Tell me why?

[Jonas Nyström]

I never made a movie, and probably never will. I will never become a cinematographer...

So why did I buy a Red!? Maybe because I've done my fair amount of chromakeying on garbage material coming from DV, HDV and HD material.. I said to myself, that I will never touch a project with bad footage again. Since I got my Red, keying has actually been FUN! I also have shot fire, glitter, feathers, dust, ice and alot of other elements for VFX stuff. And you know what.. My prototype camera actually have delivered beautiful footage for me everytime!

Yesterday, friends of mine asked to borrow my Red cause they couldn't 3D track footage that they filmed with their Sony camera, because of the ugly compression made the tracking impossible (It tried to track compression artifacts as tracking points, haha).. They never shot Red before, but I explain the menus in 2 minutes, and waited for them to call me asking me how to opreate the camera.. They never called until they were in front of Redcine and said how totally impressed they are with the footage..

So, people saying that this "prototype" camera shouldn't be on the market seems to believe that everyone either bought it to become the next big cinematographer, or to rent it out and earn heaps of money. Maybe most people bought it because this camera actually captures nice images? And to use it for whatever you want to use it for?

Well said Peter!

 

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen
The point with article was that RED is camera not good enough to go to the market. I don't think you got the message.
:

Hi,

A great many people have had bad experiances, including the BBC, purely because the camera was released too early. It's now fairly reliable & produces good pictures but that was not always the case, first impressions count for more than you think.

When a producer has a camera go down on set that can easily cost $20,000 an hour.

Stephen

Stephen

 

[Jonas Nyström]

Hi,

A great many people have had bad experiances, including the BBC, purely because the camera was released too early.

Stephen

OK, not good. But this article was written last week. And the Swedish Society of Cinematographers website has published a great deal of unfair RED critisism over the last year.

 

[Andreas Fernbrant]

As a Swede, I could read the article - and my interpretation wasn't that negative. I even felt they had a point if viewed from a certain POV. If one wants they could interpret almost anything as offending.

From a certain point of view - they changed film-making. But again, points to those who pointed out that 'camera costs' in a film production is like coffee and cookies-cost in a whole production. So viewed from that perspective - they didn't really affect that much. And I guess we all agreed a long time ago that it's not the camera that makes a good movie great - it's about all other aspects then what camera being used. A Camera is but a tool - the people welding the tools are the real cost in a professional environment.

Again, there are about a million ways to view this and as we all know - there are about 6,7 billion different realities out there. Who said mine or yours are the correct ones?

The people in the higher spectrum of film making where RED didn't really do that much impact is allowed to have their opinion as is the people in the lower end who now can some what afford to make great looking things for a lower cost.

And remember, if you fail to see someone else's point. There is no need to get defensive. In most cases you are the one lacking the ability to see it from their point of view. And to them - their point is the most valid. Conflict is never a solution - diplomacy is.

And from where I stand - both camps have valid points - but different realities.

 

[Jonas Nyström]

Andreas

I must say, you are most liberal, generous and openminded which is a good thing. However I'm offended when statement like "customers had paid for the development" and "Red is a prototype which never should gone to market" is published at FSFs web-site. Nor I like disrespects like "It's just another camera". Where is the valid points here?

But i regret this post - this is a never ending pointless discussion. Future will tell, and I'm sure I'm in the right camp.

 

[Andreas Fernbrant]

Jonas,
You KNOW you have my respect.

But I would like for you to really reflect on why you get upset by what FSF say. This is important because the only one that feels bad about this is you and others that choose to feel this way, and you don't deserve to feel bad. FSF sure don't feel bad about posting articles like this.

On the other hand - I can guess (but only guess) why you feel like you do, could it be because you expect FSF to act better and understand more? I could understand why. But to be honest - everything that involves film making in Sweden can be upsetting. They have a, to put it mildly a skewed view on how to tackle people, projects and anything that is untraditional is the devil. Thank god the winds of change is slowly but surely sweeping over Sweden. But this is another debate all together.

But to tackle the things that offend you.
"Customers had paid for the development"
- This is true from a certain point of view - but that is if you don't acknowledge or disregard/missed that RED was upfront and honest about this, and did compensate the early adopters for just this reason with 2000 USD.

I could understand why someone would say this if they choose to not acknowledge that RED did enough to inform and compensate. But it could as easily and even more probable, be lack of information. Errors and lack of information has caused far more tragic results.

