CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › Damn, I want one of these
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Damn, I want one of these

post #1 of 26
9/11/07 at 7:30pm
Thread Starter 
4K sensor, $25K, awesome dynamic range. An Indie Film-maker's dream. Probably back ordered for a year or two. Wouldn't mind having a few of these in my arsenal. Guess I gotta make do with lowly 1080 HD cams.



The actual production cam is a little less wild than this but the reviews are pretty amazing. Some are saying it's even better than the Genesis and Viper cams that are 4 to 8 times as expensive.

http://www.red.com/
Reply
post #2 of 26
9/11/07 at 8:20pm
That thing looks more like a weapon than a camera!
Reply
post #3 of 26
9/11/07 at 8:24pm
Thread Starter 
Peter Jackson uses it. That's enough for me. Here's their forum....

www.reduser.net
Reply
post #4 of 26
9/11/07 at 9:06pm
How many rounds per minute does it fire?
Reply
post #5 of 26
9/11/07 at 10:59pm
I've been jonesing for one of those since last year. Someone mentioned it on a thread here at Chud and I checked out their site.

Quite the sweet piece....
Reply
post #6 of 26
9/11/07 at 11:21pm
been watching this camera for a long time now. if you dig deeper into the costs and requirements, it's a cost/logistical nightmare from an indie filmmaker's perspective. the sensor alone runs $17,000, but then you run into costs for lenses, an eyepiece (because it doesn't come with one), drive space (on the camera and your SAN), back end software to drive the workflow, and such. and speaking of SANs, for an entire feature shot at 2k storage requirements will be ridiculously high.

and seriously, who needs or can afford that kind of equipment except for filmmakers producing the kind of material peter jackson does?

word on the streets is that jannard and co. are really selling this to the studios, but letting the little guys (ie, indies and prosumers) generate all the hype.
Reply
post #7 of 26
9/12/07 at 1:27am
Thread Starter 
Word is that you can have a nicely equipped cam for about $25K with all the accessories added in. In the film making realm that's cheap. Hell, you can easily spend more on XD Cam with a fraction of the bells and whistles this thing packs. Besides, you can easily dump what you shoot off to a hard drive. That's what people shooting with the Panny HVX200 have to do with those P2 cards.
Reply
post #8 of 26
9/12/07 at 1:31am
Thread Starter 
Another thing is that all the accessories is a one time only cost. Depending on what you do with it, you can save in the long run with film savings alone. Also, the computers that are able to handle 4K are not that far away. I know FCP has a proxy solution for working with 4K in a 1K environment and I'm sure there are other solutions coming down the pike. Also, what's interesting is that I've heard they are making what's called a "Pocket Red" that will be lower cost and probably a 2K sensor. Will probably know more at NAB '08.
Reply
post #9 of 26
9/12/07 at 3:11am
my big question is this:

you have your 1080 camera. the footage you shoot, what is your final output format? HD 1080? Standard def?

There are two reasons a discerning cinematographer will utilize the 2k format - if the image will be filmed out to 35mm or be projected at HD resolution or higher.

also, there are other issues to consider when originating on a digital format. did you know CNN recently put their makeup artists through a rigorous HD training course? digital reveals more skin blemishes and imperfections than film does, and the RED is not an exception to this fact.

don't think i'm trying to knock the camera, because i'm not. it's a an awesome piece of equipment. it's just that most people i hear raving about it think that its God's gift to moviemaking and is going to make whatever they shoot look like a million dollars when in reality it's just another tool (albiet an impressive one) by which the craft of filmmaking is accomplished.
Reply
post #10 of 26
9/12/07 at 4:29am
The red camera is something that I've been following for a while now as well. At one point I almost decided on not buying the Panasonic HVX (a camera I'd been eyeing even longer than red) because the red looked so promising. Then bam.. the prices came out.. and your looking at about 50 grand australian for a functioning red camera. Not something I really have to splurge. So the Hvx it was.

