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 :)

RED vs HD

D

Drew Ingram

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kentucky
I have a client that I am trying to persuade to go RED rather than HD. Does anyone have a solid demo reel which compares RED and HD footage directly? I would like to present the quality difference side by side for better effect. I have a few examples, but if there was a reel out there already... thanks!
 
I'd just show them one of the many RED demo reels. Well-shot HD next to well-shot RED on a DVD or even up to a Blu-Ray disc is not going to be night and day different unless the HD is deliberately not shot looking its best... Also you can sell them on the RAW workflow vs. baked in on most HD cameras, etc. And the shallow depth of field they'll get with cinema lenses vs. HD lenses. Etc.

Noah
 
Another RED advantage is punching into the 4k resolution for reframing in post. Most every job I do there is at least a shot that we want cropped tighter, sometimes we turn a WS into a CU if the coverage wasn't there. HD is very limited in this regard, not sure that can be explained as an up-sell to a client though.

RAW, when used properly is a big advantage for doing your final grading. It definitely has more latitude for coaxing a variety of looks out of your footage.
 
I appreciate the comments and advice.

I have found it hard to justify the cost differences between RED and HD to business clients who are simply interested in a product that will compete at the level of its competitors. It is especially hard when, as you said, most video formats output to the same 1080p. Which, in their case, is the extent of what their target audience will view. The difficulty arises in trying to convince the nontechnical client why these advantages outweigh the cost difference in HD. I was hoping that a good reel could articulate it better than me trying to explain the technicalities of the post problem, which the client really doesn't care about - they just want the thing done for as cheap as possible.

On top of that, I would be interested in seeing a reel of this type. I don't necessarily believe that the difference would be night and day, but I believe the difference would be obvious none the less. Thanks again!
 
By the way, loved your book Noah. Read it from cover to cover :smile5:
 
Drew, if they are non-technical and budget constrained, then there is a real possibility that Red isn't the best choice for them.
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
Another RED advantage is punching into the 4k resolution for reframing in post. Most every job I do there is at least a shot that we want cropped tighter, sometimes we turn a WS into a CU if the coverage wasn't there. HD is very limited in this regard, not sure that can be explained as an up-sell to a client though.

RAW, when used properly is a big advantage for doing your final grading. It definitely has more latitude for coaxing a variety of looks out of your footage.
Click to expand...

Folks are definitely not understanding how huge this ability is in post. Creating new moves like a slow zoom in a shot are only possible because you have the increased resolution that will not be lost is a boon to a shoot. You can't do that if you are shooting at terminal resolution.
 
It's worth a note that many cameras that tout "Full 1080p HD" measure substantially less than this in actuality.

Graeme
 
Drew-

Yeah I loves me some RED but I would never force it on a client if they aren't already coming to the table thinking it rocks. Usually you don't have to sell someone too hard on RED if they understand why it's special in the first place.

If they really want to go with another camera go with that. RED is great but it's not the solution for every budget or production and it's definitely not the cheapest solution out there. If you feel strongly about RED over the other camera for a specific set of reasons you might want to try and arrange a test shoot with the camera they are leaning more towards and a RED. Nothing convinces better than a hands-on demonstration.

If you're in a well populated area you may be able to find a RED DP/owner willing to donate an afternoon for the test in the hopes of earning the gig. But if it's mostly because you as the DP want to shoot RED instead of being stuck with an HD camera- I'm totally with you on the fun factor that's not a good client-oriented reason. Just my $.02 there.

And thanks for the kind words about the book- please review me on Amazon. :)

RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera

Noah
 
It's interesting since most of the time RED costs less to shoot than HD anyway.

I'm talking about "real" HD, like F35 or at least F23, not HDV or XD-CAM, though I'll bet it could give XD-CAM a run for its money as well.

I suppose post could get away from you if you aren't set up right.

That's also why it's so great to own a Red. I can use it to shoot my daughter's birthday party if I so choose! :sifone:

Drew Ingram said:
I appreciate the comments and advice.

I have found it hard to justify the cost differences between RED and HD to business clients who are simply interested in a product that will compete at the level of its competitors. It is especially hard when, as you said, most video formats output to the same 1080p. Which, in their case, is the extent of what their target audience will view. The difficulty arises in trying to convince the nontechnical client why these advantages outweigh the cost difference in HD. I was hoping that a good reel could articulate it better than me trying to explain the technicalities of the post problem, which the client really doesn't care about - they just want the thing done for as cheap as possible.

On top of that, I would be interested in seeing a reel of this type. I don't necessarily believe that the difference would be night and day, but I believe the difference would be obvious none the less. Thanks again!
Click to expand...
 
jimhare said:
It's interesting since most of the time RED costs less to shoot than HD anyway.

I'm talking about "real" HD, like F35 or at least F23, not HDV or XD-CAM, though I'll bet it could give XD-CAM a run for its money as well.

I suppose post could get away from you if you aren't set up right.

That's also why it's so great to own a Red. I can use it to shoot my daughter's birthday party if I so choose! :sifone:
Click to expand...

