Red Vs Viper

[mezmo]

Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but is Red better than the Viper? In other words, is this the best digital camera ever?

We're shooting a movie with a 10 million dollar budget and I'm pushing for the Red camera.

Hi Philmaker.
For feature drama work let's see all cameras tested and the
results burned to 35mm Negative.
Film is still the way most films are screened worldwide.
Burned 35mm Neg Images have to be very sharp and clean to survive
the Interpos/interneg/Release Print three generation quality loss prior to exhibition.
A Trial Print from the burned Neg should show you this.
This shouild be a concern for you and your project unless you plan
on Digital/HD Release only?
_______________________________Mezmo

 

[Joe Carney]

If you're shooting before RED is released try talking to the guys over at SiliconImageing (SI2K). They have a working 2k cmos camera with an established and field proven workflow. It was used on Mutant Chronicles and got good reviews. If they have the PL mount issues fixed, you can shoot S16. And they are a lot less expensive than the Viper or CineAlta.
Once Red is released, have to think long and hard about other options.

 

[John Allardice]

What you guys have gotta remember is that the Viper workflow has been PROVEN to work in a feature environment. Beginning to end.

Zodiac, anyone?

..and in the hands of a good DP the Viper looks gorgeous

http://www.claudiomiranda.com/heinekenttl.html

Now I'm not bashing the RED here...no way, I've got #177 on order, but the whole "our camera's great, yours is crap" attitude I sometimes find on this board doesn't go any way towards helping Jim get the Red taken seriously in professional circles.

Y'know, they can BOTH look good.

 

[Brook Willard]

Read the ASC article on Zodiac and using the Viper. He tore the poor thing a new one. The whole article was about overcoming shortfalls, not taking advantage of strengths.

That's not to say that the Viper is a bad camera - I think it's amazing. I'm just saying that referencing Zodiac may not be the best idea.

 

[Phil Maker]

Thanks for all the great replies.

We're making this film with a 10 million dollar budget and I'm pushing for digital. Which means I'm pushing for RED. (unlesss there's something cheaper, better already out there -- which there's not)

Why not shoot on film? Because I believe in digital, the future, change, and in being a pioneer.

If the RED is a good as its claims, I wouldn't shoot on film if I had a 100 million dollar budget. Nevermind 10.

I'm also thinking long term. I'm thinking of my next ten films.

 

[Brainstorm]

... the whole "our camera's great, yours is crap" attitude I sometimes find on this board doesn't go any way towards helping Jim get the Red taken seriously in professional circles.

Y'know, they can BOTH look good.

Good point John. It's just plain dumb for people to get into a slanging match over what's better, especially when they haven't even had a chance to get their hands on a RED yet!

No doubt, different cameras are going to work better than others in different situations, under different conditions and with different demands on what look is trying to be achieved. We should all just be happy that there's going to be a wider range of choices than ever before – and at more affordable prices.

The funny thing is, if/when RED becomes the most popular digital cine camera on the planet, some people are just as likely to start arguing for another reason... because once everything looks really good, their films will no longer stand out on look alone. That's when good stories will become the only important selling point.

Substance is always going to be more important than style or resolution.

 

[fightordie]

Read the ASC article on Zodiac and using the Viper. He tore the poor thing a new one. The whole article was about overcoming shortfalls, not taking advantage of strengths.

That's not to say that the Viper is a bad camera - I think it's amazing. I'm just saying that referencing Zodiac may not be the best idea.

You can read all you want. Just saw Zodiac and it looked amazing. I don't care if it had any issues. If red exceeds this than all will be good.

 

[Chris Gearhart]

That's when good stories will become the only important selling point.

Substance is always going to be more important than style or resolution.

One can dream. I can't imagine it happening though. "Substance" and "selling point" don't always share the same screens at the same showtime.

 

[Dan Blanchett]

I'm producing/directing a feature in the fall and have the opportunity to use a F900 for basically no money, since my DP owns it and is willing to donate to the cause. But I have made the decision to use a portion of my shooting budget to invest in the RED ONE, and I think this will result in a better looking movie and a great tool for future productions. The Viper was never really an option so I can't comment on that. Also, my budget is nowhere near 10M (knock off a couple zeroes... :umm: )

IF the RED didn't exist, I would have gratefully used the free F900 and my movie still would kick ass. You use the tools you have available and make the best of it. Especially if you're in my shoes and tend to do things on a shoestring. But thank GOD for RED. Now I feel there will be no compromise.

 

[Häakon]

The funny thing is, if/when RED becomes the most popular digital cine camera on the planet, some people are just as likely to start arguing for another reason... because once everything looks really good, their films will no longer stand out on look alone. That's when good stories will become the only important selling point.

No offense, but there's a lot more than just the camera that has to do with "the look." Obviously RED isn't automatically going to give you a good story, but it's not going to automatically give you great lighting, compostition, precise focusing, shot variety, well designed color schemes, and pretty much everything else a DP is responsible for either. Let's not sell the position short just because one may happen to be using a great camera.

