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 :)

So what has the Red revolution caused till now?

D

D Namir

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
946
Reaction score
1
Points
18
I would like to start a discussion summarizing what has the so called "Red revolution" has done till now.
I can come up with a few points to start with.
1. Made the prices of some PL mount lenses doubled. Now prices are going back down.
2. A few manufacturers came with accessories into the market (ET, VFS, "New Germans Primes" etc.) Some only work for the Red camera, so can work on others but we still don't know if they are good.
3. Prices for rental dropped quite a bit (I heard that in the Canada Ontario area Reds are free during the weekend, you pay for lenses. I know it is almost for nothing in my area.
4. A few feature films were shot with Red, but considering the fact that around 5000 bodies were made, I think it is nothing.
5. A chaos in the post workflow, never read so many confused users posts about what and how to do.
6. Big hype in the motion picture camera related industry between September 2007 (when first Red were delivered) and until a few months ago. Now I feel that the Reduser forum is under artificial respiration. Nothing really interesting or new.
7. The idea of the camera to be a platform for a digital screening projection seems not to happen yet.
8. The big cannons of the industry are ignoring the camera. Haven't heard much from the big feature DPs about this camera.
Please feel free to debate, agree or add to my points.
Surely I am missing a few as I leave in a remote part of the world,(though the world is flat as Tom Friedman suggested)
What then will be the future?
Scarlet Epic will not be out during Spring 2009, that was a long time said.
The shift from film to digital will happen, no doubt, but will Red will lead it? After all they are new players in the field, but maybe what they have done will delay it and not prompt it?
 
It's not a revolution, just an evolution, a great one, but it's still expensive for many indie filmmakers, even if it's cheap compared to 35mm.

A lot of people are still waiting for a small 2K/4K with a S35 sensor for less than $5000. You can forget about a sensor size above S35, it's just a nightmare to focus and to watch these shallow dof pictures. Not to mention the postproduction nightmares, you still can't simply watch QT proxies on the PC platform as for now. Maybe one day someone at Red will realize there's a PC platform :)

Red is one of the first companies to start offering "affordable" digital cinema, but one day all the major ones, Canon, Panasonic, Sony, will do it. As for now these companies just don't want to cut into their broadcast gear's sales, but when they'll jump into it, the client will be more than happy ! It's just marketing stuff, the technical possibilities are there. Even Red will cut into its own sales when the Scarlet 2/3" will be available (largely enough for indie production). That's whay they have chosen this modularity, it's the usual way to make money on accessories rather than on the key product.
 
I'm an indi filmmaker and I never dreamt about a quality which I get from my R1 (#4715). It's a perfect solution for me. But 35mm never would happen to me, because the workflow is not supporting experimental filming. Red did a great job for awakeing the industry. Thank you RED!

But I believe that the majors will win the race in a long term. Not because they are more innovative, but they have significant advantages in quality assurance, high volume production and they have dealer & support networks. At the end of the day, Red will suffer from mass production and service issues, when they don't improve it.

I hope not! But Jim and his team have do spend a lot of attention and money into these topics.

Rolf
 
I turn my head. look at my RED1, my o´connor, my lenses, MB,FF. I look at my new mac pro. I look down at my script, which I will shoot next month and I smile. Thanks to RED I am finally independent. Thats enough revolution for me...:)
 
Kristin Stewart said:
That's whay they have chosen this modularity, it's the usual way to make money on accessories rather than on the key product.
Click to expand...

Red has gone with modularity to create a camera with unlimited configurations for the end user in order to satisfy individual needs. You can't build a camera that'll work for everyone, so let everyone build their own camera. They didn't do it because it's the "usual" way to make money.
 
gdv said:
I Now I feel that the Reduser forum is under artificial respiration. Nothing really interesting or new.
Click to expand...

That's because the camera is working so well and the post-workflow is working well enough now, that we are all too busy shooting projects to engage in pointless non-debates with spam queens.
 