And to be perfectly, perfectly honest.. the red footage I've seen so far has been a small let down. I was expecting 35mm quality stuff.. and don't get me wrong, it looks good, better than most digital camera's (the genesis looks mor e filmlike to me) I've seen but its not film or better.. its something else.. like uber HD. To my eyes, anyway.

And to be honest you really don't need to spend "red" money to get film like results.
A mate of mine recently directed a TVC for Honda.. using guess what?
A Hvx and a 35mm adapter (and good fucking lighting gear)
He told me the Honda stooges hounding him during the shoot thought he was shooting on 35mm. They couldn't tell the difference. Tho he did call them a bunch of clueless dickheads as well..

Anyway the point I'm getting at is if you use the current crop of Prosumer HD cameras ($5 to 10 tho range) effectively, 9/10 people who aren't DOP's can't tell the difference between that footage and other film stuff thats broadcast on the small screen.
They're more interested in the content.
Reply
post #11 of 26
9/12/07 at 4:43am
Thread Starter 
Well the Red JUST came out so give it time. Right now alot of the footage is from people who aren't really getting the most out of the camera. I think in time, you'll see some amazing stuff out of it. I know I'm getting better imagery out of my FX 1 just by playing with the picture profile settings and knowing how to make the most out of the manual settings.

I've been looking at the Brevis 35mm adapter for a month or two and I think that's one of the keys to getting that elusive "film look" as you've alluded to. As for HD making people look less than their best, that could be if you're not careful. I shoot weddings and I can tell you that my brides look BETTER in HD than in SD. Could be the color saturation, could be the 16:9, who knows? Unless you're shooting someone in their 50's, you won't have to worry about bad skin. At least in the 1080i range. I'm sure it's more of a factor in the 4K range but if you're shooting at that rez, you're shooting a real movie and have hopefully hired a makeup artist anyway!

I will also say that even if your destination format is DVD or HD format disc, shooting and editing in 4K could be beneficial. For instance you have way more freedom to zoom and crop in post if you need to. You can also gain up a scene that is too dark with no noise. Also I think the color space is different with the Red format (4:2:2?) where you can do some serious color grading.

My hope is that this camera will start a trickle down effect to other more affordable cams (maybe with fewer bells and whistles). I can see this happening actually. Take a look at the Canon HV20. Under $1000 and shoots in 1080 24P. Manual controls are probably ass but still..... Here's hoping.
Reply
post #12 of 26
9/12/07 at 4:51am
Thread Starter 
I wanted to add that I love the stuff I've seen from the HVX 200. More than a worthy successor to the DVX 100. The dealbreaker for me was the P2 cards. Awesome if you're working in a controlled environment (like you probably are) but unreasonable if you are doing more documentary style shooting. The one cam that's in the HVX range that I'm looking at closely is the new Sony EX series of cams. Those are solid state as well but can give you a ton more recording time even at the highest bit rates.

I just find it amazing the kinds of equipment we have at our disposal these days both in the field and in post. Mind boggling.
Reply
post #13 of 26
9/12/07 at 5:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv

shooting and editing in 4K could be beneficial. For instance you have way more freedom to zoom and crop in post if you need to. You can also gain up a scene that is too dark with no noise. Also I think the color space is different with the Red format (4:2:2?) where you can do some serious color grading.
Sorry to be such a debbie-downer but you should know that there is currently no non-linear editing platform in existence that allows you to edit in anything higher than 1080p, and even those systems - such as the Avid Nitrous - have just entered into common usage on big-budget shows.

Color-grading systems such as the Da Vinci Resolve and the Nucoda Film Master are $100K+ digital intermediate tools, and only the most high-end configurations are capapble of a real-time workflow in a 4K environment sans proxy.

(Back to the storage requirements for a moment... A full length feature film can average about 120,000 frames. A 4K .DPX file is approximately 24MB. (120,000 frames x 24MB) / 1GB = 2.8TB of drive space for a locked cut. At even a slim 1:3 shooting ratio, that's almost TEN TERABYTES for one movie.)