 

[Brainstorm]

No offense, but there's a lot more than just the camera that has to do with "the look." Obviously RED isn't automatically going to give you a good story, but it's not going to automatically give you great lighting, compostition, precise focusing, shot variety, well designed color schemes, and pretty much everything else a DP is responsible for either. Let's not sell the position short just because one may happen to be using a great camera.

No offense taken Häakon. I agree completely with what you're saying!

 

[Brainstorm]

One can dream. I can't imagine it happening though. "Substance" and "selling point" don't always share the same screens at the same showtime.

I think the recent "box-office bombing" of several very expensive action/FX -driven blockbusters points to the possibility that audiences are increasingly more interested in good stories than just visual "wow" value.

 

[garageman]

I think the recent "box-office bombing" of several very expensive action/FX -driven blockbusters points to the possibility that audiences are increasingly more interested in good stories than just visual "wow" value.

What, you mean films like 300. :clown2:

 

[Chris Kenny]

What, you mean films like 300. :clown2:

That's an interesting case. 300 demonstrates that you can still get audiences into theaters with an amazing looking movie, but while the look it delivers happens to be the result of extensive VFX work, that's largely incidental to audiences now. That is to say, people are no longer watching movies and saying "Wow, these effects are amazing! How did they do that?" They're gotten used to the fact that you can do pretty much anything. Instead, they're watching movies like 300 and saying "Wow, this is an amazing look." In other words, it's now about art, not about what's technically possible.

By analogy, consider the difference between people being impressed by the technical characteristics of an image ("Wow, the resolution is amazing!"), and people actually being impressed by the cinematography.

 

[Brainstorm]

That's an interesting case. 300 demonstrates that you can still get audiences into theaters with an amazing looking movie, but while the look it delivers happens to be the result of extensive VFX work, that's largely incidental to audiences now. That is to say, people are no longer watching movies and saying "Wow, these effects are amazing! How did they do that?" They're gotten used to the fact that you can do pretty much anything. Instead, they're watching movies like 300 and saying "Wow, this is an amazing look." In other words, it's now about art, not about what's technically possible.

By analogy, consider the difference between people being impressed by the technical characteristics of an image ("Wow, the resolution is amazing!"), and people actually being impressed by the cinematography.

Thanks Chris. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Besides that Garageman, I didn't say action films would NEVER work at the box office. I just said that 'look' – by itself – increasingly isn't enough to ensure a hit.

e.g. Mission Impossible 4: Budget $150 million; U.S. Box Office take: $134,029,801 or Alexander: Budget $155 million; U.S. Box Office take just $34,297,191 !

But then look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That had an amazing look, fantastic FX AND a great screenplay... and obviously that was a huge winner at the cinema. But if the story had been crap, I'll bet if wouldn't have done so well!

:greedy:

 

[garageman]

They're gotten used to the fact that you can do pretty much anything. Instead, they're watching movies like 300 and saying "Wow, this is an amazing look." In other words, it's now about art, not about what's technically possible.

Call it art if you will but it's no different for most blockbusters. Audiences are as smart and as dumb, however & whenever they choose to be.


The point is that there ain't much story or characterization in 300 and it still goes down a storm because for many, the noise and look is enough to entertain them for a few hours. The same way worse crap like Armageddon was a hit for no good reason.

You can't predict the market and can never tell what will be a hit or a flop, there are too many impulses and factors involved that are sometimes obvious and many times not. It's mostly luck. There has always been big budget films that flop since movies began it's no different now, just a bigger market, however I'm pretty sure Spiderman 3 will do well, auspicious beginnings and all that.

 

[Darren Orange]

You guys are talking about US box office. When you release international it changes everything. All films that are less then 20 million dollars including marketing turn profit by the time they release DVD, so long as it appeals to the masses, i.e. being a high concept film. Plus DVD's or home release produce endless amounts of income, So long as the film is not garbage....look at house of the dead. :bleh:

 

[Tom Lowe]

Wouldn't the sensor size alone, and the accompanying DOF, in and of itself finish this debate?

 

[Andrew Benz]

am i the only one who seriously gets driven crazy when they read stuff like that? its just so obvious, and the most overplayed comment in the history of these boards, it drives me nuts. "you have a red camera but you will still have to breathe air on the set..."

You are not alone by a long shot. But, at least now I can concentrate on owning one camera and spending the money on glass to make the most of it's broad range of mounts and genre bending capabilities. To me and my wallet the comparison is moot. I could not make the viper work for my many needs. She is a much different animal and mindset than the REDONE. But this not to say that comparisons should not be made and things learned... Add price to your great observation Tom and I completely agree.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Wouldn't the sensor size alone, and the accompanying DOF, in and of itself finish this debate?

Hi,

No I don't think so. Due to the 3 x 9,200,000 pixels (27,600,000 total) the Viper resolves far more than other HD cameras. When used with Zeiss Digi Primes, the DOF is rather less than you would expect.

The Viper is no ordinary HD camera.

I look forward to doing a back to back myself, as soon as Jim will let me have a camera to test. I know I am at the back of the queue.

Stephen