I completely disagree with gdv. Red is a revolution. People needs to compare Red with Film Cameras and not with HDV / Video cameras. The real point here is Red made the accessibility and availability of quality picture which is not possible for indie filmmakers till now at lower price point in comparison only with Negative film stock, Film Cameras and Lab Process. It made individuals a one man lab, which itself is a revolution. My other point is the camera is evolved through user feedbacks which sony, panasonic and canon will never do. One best example is 24fps and manual shutter control for Canon EOS 5D MarkII from users for almost 6 months are ignored by Canon and there is not even a single response from the company till date. The old way for marketing and manufacturing in this digital age is meeting is end and Red is revolutionizing this with their marketing strategy.
 
Unfortunately it's impossible to completely disagree with gdv, given that some of the things he's written are fact. Lens prices and confusion over post production have been apparent. I also think the IMS system being given the RedLight was also negative because for many independent projects it is ideal and cost effective, I hope the Epic/Scarlet systems have something similar in place.

GDV does fail to point out the positives that the camera has brought however. Independent movie making has never been more empowered with a tool that raises the bar for short films and low budget feature work. The camera hasn't been overlooked by the big guns either, films like Knowing are obviously only just the start. More and more people are getting to shoot far more footage than any previous time with great lenses and other accessories so that the footprint of the next generation of film-making is larger than ever.

There's lots of great points that can be made and naturally there are negatives, anyone with realistic expectations of the camera system would have seen them coming long before the thing was put into peoples hands.

Just because the hype is lessened overtime and the biggest movies in the world still use tried and tested methods means very little, this was always going to happen. Tell a story with your best tools, the RedOne is a better tool for the masses than before. Plain as.

Paul
 
The revolution is just beginning. I think of RED 1 as the beta development platform and the new Scarlet/Epic series as the true revolution: better performance, major workflow issues mostly resolved, support for non-raw workflow via 1080p outputs, modular and upgradeable configurations, more affordable at the low end and more capable at the high end.
To go from startup to over 5000 cameras in the field in under two years is incredible for what is a small boutique market to begin with. Lets see what the impact on production of all kinds is after 5 years. There is a lot more work out there than just narrative feature films.
 
The negatives that gdv point out (the real name idea seems to been abandonned, alas) are very short term and there is always a bit of chaos with anything new. And with Red, there has been remarkably little chaos in terms of the product itself. Red has been in the field working for less than two years. And already been embraced in some big budget productions that could've gone with any camera tools they wanted to. Never mind the dozens of "non-celebrity" features and hundreds of documentaries and commercials, music videos, etc. A feat in itself.

It is also evident that Red has come out of "no where" to establish itself as a serious player in an astonishingly short time. r3d is now an accepted codec that all the significant player editing/finishing platforms are embracing. There is already sufficient evidence of the big electronic manufacturers being influenced by the upstart. However it ends up, Red has "revolutionized" the business model by returning to the basics of entrepreneurship -- a great product at a great price point and customer service with a sense of fair play.


I agree, this discussion will prove nothing -- but for many of us Red represents a revolution in potential opportunity, ie, to play with the "big boys" in terms of image quality. This means bad work will look better and still be bad except in terms of that aspect -- and good work will be dressed in an acceptable quality that won't inhibit its distribution in any venue.

People will see it how they want (as always) -- and largely from where they stand and what they are doing with this tool -- for me and obviously hundreds of others, it is a "revolutionary" tool in terms of what it can do in terms of what it costs. It is a liberator of the "little guy" -- and will become even more so with the next generation.

That being said, the basics of the expressive use of this remarkable ever evolving tool, remain pretty much the same. It's the way you use the language that ultimately counts. Red puts the chance to use it on a higher quality level in many more hands. For sure is Red is swimming against the stream of exclusivity and hierarchical impulse -- democratizing anything is a bit "revolutionary" -- and a good thing, I think...
 