"Red is a prototype which never should gone to market"
This is also true from a certain point of view. This ties together with my earlier thoughts. If one disregards that RED was upfront about it - it has indeed had issues in the past which could be interpreted as "prototype" related. But if I may put some of my own thoughts into this - I feel this argument shows a lack of understanding for RED's process. They are unconventional to say the least and has never tried to tell anyone otherwise. But if you expect RED to act and launch their products in a traditional manner, with traditional specs, traditional design and traditional thinking and methods - I could, with some imagination understand some kind of disappointment. But again, this is because RED's reality does not fit well with a traditional one. (And thank god for that)

The world is easy this way.
The traditionalists want traditional tools, when something like RED shows up it forces people in one direction or another. True traditionalists will resist and fight it until the end. Some will adopt in silence and some will embrace it from day one. This is how revolutionary things work and a nice acknowledgement for what RED is about to do.

Always remember - The only one that feels bad things like this is the one taking offence. And in most cases, they are not the ones that should be upset.

 

[Brian J.M. Rytel]

Jonas, I can't believe you wrote 'new democratic film technique.'

What the heck does that mean exactly? Actually getting anything useable out of the Red still requires a lot of technical knowledge that I don't think half the people buying this camera system understand. There's a lot of 'switch on, point and shoot' users and attitudes I read on here and elsewhere, hiring themselves out all of a sudden as full blown cinematographers. Being a cinematographer isn't an overnight thing.

How true. But when you compare RED workflow and camera design to say, a Phantom or CineAlta, it is very straight forward. The compatibility with FCP and shortly with Premiere hands digital cinema technology to a much wider audience.

I share your sentiments again about the cinematography. I'll bet that I understand more about acquirin images than half 'switch-on' users, and can record far superior images, but I'm am miles away from cinematography and can recognize that I don't have the 'eye' or 'feel' to be accomplished in this field.

The Red One is still a prototype. The sound side of it is still very lacking. If you'd bought a Sony camera in the state a Red One was in, you'd demand a refund. But you all bought into the ethos of it, that it would be a work in progress at the time you got your cameras.

Futhermore, RED is offering a beta-tester buy-back for their products. Saying that "you bought one of the better Beta products available, and when we release the polished version after 'we have learned much' you'll get to exchange the beta towards the new system" is bliss.

4k image acquisition isn't outdated or out of style, it isn't in style yet. Almost no-one has 4k displays/projectors, and no-one has 6k.

As has been speculated, much of the higher resolution will be used for downsampling and extended framing options, not so much higher playback.

 

[Jonas Nyström]

Jonas,
You KNOW you have my respect.

But I would like for you to really reflect on why you get upset by what FSF say. This is important because the only one that feels bad about this is you and others that choose to feel this way, and you don't deserve to feel bad. FSF sure don't feel bad about posting articles like this.

On the other hand - I can guess (but only guess) why you feel like you do, could it be because you expect FSF to act better and understand more? I could understand why. But to be honest - everything that involves film making in Sweden can be upsetting. They have a, to put it mildly a skewed view on how to tackle people, projects and anything that is untraditional is the devil. Thank god the winds of change is slowly but surely sweeping over Sweden. But this is another debate all together.

But to tackle the things that offend you.
"Customers had paid for the development"
- This is true from a certain point of view - but that is if you don't acknowledge or disregard/missed that RED was upfront and honest about this, and did compensate the early adopters for just this reason with 2000 USD.

I could understand why someone would say this if they choose to not acknowledge that RED did enough to inform and compensate. But it could as easily and even more probable, be lack of information. Errors and lack of information has caused far more tragic results.

"Red is a prototype which never should gone to market"
This is also true from a certain point of view. This ties together with my earlier thoughts. If one disregards that RED was upfront about it - it has indeed had issues in the past which could be interpreted as "prototype" related. But if I may put some of my own thoughts into this - I feel this argument shows a lack of understanding for RED's process. They are unconventional to say the least and has never tried to tell anyone otherwise. But if you expect RED to act and launch their products in a traditional manner, with traditional specs, traditional design and traditional thinking and methods - I could, with some imagination understand some kind of disappointment. But again, this is because RED's reality does not fit well with a traditional one. (And thank god for that)

The world is easy this way.
The traditionalists want traditional tools, when something like RED shows up it forces people in one direction or another. True traditionalists will resist and fight it until the end. Some will adopt in silence and some will embrace it from day one. This is how revolutionary things work and a nice acknowledgement for what RED is about to do.

Always remember - The only one that feels bad things like this is the one taking offence. And in most cases, they are not the ones that should be upset.

OK. Well said. I got your points and agree (most of it anyway ;-).

Best // J

 

[Andreas Fernbrant]

Jonas,
I forgot to say.... Love your work!

 

[Jonas Nyström]

Ooh, thank you - thanks a lot.

Have just been in Buenos Aires shooting, and my "prototype" didn't fail me once ;-). I'm so happy with the footage.

I can see you have a lot interesting projects up and running. Vault seems promising. Call me if you need a second unit or something.