain with nothing but that and a solar panel. But for real, that's a silly thing to do. You can build something that will be a better workstation for about $500-$1000 and it only gets better the more you put into it. I really really recommend shooting RED if it's a possibility, and I strenuously suggest that you talk some sense into your editor. Macbooks are for writing screenplays, not editing feature length films... sorry. I'm sure it's a great computer, the specs are pretty good, and it is possible to get it done, but you will have to make compromises and be more patient. I would highly recommend a red rocket or mobile red rocket in either case.

 

[Michael Romano]

A laptop is going to be painful for any kind of long format edit. If you're dealing with pain - do it in the edit, not when you see the final picture. 5DMKII is really not worth throwing a lot of time and personal sweat into. Your actual edit will likely end up being done in a prores type format either way. Why not feel better about the final picture?

 

[Shane Betts]

And, whether you decide to stick with cutting on the laptop (it's your life), problem with the 5D path is that goes like this: Camera original->2nd gen ProRes edit->grade ProRes->render out to 3rd gen ProRes->, build FX, render out to 4th Gen ProRes. The camera original is a fairly low quality compression to begin with and then you recompress it to ProRes and then anything you want to do to it, like colour grading for instance, is another generation of compression. With Red it goes like this: Camera original->ProRes->relink to camera original for grade->relink to camera original for FX->render out to uncompressed or to ProRes 2nd gen.

 

[paulherrin]

oh yeah, you can edit with the red footage proxies, just like you would some canon footage... except those aren't proxies, that's as good as they get.

and shane, that's why, in that situation, you don't keep compressing. render frame sequences: tif or dpx or exr. prores isn't that great...

 

[Greg M]

and why do you want to edit a feature film on a laptop?

 

[Jason Svatos]

Coming from someone who's done mostly micro/no budget filmmaking/editing, I say ignore the "don't edit on a laptop"-sayers as it's really not as bad as it sounds. If you proxy edit the Red One footage, you'll be fine. Sure it won't be as fast as a Mac Pro, but you can ALWAYS play the "that will be faster game", EVEN with a Mac Pro.

Remember, Louis CK edits a broadcast TV show, shot on RED, on a 13'' MacBook Pro. You'll be fine either way.

 

[paulherrin]

jason, i agree with you. it's totally possible and it won't be the end of your life. and it's great that it's even possible! but we are talking about a feature film, however low budget. time is money, and with a little of it you could save some serious time and headache in post, right? we'll let the man decide for himself, i'm just sayin.

 

[Jason Svatos]

jason, i agree with you. it's totally possible and it won't be the end of your life. and it's great that it's even possible! but we are talking about a feature film, however low budget. time is money, and with a little of it you could save some serious time and headache in post, right? we'll let the man decide for himself, i'm just sayin.

Oh absolutely. I mean if a more powerful system is affordable or doable, then absolutely go with that. Though I've done some pretty heavy HD work on a 13'' MBP myself, running a Firewire 400 drive for scratch/editing and it wasn't NEARLY as bad as everyone said it was going to be.

So yeah. If you've got the means for a better desktop, absolutely go with that. If not, that MBP will absolutely be enough.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I disagree with some of the advice here.

The central advice I have, in agreement with most here, is this: If your editor wants to edit with a laptop ... they aren't really an editor with credible experience on long form projects.

The new MacBook Pro is a fine system for low to mid range ingest. You can use it as a DIT station with decent storage and video i/o attached. You can edit a short film with a laptop- even one shot on Red. Its pretty cool.

But ... for editing a feature it seems ridiculous. What works for a music video or other short form stuff won't work for a 100 minute feature. Don't be misled by the fact that the CPU is much faster than the systems used for post in the past. Its the total system that's an issue. You need lots more disk throughput and video i/o.

Maybe in a few months when Thunderbolt peripherals are readily available the current MBP will be a contender for a simple feature edit. Not today. Not a finish in my opinion, an edit. (Maybe the next generation MBP or the one after can be a finishing system.)

If you want to shoot DSLR, that's cool. Red's better, but you can seriously make a great looking picture with a DSLR.

Don't listen to the naysayers here. I mean, sorry Red folks but some of the answers are stupid. You should be aware that features were released before Red came around and not on film? Formats like MiniDV and BetaCam used for features. If you do your job properly, a DSLR can look good. 10 years ago we'd have killed for this level of image making technology. Well ... I suppose you could argue that MiniDV is a better format, but then you should smack yourself.

The workflows here are not optimal for DSLR post.

You want to shoot and ingest/archive camera originals.

If you have software that accelerates h.264 for editorial (Like Premiere Pro or the upcoming FCP X) then you can edit the camera originals.

If you don't have such software then you need to convert to an "edit friendly format."