Of course, some day we'll get dumbed-down versions of these technologies, but you can always expect the companies that develop them will limit their accessability for the benefit of special interests within the film industry. That's how things have always been 'round these parts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the RED camera, but I'd also like to see my fellow filmmakers approach it with all the facts in hand. The bottom line is that the camera, for all intents and purposes, doesn't even exist yet. Sure Peter Jackson shot a short film with it, but not with the same model we're going to get.

The bottom line: Until RED is on the market, the price is set, and people are out in the field shooting with it, we're all still just speculating.
Reply
post #14 of 26
9/12/07 at 6:48am
Why the hell would anyone want to offline at 4K anyway?
Reply
post #15 of 26
9/12/07 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv
I wanted to add that I love the stuff I've seen from the HVX 200. More than a worthy successor to the DVX 100. The dealbreaker for me was the P2 cards. Awesome if you're working in a controlled environment (like you probably are) but unreasonable if you are doing more documentary style shooting. The one cam that's in the HVX range that I'm looking at closely is the new Sony EX series of cams. Those are solid state as well but can give you a ton more recording time even at the highest bit rates.

I just find it amazing the kinds of equipment we have at our disposal these days both in the field and in post. Mind boggling.
By the end of the year there will be 32gb and 64gb P2 cards out. I picked up a 16gb P2 card with my HVX (luckily didn't have to go thru the pain alot of HVX owners went thru when there were only 4gb p2 cards out, the dark ages, I swear), and in 720/25pn it gives me about 32 minutes worth of footage. So when the 64gbs are out, the amount of footage you can store on those cards should be a non-issue for most people.
And btw Solid state is the way to go. The company I work for shotos with HVX and they need Firestore hdd's for the amount of footage they shoot at time (again those firestores will be nice paper wieghts for this company when the 64gb p2 cards come out). These firestores are as noisy as fuck and are very unwieldly to shoot with (especially if ur using them for run and gun stuff). Solid state is the future.

I think the red camera is out. 29 or so have been released to the general public. Apparently sodenberg is shooting his new movie with two reds.

The footage that let me down whe it comes to the Red camera wasn't some of the recent stuff people have put on the web, No, more like the stuff peter jackson shot for his short film (my understanding is that he used a prototype, the model on the market is meant to be superior). It looked good. But it wasnt film or better. It was like I said earlier: uber Hd. Honestly I hope to be suprised or even blown away with some new footage shot by some pro's..

dynamot, As for 35mm adapters, I'd say the Brevis is the way to go. Minimal lightloss (for an adapter), super quick to fit on, decent price. If I get an adapter (maybe at the end of the year) it will be the brevis.
Reply
post #16 of 26
9/12/07 at 7:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarant
Why the hell would anyone want to offline at 4K anyway?
There are some advantages to offlining at higher resolutions, particularly from a deliverables standpoint. Rough cut previews can be streamed directly from the NLE systems to HD projectors, eliminating the need for standard-def tape outputs when previewing the film, and at times there are fine details in the cinematography that are missed in a low-rez offline situation that are discovered in the DI (continuity mistakes, etc.). By that time, it's almost too late to do anything about it.

For more information, there's going to be an article that examines the HD post process for Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone (shot by John Toll, ASC) in next month's American Cinematographer.
Reply
post #17 of 26
9/12/07 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Ultimately
(Back to the storage requirements for a moment... A full length feature film can average about 120,000 frames. A 4K .DPX file is approximately 24MB. (120,000 frames x 24MB) / 1GB = 2.8TB of drive space for a locked cut. At even a slim 1:3 shooting ratio, that's almost TEN TERABYTES for one movie.)
Seeing as a terrabyte will run you about four hundred bucks storage is not a problem. Particularly since it's re-usable technology.

We used over ten TBs on a HD 3D film I worked on so it's not unheard of to use that kind of space.
Reply
post #18 of 26
9/12/07 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~
Seeing as a terrabyte will run you about four hundred bucks storage is not a problem. Particularly since it's re-usable technology.

