CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › Rian Johnson Does Not Like the Red Camera
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rian Johnson Does Not Like the Red Camera

post #1 of 20
9/17/08 at 11:33am
Thread Starter 
From this piece on the front of his site:

Quote:
RED BULL



Straight talk about the technical realities of the RED ONE digital cinema camera





So you're an independent filmmaker, and at some point you start hearing the buzz about this new RED camera. Big time directors are using it. Articles in movie, music and tech magazines declare it to be the sounding death knell of 35mm film. It promises quality that surpasses both film and high-end HD, at a fraction of the price, and with a camera that looks like a weapon out of HALO.



And if you're like me, you start getting excited. Why not? Why wouldn't somebody put all the best new technology in one camera and do it right? Why couldn't the RED be everything it claims? Just because it all sounds too good to be true, does that really mean it has to be too good to be true?

You bet your ass it does.


The RED camera does not do what it claims. Which is not to say it's a bad product, or that it doesn't have its place - in terms of quality it's a good alternative to things like Varicam and HDV. But it does not hold a candle to regularly used high-end HD, let alone film. And we're going to tell you why.

The RED ONE camera claims to achieve "4 times the resolution of the very best HD camera." That's misleading at best, and they can only get away with saying it because the term 'resolution' is a bit hazy. The RED people do not outright lie, but they are agressivlely misleading and tricky with the language they use in their specs.
Reply
post #2 of 20
9/17/08 at 1:17pm
Great article. I agree with everything he writes.

I'm always leery of anything that claims it will revolutionize the film industry. No single piece of equipment will do that.
Reply
post #3 of 20
9/17/08 at 2:45pm
Thread Starter 
See this whole thing ins interesting for me since it is somewhat out of my zone of knowledge. So I am really enjoying the discussion a lot. I think it is important that Johnson and his friends went out and tested this. Because really, that footage shot on their site looks great. But I haven't seen it up on a screen yet.

I really want to hear more from both sides. Discussion and debate can ge a good thing I think.
Reply
post #4 of 20
9/17/08 at 3:30pm
I've gotten to see demos of the RED at a A/V conference in Houston about a year ago. No joke, it does looks spectacular, but this article does pipe up the one hesitance I had while talking about it to the rep--the specs SOUND great, but does it edit uncompressed? What's the pulldown? I got stock answers, which cooled my heels about it a little. The more you go past the glitz and talk about it with people the less enticing it sounds, and I think a camera promising to usher in a new era shouldn't cause such mutterings. I still look at that footage and go "wowza", but I think the technology still isn't here.
Reply
post #5 of 20
9/17/08 at 3:46pm
Thread Starter 
Greg how did you see the footage? Did they put it up on a large computer monitor, was it converted into film and screened, or was it digitally projected? Curious.
Reply
post #6 of 20
9/17/08 at 3:50pm
It was shown first on an HD monitor, then digitally projected onto a screen that was, I dunno, maybe something you'd put in your living room. It LOOKED good, but like this article points out, almost any HD camera worth a shit will look good in those conditions. This was also a conference where I had an Adobe rep try to sell me on the idea that the latest version of Premire smokes FCP and renders it obsolete, so I was already in a highly skeptical mood.
Reply
post #7 of 20
9/17/08 at 5:45pm
Premiere does smoke FCP.
Reply
post #8 of 20
9/17/08 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
It was shown first on an HD monitor, then digitally projected onto a screen that was, I dunno, maybe something you'd put in your living room. It LOOKED good, but like this article points out, almost any HD camera worth a shit will look good in those conditions.
Exactly. I think part of my skepticism comes from the followers of Red. There's no way it can be the game changer they are claiming it to be. Yeah, it looks good but it has it's issues as were mentioned in the article.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
This was also a conference where I had an Adobe rep try to sell me on the idea that the latest version of Premire smokes FCP and renders it obsolete, so I was already in a highly skeptical mood.
Had an ex-client who purchased three Adobe turnkey systems because he believed that kind of hype. Told us that he was on the cutting edge of the editing revolution. Last year he sold all three systems and used the proceeds to buy a used FCP system.

Every year we hear about some system that's going to make Pro Tools obsolete for sound post and it has yet to come to fruition. You can use other DAWs but when it comes down to it, there's a pretty good reason it's the de facto standard and it will take something pretty awesome (not a different looking GUI) to change that.
Reply
post #9 of 20
9/17/08 at 6:39pm
Pro Tools is still so enormous and impressive a program to this newbie that I can barely comprehend something that would make it obsolete.
Reply
post #10 of 20
9/17/08 at 6:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
Premiere does smoke FCP.
Seeing as how every "cutting edge" feature he listed as an advantage for Premire was something FCP had since version 4, and given my absolute hate filled experience with Adobe Production Suite while working on The Shitty Horror Feature Which Shall Remain Nameless, I have no other choice than to refute your stance with a clear and echoing "BULLSHIT."
Reply
post #11 of 20
9/17/08 at 7:01pm
I'm quickly coming around to Avid, so I have no passion to fight your claim of "bullshit." I'd rather just call you a Final Cut fag, that's easier.
Reply
post #12 of 20
9/17/08 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
Pro Tools is still so enormous and impressive a program to this newbie that I can barely comprehend something that would make it obsolete.
Every once in a while some writer declares that this is the year that Nuendo or Cubase (or, in one case, Audition) becomes the new standard in the post film industry. And every year some one buys the hype only to be left holding a nice little DAW that isn't compatible with the local sound studio's mix room.