It's not about what Red has done to the film industry but how Red has empowered the individual. Once Scarlet is released, that trend will skyrocket exponentially. We are no longer a nation of consumers but a nation of creators and Red is all about empowering individual creators to be able to produce on par with big studios at a fraction of the cost.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)
 
michael zaletel said:
It's not about what Red has done to the film industry but how Red has empowered the individual. Once Scarlet is released, that trend will skyrocket exponentially. We are no longer a nation of consumers but a nation of creators and Red is all about empowering individual creators to be able to produce on par with big studios at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very rosy and unrealistic view. We are not a nation of "creators," unless you count everyone as a "creator" regardless of whether they actually have any literary, artistic, or musical talent. And quite frankly, I would say that only a small segment of the population does have those talents.

Now, if you want to call us a nation - or a world, for that matter - of narcissists, and use YouTube and its imitators as the evidence, I would certainly agree with that.
 
Hype or not, this is what always happens: either the camera performs according to expectations or it doesn't. Ultimately it has to stand on its own, and I think you'd have to say that overall, this has happened. RED has become, practically overnight, a major player in cinema and television production, competing head to head with companies like Sony, ARRI, Panavision, etc. That's a major accomplishment.

The fact that it has remained so affordable compared to its competition is also significant. "Revolutionary"? Well, that's where I part ways with many people, perhaps because I think that word should not be thrown around lightly.

Yes, you can now shoot a small indie movie at higher technical quality levels than before -- is that revolutionary? Is that what defines a revolution? Prosumer HD wasn't revolutionary... but 4K RAW is? I don't know, but it sometimes strikes me that some people are putting technical quality on a pedestal and worshipping it rather than recognize its true and practical place in the filmmaking process. You do really think that before RED, you couldn't go out and make a good-looking independent film? Sure, it's easier now... is easier revolutionary?

But this is just a debate on semantics, how we define "revolutionary". RED may accelerate the transition from video-based post to data-based post, but again, is that revolutionary? Maybe. I would tend to reserve that word for something that creates a fundamental change in the way that an industry works, or in the types of movies being made. People making martial arts movies on a RED instead of an F900 or Canon HDV camera, well, that's cool of course, but revolutionary? Shoe or car commercials, pop star music videos shot on RED instead of Super-16... revolutionary? Certainly it's a change.

Revolutionary customer service? RED's service is great, but revolutionary? I've had good service from many other companies over the years, Panavision in particular. Should good service be considered revolutionary or just the way things should be done?

I'm just asking for a clear-eyed view of what's going on right now devoid of hype or personal enthusiasm for a moment.

RED achieved what it set out to do, which is a major accomplishment. And they are not sitting back now and enjoying their success, they are moving towards another major leap forward, which is great.

The quality is amazing for the price. Which brings up another issue, regarding falling rental prices for RED -- what did people think was going to happen? Prices are based on availability, demand, competition, and on how quickly the person who made an investment in the equipment wants to see a return. A lower-cost professional camera sold in high volumes? What did people think would happen in the rental market?

Like I said, practically overnight, RED has made itself a major camera manufacturer, which is staggering. To me, that's the most obvious change that has happened in the industry. Second, I would say that the data-centric post workflow is the other major development. Third, I would say it's the dispersion of the camera to a wide range of applications, from EPK's, commercials, art films, TV production, features -- though the Sony F900 and Panasonic Varicam also had a somewhat wide dispersion in terms of use.

Causing a major release of new PL-mount lenses is also significant, though these trends tend to come in waves -- people invest in these new sets and then the market is sort of quiet again for awhile.
 
I think David makes a good point. The introduction of sound to films was revolutionary, and completely changed the way film are made. 3D computer animation had a similar effect on the animation industry. Although the RED has dramatically affected my life, it is probably an overstatement to call it a revolution. But why the hell am I writing this? I need to go finish my script so I can use my RED...
 
"Revolutionary" is certainly a good marketing phrase and if it works for RED, I don't have a problem with that. I just wish others would not throw it around so casually because then the term starts to become meaningless. But then, perhaps it's just a personality-type issue -- I'm "hyperbole adverse."
 
Yes David, that's why I was prefering the word "evolution" instead of "revolution". But Red is a great move, of course !
 
reduser is a revolution itself.. 6000 serial for a 35mm camera.. 17500 bucks for a powerful computer w/ a lenses mount attached.. not less than a hollywood camera w/ canon L lenses.. not revolution enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top