We used over ten TBs on a HD 3D film I worked on so it's not unheard of to use that kind of space.
i think you're missing the point
Reply
post #19 of 26
9/12/07 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmub
dynamot, As for 35mm adapters, I'd say the Brevis is the way to go. Minimal lightloss (for an adapter), super quick to fit on, decent price. If I get an adapter (maybe at the end of the year) it will be the brevis.
Where does one look up 35mm adapters? I'm looking at getting either a DVXB or a HVX at the end of the year, and I also wanted to price adapters as well to give me a more filmic quality.
Reply
post #20 of 26
9/12/07 at 6:57pm
Thread Starter 
Greg: www.cinevate.com
Reply
post #21 of 26
9/13/07 at 9:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Ultimately
i think you're missing the point

You were the one mentioning huge amounts of space needed, what's the point, then?

If the point was that no system can handle the 4K then the memory doesn't enter into it so why is that little blurb there? I was responding to that point rather than the rest of your post.
Reply
post #22 of 26
9/13/07 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~
You were the one mentioning huge amounts of space needed, what's the point, then?

If the point was that no system can handle the 4K then the memory doesn't enter into it so why is that little blurb there? I was responding to that point rather than the rest of your post.
my point wasn't that it wasn't possible, it's that the majority of potential buyers aren't looking at the tertiary costs and requirements that go along with an HD or higher-than-HD workflow.

it kind of goes back to my beef (unrelated to this thread) with the digital camera industry's "pixel pushing" of new technologies, which in turn plays into the consumers' obsession over data and hardware.
Reply
post #23 of 26
9/13/07 at 2:43pm
Thread Starter 
In the long run, you'll spend more on film stock than you will on the camera itself. Just went to Spectra Film and Video and a roll of 35mm film will set you back about $1500. For what? 10 minutes of footage? Even P2 cards are a better deal than that. The tertiary costs and requirements are just as prohibitive or even more so on film.
Reply
post #24 of 26
9/14/07 at 3:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv
In the long run, you'll spend more on film stock than you will on the camera itself. Just went to Spectra Film and Video and a roll of 35mm film will set you back about $1500. For what? 10 minutes of footage? Even P2 cards are a better deal than that. The tertiary costs and requirements are just as prohibitive or even more so on film.
So don't shoot on film. I'm not advocating it.
Reply
post #25 of 26
9/14/07 at 5:47am
If I had the money (someone elses) I'd shoot on 35mm. No probs. I'm just not huge on the whole hassle of shooting on film. I'm sure there are many ppl that could argue Digital is much more of a hassle overall, and They may be right in saying so.. I just like the workflow on set and in post better with digital, for my own projects with my own money sunk into it.

Outside funding that can afford it? film it is, For now, anyway.
Reply
post #26 of 26
10/4/07 at 12:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark
Where does one look up 35mm adapters? I'm looking at getting either a DVXB or a HVX at the end of the year, and I also wanted to price adapters as well to give me a more filmic quality.
In regards to the camera, I'd recommend the HVX. The B is a great camera but you're locked in the SD world. At least with the HVX, even if you can't afford P2 at the moment, you have the option of HD. Wait until you can afford the HVX or charge it and pay it off. If you're at all interested in making money with the camera, having the HD option will up your day rate and allow you to take more jobs. The thing is, regardless of the fact we're still in an SD-world, Average Joe Client is hip to the "pixel pushing" as Ian puts it. More and more are asking for HD (or, ugh, HDV) even though the end result is still 720X480.

As for the RED, let's get excited about what it represents. A 35mm-sized sensor at $17,000-ish. Do you think the Genesis price includes a lens and a storage drive? If anything, Jannard, etc. is proving that the 35mm sensor at 4K is possible for a reasonable price tag.

So what if we can't edit it, so what if we can't display. The full dynamic range and resolution of film is NEVER exhibited. What makes the IDEA of the camera so exciting is that you have shooters out there taking SBL's of 70,000 to buy a Varicam/CineAlta, etc. These cameras are 2/3" chips X 3 with a max of 1080i.

For less than that, they have a 4K option with the DofF of 35mm.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Budding Filmmakers
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › Damn, I want one of these