That's not to say there aren't nice things about all of those programs but Pro Tools isn't going anywhere and will likely be the standard for years to come.
Reply
post #13 of 20
9/17/08 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
I'm quickly coming around to Avid, so I have no passion to fight your claim of "bullshit." I'd rather just call you a Final Cut fag, that's easier.
I learned how to edit on an Avid so I'll always have a soft spot for that system. Even now that I know FCP is a better software* I'll always go to an Avid system to edit.

*Having said that I love the new Avid Mojo despite it's quirks. And Nitris is always fun.
Reply
post #14 of 20
9/17/08 at 9:01pm
So wait, how is FCP better software?

Like most young liberals or people who like There Will Be Blood, most of the FCP fans I encounter are fanboys who (apparently) are right for the wrong reasons.

I've yet to find a single thing that FCP can do that Premiere can't do cleaner and with less clunk. I've also yet to have a project pass through FCP without problems. This is all considering that my projects are small and while not simple, are not theatrical-level complex either.
Reply
post #15 of 20
9/17/08 at 9:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
So wait, how is FCP better software?

Like most young liberals or people who like There Will Be Blood, most of the FCP fans I encounter are fanboys who (apparently) are right for the wrong reasons.

I've yet to find a single thing that FCP can do that Premiere can't do cleaner and with less clunk. I've also yet to have a project pass through FCP without problems. This is all considering that my projects are small and while not simple, are not theatrical-level complex either.
Media management, plain and simple. When you have all your media spread out over fifteen 500GB drives you want the simple media management that comes with FCP. Avid's is nice but still more clunky then it needs to be. They've streamlined it in the latest versions but it doesn't compare to FCP. And Premiere is a fucking nightmare when it comes to that.

The other thing that FCP wins with is complex FX shots. Avid is also really, really good but I love the simplicity of FCP in piecing together FX.

Warning" Don't buy the bullshit about being able to sound edit in any of those programs if you are going to do a full mix. Any sound studio will ask you to get rid of all of the edits and effects you added (and any plug ins you may have used).
Reply
post #16 of 20
9/18/08 at 1:39am
Thread Starter 
Ian adds to the subject at hand with the new CHUDindie.

By the way, I recommend checking out Johnson's forum fr some more on what he has to say.
Reply
post #17 of 20
9/19/08 at 12:32pm
I already commented in the main forum, but my main issue is I've heard reports of people seeing RED footage, properly shot (anything can look like shit under bad circumstances, even 35) and projected on cinema sized screens and most of the reports are that it looked amazing, as good if not better than film. Are these people lying? It's been publicly tested for all to see, and suddenly the images have blotches? First I've heard of it.

I'm not a RED fanboy or anything, but I'm using common sense here.
Reply
post #18 of 20
9/20/08 at 12:29pm
Thread Starter 
Well again, Johnson has responded to some people from the Red forums on his forums. Worth checking out.
Reply
post #19 of 20
9/22/08 at 3:52pm
Thread Starter 
Johnson has posted a follow up article.
Reply
post #20 of 20
10/5/08 at 12:05pm
Thread Starter 
Rian Johnson posted this last bit on the Red Camera:

Quote:
Hey all - this is going to be (I promise) my last post on this board regarding the Red camera. I appreciate the amount of discussion it's caused, and I think the back and forth can only be a healthy thing, but responding to posts and emails regarding the article has just started to eat up an inordinate amount of my and (more importantly) my friends' time, and I think it's time to just let what we've written so far speak for itself and disengage from the fray.

For the Red supporters: Look guys, as a filmmaker, I'm not going to question anyone's choice of a camera format. Red is a spectacular camera considering its cost, and I'm sure it has been and will be a great tool for indie filmmakers. Let me repeat that: Red is an excellent camera. The point of the article, the singular, only, entire point, was that you can prefer whatever you like aesthetically, of course, but it is incorrect to say (as some people are doing) that Red technically beats or matches F23/Genesis/F35 at gathering and storing IMAGE DATA THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR CINEMA.

Just to put this in perspective - the Red camera costs, what, around 20 grand? High end HD cameras can cost several hundred. The fact that there's even a comparison to be made is quite impressive.

For those still considering their format choices: Read our article. Read Red's literature. Talk to the most knowledgeable, unbiased people you can find. And if you can, test test test the equipment under real world circumstances. Our article is one more piece of information for you to use in the decision making process, but at the end of the day there is no wrong choice. Red, 35mm, pixel-vision, HD, super 8 - pick what's right for your project and go for it. Happy shooting.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Budding Filmmakers
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › Rian Johnson Does Not Like the Red Camera