You want to convert your camera originals to uncompressed - this is the best option if your edit system can handle the bandwidth.

Then you want to use a utility like 5DtoRGB to convert to ProResHQ or ProRes 4444. Edit that. This is a compromise for reasonable editing facility. Its better than many alternatives. You can get great results using that workflow.

You want to edit in the highest precision your edit system can handle.

If you worked in any compressed format, then output uncompressed at this stage. (If you are already uncompressed then stay there!)

Now, the project goes to finishing. Your colorist and your VFX people work in uncompressed formats from this point forward.

DSLR cameras aren't flawless, but then neither are any of dozens of camera systems used to release finished professional films. In fact, a DSLR is arguably a better image making system than many cameras that came before.

Now, Red is undeniably much better. If you have access to one then use it if you can. Don't use the Red though if you can't handle the data rates with your ingest setup.

No seriously. People here argue that Red is better, and its great, but its a complete fail if you can't handle the data and trash the whole picture. Its not that hard ... but prep for it. And the backups. It's not rocket science, but you need a plan and some budget.

 

[paulherrin]

alexander, you're right in many ways. we've had this discussion before. i've got a post from the past few days floating around about a cell phone captured feature film, you can check it out. it's the same discussion. of course there are more important things than the camera, and even the worst cameras today are better than 10 years ago. but given options, i'm always going to shoot with the best device i can get. and i feel it's unwise to compromise that decision by basing it on the editor.

again, it can be just as easy to edit with red footage as with dslr, but i just can't recommend doing it, but you can if that's your only option... i do understand how those things go sometimes. i'm sure you're capable of making a wise decision here. don't go into debt just because you feel like you need to shoot on a red camera, but at least look at your options and put some thought into it.

 

[TylerPavey]

Thank you guys for your awesome responses. I can definitely sense that there is a lot of knowledge here. The specs listed above, for better or worse, are what I have to work with (unless what Paul says is true and I can honestly build something better than that for under $1k...how?). I know working on a laptop is going to less than ideal. I know that editing a short and editing a feature are very different animals, and I know it is absolutely possible to push a 15 minute Red short through a Macbook. I don't mean to sound redundant, and I certainly don't want to come across as rude, but I feel I need to restate the original question:

Is it possible to shoot Red One footage and edit on Final Cut X (again, use 7 as a parallel for the moment) on a Macbook Pro with the above specs at the feature level, and if I were to, what would be the best post process? Shane, your process sounds pretty good and rather straight forward, but will that change any with the performance restrictions of the computer? Has anyone completed a feature on a similar system and could accurately diagnose the kind of problems that are going to arise? Obviously, if my editor or I had a better machine to use, we would, but we simply don't have one, nor do we have the money to get a heavy hitter.

Alexander, I completely agree, DSLR is a godsend, especially compared to the cameras I've grown up using and with good glass (we'll be working on Zeiss CP2s if we go that route). My cinematographer has shot extensively on both cameras, so it's really just a question of possibility of post vs. higher resolution and more latitude. If we have to shoot 5DmII, definitely not the end of the world. I hear ya.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

alexander, you're right in many ways. we've had this discussion before. i've got a post from the past few days floating around about a cell phone captured feature film, you can check it out. it's the same discussion. of course there are more important things than the camera, and even the worst cameras today are better than 10 years ago. but given options, i'm always going to shoot with the best device i can get. and i feel it's unwise to compromise that decision by basing it on the editor.

again, it can be just as easy to edit with red footage as with dslr, but i just can't recommend doing it, but you can if that's your only option... i do understand how those things go sometimes. i'm sure you're capable of making a wise decision here. don't go into debt just because you feel like you need to shoot on a red camera, but at least look at your options and put some thought into it.

That much I can agree with wholeheartedly!

One thing I don't like about this forum, without pointing fingers at any particular person, is how many people get going on this "if its worth shooting, then shoot Red or not at all!" thing.

Red has a 1-2 punch in the industry right now - by which I mean they have the best and second best cameras out there today.

For me, its important to be rational and really consider not just the cost of the Red itself, but the cost of dealing with Red's data rates in ingest, and the technology needed for Red in post. I've had to decide against Red four times where the camera itself was available free. Breaks my heart every time, but I've also done a lot of good work with a not Red camera.

 

[paulherrin]

PM me and i'll give you some suggestions on something less than or around $1k to think about

it is possible to edit R1 footage on a macbook pro in final cut. i use windows and premiere with the r3d's, but people using final cut seem to be using the proxy versions of the footage, and then at the end linking those to the full resolution files for export. shouldnt be too difficult a process, someone can probably chime in and give you some good direction on that. don't know a lot about the new final cut and how that might alter the red workflow, but its something to look into. as i mentioned before, you shouldn't notice much of a difference between working with the camera proxies and dslr footage...so i still wouldn't let that be the deciding factor.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Is it possible to shoot Red One footage and edit on Final Cut X (again, use 7 as a parallel for the moment) on a Macbook Pro with the above specs at the feature level, and if I were to, what would be the best post process? Shane, your process sounds pretty good and rather straight forward, but will that change any with the performance restrictions of the computer? Has anyone completed a feature on a similar system and could accurately diagnose the kind of problems that are going to arise? Obviously, if my editor or I had a better machine to use, we would, but we simply don't have one, nor do we have the money to get a heavy hitter.