Even the Varicam and F900s can be more expensive but really it comes down to what's needed in addition to the camera that can make the difference. Lenses, support, crew, and of course, postproduction. All of those have to be taken into consideration when determining what is actually cheaper to shoot. But I tend to agree with you that RED can be cheaper in some situations, especially if you match the right type of package and postproduction pipeline with the job at hand.

I also agree that there are times when RED just isn't the right camera for a job and there's no convincing needed to be done. The client perhaps just isn't going to see the benefits when their main goal is to do just good enough and save as much money as possible. No reason to force the issue when they've already made up their minds. The easiest sells are with people who are trying to step up the quality of their productions, have decent budgets, and will appreciate what RED, F35, F23, D21, and film etc can bring to the table. They can see the difference and are willing to pay the extra money to get it.

To the OP, the best you can do is point out the areas that RED shines when compared to the other formats, maybe even show them some ways they can save money, and if you think they have a good eye for this stuff show them a side by side comparison. But ultimately, it may not be in the cards. So, it may end up being HD. If you still get to shoot it, then it's not too big a deal.
 
We are shooting an infomercial for a small town rehab facility. Unfortunately, I live in Kentucky where there are no rental houses that have the RED, and only a couple private owners. There are a few rental houses in Nashville, I believe. But, my point is that the camera is still a rare enough commodity is this area that renting (including camera, lenses, and insurance) runs about $1,500 - $2,000 a day. That price, compared against the Panasonic HVX which I own, usually results in a quick turn down.

When it comes down to it, my goal of shooting on the RED was really more of a benefit to me than the client (not really, they would have had a superior product). I have been considering purchasing a RED for a while, having shot on it previously to great effect, and I wanted to start building a RED Reel to showcase the camera to local business.

In the end... the infomercial will look fine on the HVX. It would have looked tremendously better on the RED, but that will have to wait for the next client.
 
Drew Ingram said:
We are shooting an infomercial for a small town rehab facility. Unfortunately, I live in Kentucky where there are no rental houses that have the RED, and only a couple private owners. There are a few rental houses in Nashville, I believe. But, my point is that the camera is still a rare enough commodity is this area that renting (including camera, lenses, and insurance) runs about $1,500 - $2,000 a day. That price, compared against the Panasonic HVX which I own, usually results in a quick turn down.

When it comes down to it, my goal of shooting on the RED was really more of a benefit to me than the client (not really, they would have had a superior product). I have been considering purchasing a RED for a while, having shot on it previously to great effect, and I wanted to start building a RED Reel to showcase the camera to local business.

In the end... the infomercial will look fine on the HVX. It would have looked tremendously better on the RED, but that will have to wait for the next client.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. If you could take a hit and cover some of the rental yourself with the goal being you want to add some RED material to the reel and treat it as an investment, then might make sense to shoot with the RED. You let the client know that this is something that can benefit each side as a one off deal. This would all depend on whether they could handle the post side of it or if you are willing to help them handle it.

But I'd only suggest doing this if you really needed the RED footage for your reel and can justify the expense. Otherwise, keep shooting with the HVX, perhaps with a 35mm adapter and let your cinematography speak for itself.
 
You can't compare Red vs. HD. The comparison it sounds like you're looking for is RedOne vs. HVX200. Which isn't much of a comparison, the Red One is going to destroy, in pure image quality. But it doesn't sound like your project would illustrate the differences very well.

What's more important keeping your client happy, so they rehire you? or using a higher end camera for this one project?
 
Drew, tell your client that if he's planning on publishing his product on Blu-ray, the end result will look a lot better if the show is originally shot at higher-than-HD resolution. Capture resolution does matter; just compare IMAX shots to regular 35mm shots on The Dark Knight Blu-ray. The difference is obvious.

In fact, I think even the DVD release would benefit. I was working on the DVD of Mika Kaurismäki's new movie today, and thought the picture quality was extremely good for a DVD. Then I watched the Making Of documentary, and wouldn't you just know it, the very first shot shows the crew preparing to shoot a scene with RED One.
 
Drew Ingram said:
We are shooting an infomercial for a small town rehab facility. Unfortunately, I live in Kentucky where there are no rental houses that have the RED, and only a couple private owners. There are a few rental houses in Nashville, I believe. But, my point is that the camera is still a rare enough commodity is this area that renting (including camera, lenses, and insurance) runs about $1,500 - $2,000 a day. That price, compared against the Panasonic HVX which I own, usually results in a quick turn down.

When it comes down to it, my goal of shooting on the RED was really more of a benefit to me than the client (not really, they would have had a superior product). I have been considering purchasing a RED for a while, having shot on it previously to great effect, and I wanted to start building a RED Reel to showcase the camera to local business.

In the end... the infomercial will look fine on the HVX. It would have looked tremendously better on the RED, but that will have to wait for the next client.
Click to expand...

How will the infomercial be shown?
On cable? Broadcast? In SD or HD?
Have you ever edited RED footage?
 
Michael Schrengohst said:
How will the infomercial be shown?
On cable? Broadcast? In SD or HD?
Have you ever edited RED footage?
Click to expand...

The infomercial will be displayed on their website as an HD video. I have previously edited RED footage using Premiere Pro and After Effects.
 
Tell them the MJ movie was shot on RED, that should turn a few heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top