Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
Not sure I would agree with you entirely about it being RED's fault for the race to the bottom. Not everyone can afford a RED camera, even now. With Red One, you were looking at a minimum of $22K investment and as we all know that just gets you started. Easily can spend an additional $50K on a lot of other things to go along with it. What had more impact on the race to the bottom is the DSLR emergence. That's when it became possible to get professional, cinematic looking images out of a relatively cheap camera.not even one camera sell 1 more ticket in the cinema or brings more rating , the audience doesn't care if it 1080 or 4 k or 5 k .
99 % of people who on that board will never shoot for something that is bigger then 60 inch set .
for me red did not change the world , they made it worse , they gave the opportunity for idiots to dump the industry with no money productions and tones of projects which have no distribution and eventually been sold for nothing ' every one could be a "foolmaker" for cinema , isnt it a sony slogan from the past ?
spy kids 2 was shot on 900F and it still better picture then 100s which been shot on red
so who cares if it 4k or 2 k or 1080 , you care only for how comfortable your tool is , that's what arri understand
and something about sony , they came with best camecorder ever made for human shoulder in 88 bvw 200 , they came with detachable ccd sensor from camera in 91 BVP 70T AND THEY DO HAVE THE BEST CAMERA NOW F65-ITS A FACT
RED is a good product , just it not really suits 95% of the working class heroes way they make money , and you need to do something with your cooling system as well
by they way i started at 86 with ikegami 79, 95 and bvp -30 and even then the sony was better and more reliable but every one was talking about how good the ikegami looks and lost money as the camera was going out of registration after 3 hours of work
Having said that, it's not really the camera's fault that budgets have been slashed. There are a lot of factors involved. The poor economy has a major impact. Producers have been forced to get as much as they can for as little as they can. DSLRs have played a role in that by enabling the producers to get "good enough" quality and still make their budgets.
What RED has enabled are filmmakers who didn't have access to $100K cameras in the past now having some access and therefore getting their projects made. Is this bad? No worse than filmmakers who were able to access cheaper gear in the past such as Super8 film. Just because you had a camera didn't make you the next David Lean. The same rules apply. Script, lighting, production design, good actors, good sound, etc. are all still necessary and therefore the camera becomes just a small cog in the wheel. An important cog but not the only one.