Alexander, I completely agree, DSLR is a godsend, especially compared to the cameras I've grown up using and with good glass (we'll be working on Zeiss CP2s if we go that route). My cinematographer has shot extensively on both cameras, so it's really just a question of possibility of post vs. higher resolution and more latitude. If we have to shoot 5DmII, definitely not the end of the world. I hear ya.

FCP X is a game changer as far as FCP performance goes - so setting the guesstimates with FCP 7 doesn't wash.

Premiere CS5 is a better match for what we've seen of FCP X. (Of course until we can all use FCP X we can't really compare.)

I know you can edit a 15 minute short in Premiere CS 5 without the system getting in your way too much. If you can break your film down into 15 minute segments you can get by.

The limitation is that the computer has limited peripheral throughput.

In some ways the MBP really addresses this ... but that computer will not come into its own until Thunderbolt peripherals are available.

A BlackMagic Ultrastudio 3D (via thunderbolt) with a RAID array over Thunderbolt plus an eSATA PC Expresscard adapter with some eSATA enclosures, like the QX2 and you have a heck of a system. It's all coming together. You can attache a second computer display at the end of your Thunderbolt chain. Most of the expansion possibilities of a Mac Pro in a portable system.

You'll be out at the edge of system performance though. THe $1000 Windows computer Paul will suggest won't perform as well as the MBP for many tasks, but the i/o options will work better because of the nice PCIe slots. That will mean more in the long run.

So here is my question ... you have a budget for this 100 minute feature, but no budget to post it on a system better suited to the task? I think that a recent vintage Mac Pro (or equivalent Windows machine if you prefer ) should be accessible for the appropriate post budget - whether you are shooting 5DMK2 or R1MX or EPIC.

 

[Art Chong]

To me, the decision between a 5DmII and a Red One has as much to do with the type of production it is and the pace you want to run the shoot at as it does whether or not you have the post pipeline to handle the footage. I find that I can run a DSLR shoot at a very fast pace due simply to the size and weight of the camera, and I'm using a properly cine-kitted 5D, not just a bare camera and a Z-finder. The speed and flexibility increase of having a camera package that's less than 10 lbs fully kitted vs a camera that's 10 lbs for the bare body is difficult to ignore. The Red One is a professional system that's that can produce vastly superior images to the 5D, but as everyone has been discussing, it comes with a responsibility of handling all that.

As someone in the midst of shooting an indie feature as well, I wish you luck on whatever decision you make.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I disagree with some of the advice here.

The central advice I have, in agreement with most here, is this: If your editor wants to edit with a laptop ... they aren't really an editor with credible experience on long form projects.

The new MacBook Pro is a fine system for low to mid range ingest. You can use it as a DIT station with decent storage and video i/o attached. You can edit a short film with a laptop- even one shot on Red. Its pretty cool.

But ... for editing a feature it seems ridiculous. What works for a music video or other short form stuff won't work for a 100 minute feature. Don't be misled by the fact that the CPU is much faster than the systems used for post in the past. Its the total system that's an issue. You need lots more disk throughput and video i/o.

Maybe in a few months when Thunderbolt peripherals are readily available the current MBP will be a contender for a simple feature edit. Not today. Not a finish in my opinion, an edit. (Maybe the next generation MBP or the one after can be a finishing system.)

If you want to shoot DSLR, that's cool. Red's better, but you can seriously make a great looking picture with a DSLR.

Don't listen to the naysayers here. I mean, sorry Red folks but some of the answers are stupid. You should be aware that features were released before Red came around and not on film? Formats like MiniDV and BetaCam used for features. If you do your job properly, a DSLR can look good. 10 years ago we'd have killed for this level of image making technology. Well ... I suppose you could argue that MiniDV is a better format, but then you should smack yourself.

The workflows here are not optimal for DSLR post.

You want to shoot and ingest/archive camera originals.

If you have software that accelerates h.264 for editorial (Like Premiere Pro or the upcoming FCP X) then you can edit the camera originals.

If you don't have such software then you need to convert to an "edit friendly format."

You want to convert your camera originals to uncompressed - this is the best option if your edit system can handle the bandwidth.

