The Whole Fixed Lens Ordeal (Who Cares?)

[Joshua Murray]

WOAH. this camera DOES NOT shoot better than film. it does not provide a better image than film. what are you even talking about? have you ever even shot on a 35mm camera? The moviecam? Arri? how bout the panavision? nope? I didn't think so. Film is physical, literal, you can touch film, you can blow it up bigger than you could imagine. It's real. Digital is great. Digital is what we can afford and I love it for that. But this camera nor ANY red or any cam for that matter provides a better image than film. End of story. Go to film school. You need it.

fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

 

[WesVasher]

I sure don't care. Give me a fixed lens Scalet under 3,000 please Jim.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

If you know a very large percentage of your customers are going to be strapping adapters to this thing, why not offer them what they want from the start? Even if it cost another $1k or $2K as an option, offer the camera ready to go for cine glass, and you will have a real "game changer" on your hands.

Exactly.

 

[Steve G]

fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

Hey buddy, time to grow up.

 

[Gabriel Winebrenner]

fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

OMFG, did you say "fuck film?" This is JUST WRONG. Please apologize and pick up a book and read or something. This comment makes me think you haven't used a Red One yourself to make allegations like this. It is because of the love for film, that at least I, need a Red to compensate for what i can't afford in a proper film done with actual FILM.

 

[Joshua Murray]

OMFG, did you say "fuck film?" This is JUST WRONG. Please apologize and pick up a book and read or something. This comment makes me think you haven't used a Red One yourself to make allegations like this. It is because of the love for film, that at least I, need a Red to compensate for what i can't afford in a proper film done with actual FILM.

heh heh, opened up a can of worms here I guess... didn't mean to upset you film lovers. IMHO, red footage looks much more pleasing than film. I have done side by side comparisons of the two. I guess it is just a matter of personal taste, I just happen to like super sharp detail and no grain, which I feel film cannot give me. I will never shoot a movie using film. I would turn down the chance if offered it.

And if you like and shoot film, why are you on this forum? No hard feelings I hope. :biggrin:

 

[Tom Lowe]

heh heh, opened up a can of worms here I guess... didn't mean to upset you film lovers. IMHO, red footage looks much more pleasing than film. I have done side by side comparisons of the two. I guess it is just a matter of personal taste, I just happen to like super sharp detail and no grain, which I feel film cannot give me. I will never shoot a movie using film. I would turn down the chance if offered it.

And if you like and shoot film, why are you on this forum? No hard feelings I hope. :biggrin:

Film is still superior in some ways, for the time being (dynamic range, for example). Would you seriously look at a film like The Thin Red Line or Pan's Labyrinth or Legends of Fall and say it's not pleasing to the eye? Eventually digital will overtake film, but right now, either choice is good. Like you, many of us only know digital, so the whole chemical film process seems archaic. But I bet you would not turn down a chance to shoot on IMAX... and that's chemical film.

 

[Joshua Murray]

Film is still superior in some ways, for the time being (dynamic range, for example). Would you seriously look at a film like The Thin Red Line or Pan's Labyrinth or Legends of Fall and say it's not pleasing to the eye? Eventually digital will overtake film, but right now, either choice is good. Like you, many of us only know digital, so the whole chemical film process seems archaic. But I bet you would not turn down a chance to shoot on IMAX... and that's chemical film.

I admit IMAX has some appeal. lol. but its not just about look, it is also about control. I feel i have complete controll over a digital image, whereas with film you can never be 100% sure of what you are getting. As far as the looks of those films (i loved Pan's Labyrinth!) I am still bugged by the "film look"

 

[Tom Lowe]

I admit IMAX has some appeal. lol. but its not just about look, it is also about control. I feel i have complete controll over a digital image, whereas with film you can never be 100% sure of what you are getting. As far as the looks of those films (i loved Pan's Labyrinth!) I am still bugged by the "film look"

most of us agree with you in terms of workflow and control of the image. that's why we're here. that is really what killed off chemical still cameras. but dissing film as not looking good doesn't make a lot of sense to me. to each his own. it's a matter of personal taste.

 

[QManning]

fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

Yes. Ridley Scott need some schooling. And Steven Spielberg. And Scorsese. Oh, and Malick.

Feel silly yet?

Latent image. Go look it up.

I admit IMAX has some appeal. lol. but its not just about look, it is also about control. I feel i have complete controll over a digital image, whereas with film you can never be 100% sure of what you are getting. As far as the looks of those films (i loved Pan's Labyrinth!) I am still bugged by the "film look"

What are you even talking about? Do you even know? You're bugged by the "film look?"

So you're shooting everything at 29.97fps and 480i? I didn't think so.

Look, here's the truth: a 3k image that looks like crap is just a big picture of crap. *EVERYTHING* great about the way a film looks is dependent on two things: The Lens and the Lighting. If you have a crap lens, the lighting can only go so far.

Good lenses have a way of reading light, of reading detail, of doing things to highlights, of doing things to blacks.

Getting Shallow Depth of Field (and please, people, realize that "Depth of Field" is the opposite of what you want; Depth of Field is the short-hand for Deep Depth of Field. Shallow Depth of Field is that film look so many talk about) is a TOOL, not a gimmick. SDOF is very much a necessity to help the director and cinematographer dictate what SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be paid attention to on the screen. On FOCUSING our eyes literally on what matters and what doesn't.

That American Flag behind the lead actor's head as he's breaking down about his father dying during the Iraq war? Yeah, that's important on a subconscious level, but it's the character's performance that is tantamount. With a typical mediocre zoom lens, you'll need to seriously play with blocking, ND filtering, and lighting to get the exact same SDOF you'd have with a good prime lens. So your eyes go to his eyes, not the number of threads in the star behind him.

Making films is about much more than 'oh, let's shoot this, it'll be cool' or having Final Cut Pro.

Using the right lens at the right time is as important as anything else to the storytelling.

 

[Zac C]

fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

i don't know about im still a sucker for film... you're taking it to a whole new level... i was saying gettting the best look out of the people who are shooting video trying to emulate film.... we can create good DOf just not as good as film... in the end, films win's.... but in our realm of video.... scarlet dof is the best

 

[Joshua Murray]

Yes. Ridley Scott need some schooling. And Steven Spielberg. And Scorsese. Oh, and Malick.

Feel silly yet?

Latent image. Go look it up.

They used what they had at the time... now that digital cinema has come of age, why NOT use it? If you know what you are doing, you can get it to look exactly like film.

Latent Image= lack of control.

 

[Akcelik]

Specifications Subject to Change.. Remember!

Specifications Subject to Change.. Remember!

People should be encouraged in moulding shape to this camera, thats what RED is all about!
So lets stop nesting on the current specs.

If you can change one thing on this camera, what would it be???

Make it interchangeable and include the zoom in the package.
Give us a stack of fast primes for extra accessories.