Then you want to use a utility like 5DtoRGB to convert to ProResHQ or ProRes 4444. Edit that. This is a compromise for reasonable editing facility. Its better than many alternatives. You can get great results using that workflow.

You want to edit in the highest precision your edit system can handle.

If you worked in any compressed format, then output uncompressed at this stage. (If you are already uncompressed then stay there!)

Now, the project goes to finishing. Your colorist and your VFX people work in uncompressed formats from this point forward.

DSLR cameras aren't flawless, but then neither are any of dozens of camera systems used to release finished professional films. In fact, a DSLR is arguably a better image making system than many cameras that came before.

Now, Red is undeniably much better. If you have access to one then use it if you can. Don't use the Red though if you can't handle the data rates with your ingest setup.

No seriously. People here argue that Red is better, and its great, but its a complete fail if you can't handle the data and trash the whole picture. Its not that hard ... but prep for it. And the backups. It's not rocket science, but you need a plan and some budget.

No feature film was ever shot on Betacam except porn. Blair witch used some kind of DV or Hi-8, but that was using the look as an effect integrated into the story, not trying to shoot standard fiction set-ups on that format. DSLRs are awful tools. I wish they weren't so I coudl have spent my 50K or so on something other than my Red MX kit but they are.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

To me, the decision between a 5DmII and a Red One has as much to do with the type of production it is and the pace you want to run the shoot at as it does whether or not you have the post pipeline to handle the footage. I find that I can run a DSLR shoot at a very fast pace due simply to the size and weight of the camera, and I'm using a properly cine-kitted 5D, not just a bare camera and a Z-finder. The speed and flexibility increase of having a camera package that's less than 10 lbs fully kitted vs a camera that's 10 lbs for the bare body is difficult to ignore. The Red One is a professional system that's that can produce vastly superior images to the 5D, but as everyone has been discussing, it comes with a responsibility of handling all that.

As someone in the midst of shooting an indie feature as well, I wish you luck on whatever decision you make.

But all the re-lighting and moire-elimination costs time on set, as does fiddling with the cam because you can't save anything in a grade later. Red is fast in that you can save yourself from your mistakes very often in post, and there are way fewer caveats

 

[Christoffer Glans]

To say that editors editing feature films on a laptop isn't credible or serious is bullshit. I edited a feature film on one and with tools like the new thundebolt and editing I/O's you get the same editing quality that you get on a desktop. I think that it all comes down to your knowledge of hardware and software. If you know that there are equal power under the hood of a laptop compared to a desktop (or even greater in some cases), then why isn't a laptop a good choice? It's portable, you can take your work with you.
Editing a feature film is the same as editing a short project, what differs is if you aren't any good at managing your files and need an assistant for it.

But to say that one tool, one setup makes the editor less professional is again pure bullshit. If the tool works for you, then it WORKS. Simple as that.
I have done online work 1080p uncompressed on a less then preferable specs-laptop and it worked out well, but then again, editing isn't online, it's offline in most cases and for that you don't need any specs of significance. I'm tired of hearing people saying to new editors that they need one "special" system or else they aren't for real. Times are changing, desktops might not be the future at all, at least not for offline.

Currently I can do uncompressed 1080p 3D on my laptop... can you do that on your desktop?

 

[TylerPavey]

Didn't want to make a stink about it, but I totally agree. An editor is defined by his talent, not by his system. I'm young and so is my editor. If we could drop thousands on a system we would, but right now we've got to get by on skill and determination. If we let our machines get us down, if we say we can't make a film without a superior system, then we're just waiting around and making excuses instead of making movies. People get too focused on the tools and sometimes lose sight of the most important equipment, the invaluable equipment: the filmmakers.

Rob, I respectfully disagree. DSLRs are incredible tools and have unlocked movie making in a whole new way. To say DSLR is an awful tool is a bit narrow minded. DSLR is the wrong tool for some situations, but the perfect one for others. You wouldn't use a hammer to build a fence with screws, but that doesn't make it inferior to a screw driver. Toss some nails in the mix and the reverse is the case. It's the same with cameras, your factors just become speed, setups, light, weight, support equipment, type of narrative, aesthetic, etc.

Art, thank you for the kind words of encouragement. Best of luck to you as well, and I agree, the camera is a decision for the tone of the shoot. DSLR is great, but RED is a professional film camera, not a still camera. It's the difference of respecting your equipment or simply using it as a tool. In that respect, I have a big decision to make. At this point, I just needed to know if RED was possible on a MacBook Pro at the 100 minute level, and it's sounding like, where not ideal, it just may be.

My last questions are...

Once I've edited it, can the same machine handle the final full res render/export or will I need to compile that on a separate computer (find something a bit heavier lifting for the day)?

Most importantly, how long does the ingest process take/will I be able to ingest and edit in Final Cut in the same day, or is there a lengthy conversion/render that needs to happen first?