CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › RED ONE - Scarlet - Epic - 2,251,799,813,685,248 Possibilities
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RED ONE - Scarlet - Epic - 2,251,799,813,685,248 Possibilities

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Two words: GAME CHANGER

Red just announced new specs for Scarlet and Epic, it's two new RED ONE camera rifs...and it's unbelievable.

$2,500 as a starter camera (maybe lower) with 3K resolution...better start looking between the sofa cushions. I am.

Scroll all the way to the bottom for a nice surprise. As in HOLY SHIT.

http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/
post #2 of 36
The pricing says $25,000. You missed a zero there.
post #3 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
The pricing says $25,000. You missed a zero there.
I think you need to get your eyes checked, Greg.

The entry level Scarlet is $2,500.

The entry level Epic is $28,000.

(actually the entry level Scarlet's price is TBD, but the next one up is $2.5k)
post #4 of 36
Hard to ignore at that price. Although isn't that price for the 'Brain' only?

Still, the storage requirements should soon see to that.
post #5 of 36
Thread Starter 
The developer stated that the entry camera with accessories included should be no more than $4,000, which is still great for what you're getting.
post #6 of 36
I totally agree, $4,000 is an excellent price - especially for an entry-level red.

I think it just needed saying that $2,500 doesn't buy you a functioning camera.

Saying that, my first camera was the Z1E and that fucker cost... well, in the US it'd be the equivilant of... $7,000 when it came out? No matter what this costs, it's much cheaper than most prosumer gear on the market and those accessories look insanely desirable.
post #7 of 36
That 3-D rig, I wish had a price on it. Will be interesting to see how it tests. Although, the guys I worked with on 3-D said they hoped to never work on a 3-D film again. But still, low budget 3-D is interesting to think about.
post #8 of 36
Thread Starter 
You REEEEEEALLY need to know what you're doing to shoot 3-D and make it work. It offers an infinitely whole new set of mis-en-scene options.
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
I think you need to get your eyes checked, Greg.

The entry level Scarlet is $2,500.

The entry level Epic is $28,000.

(actually the entry level Scarlet's price is TBD, but the next one up is $2.5k)
You need to know what you're talking about. $2.5k buys you the "brain", i.e. The imaging chip. You can try making a movie with just that, but you'd have an easier time splicing together pinhole camera stills into a moving image. Go through and price the body, lenses, viewfinder, shoulder mount, PL mount, focus pull, etc, etc, before commenting on the blindness of my eyes.
post #10 of 36
Oh wow... So does anyone think I can get $4000 from my XL2 to cover the costs of a Red One? I might have to read into this...
post #11 of 36
$4,000 will not get you a functioning Red camera, just some of the components. RED is tricky with their pricing...the RED ONE is advertised as a pro HD camera for $17.5k, which sounds amazing, but once you realize that that's just for the body, and then you factor in the cost of everything you need just to turn it on and shoot something, the cost goes up to $40,000. I cannot imagine anything different for the Scarlet series. Don't plan on getting anything shot for under $10,000.
post #12 of 36
What the fuck would would anyone need a 28 goodamn K image sensor for?

I'll be producing a RED film in January, and I'm not looking forward to post. Not one goddamn bit.
post #13 of 36
Oh wow. Well nevermind then.
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renn Brown View Post
What the fuck would would anyone need a 28 goodamn K image sensor for?

I'll be producing a RED film in January, and I'm not looking forward to post. Not one goddamn bit.
Think of all the indie IMAX movies that could happen! Except not really!

From what I understand from some editing friends, posting RED is still complicated, but Final Cut Studio 2 has an add-on workflow that will import the RED video files and do the required pulldown and compression so you can edit in RT without spend eighty million on a render farm. It's not perfect, but it expedites the process more than any other edit suite on the market right now.
post #15 of 36
I'm definitely convincing the director to shoot down at 3K, and I'm working on getting him to go to 2k- we'll see.

RED had a panel at our film festival (pretty cool, though all the projection was in SD, blegh) and they mentioned that add-on. Apparently our editor has worked RED in the past (or is going to before our film) so hopefully we'll have a couple people around that know what the fuck they are doing.
post #16 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
You need to know what you're talking about. $2.5k buys you the "brain", i.e. The imaging chip. You can try making a movie with just that, but you'd have an easier time splicing together pinhole camera stills into a moving image. Go through and price the body, lenses, viewfinder, shoulder mount, PL mount, focus pull, etc, etc, before commenting on the blindness of my eyes.
You're being a brick. I realize the brain needs accessories. And I replied there's a post on the red forums where the owner/developer stated that an entry level Scarlett would be shootable for under $4,000. I'm talking basic...that may not include a shoulder mount, but not everyone needs a fucking shoulder mount, especially since you're talking about a very small camera, and filmmakers who are used to making films on the fly without many accessories. I don't know where the fuck you're getting $25,000 for an entry level Scarlett. I'm going by what the developer stated in the forums. Go look for yourself and stop wasting people's time with your bullshit figures.
post #17 of 36
Are they still doing the voodoo resolution maths that Rian Johnson tore apart a couple months ago?
post #18 of 36
Thread Starter 
Rian Johnson's thing was torn apart as well. He barely knew what he was talking about, and it was for an older build of the camera, which has been updated several times since, so it's invalid. It's a moot point anyway, as it's just numbers...I don't see anybody bitching about The Red's picture quality other than number crunchers. Especially not Steven Soderbergh (who banked millions on The Red with his Che films), who I'd trust over Johnson any day of the week.
post #19 of 36
I wouldn't say Johnson's post was torn apart...he even followed it up later with a fairly reasonable explanation (Red is not a slayer of the HDW-900 or that level of camera).

Honestly, reading the Reduser boards, it makes me a bit afraid to invest in the products. They've got a ravenous fanbase that doesn't really seem to offer much constructive criticism.

The post workflow is still an issue...I'm sure by the time the Scarlet is realistically released (I think January 2010 is probably a safer bet than Summer 2009) the problem will be sorted out.
post #20 of 36
The picture quality on Red is excellent. At the end of the day, that's all I care about. It's not at a prosumer level yet - nor do I think Scarlet will be the solution to this - but to see it in the hands of professionals who can handle the post will be nice.

This coming from something of a film nazi.
post #21 of 36
Movies are still expensive as hell to make, and always will be. You can always rent a camera. Buying one...I don't see the point. With the cost of lighting, locations, etc. you'll likely spend enough that a pricey rental won't make a difference. I guess you could buy it to shoot basically home movies. But who wants to watch those? I like digital video, but I think this whole make-a-film-in-your-backyard thing is misguided. What's exciting about the RED camera? Someone explain it to me...

I've heard on end for years about the revolutions that would come to filmmaking, and some of them have, but why buy a cam? Video quality isn't everything - film itself isn't crystal-clear. I guess I could view all the specks on an actor's pockmarked face, but I probably wouldn't want to, unless of course the film called for it...
post #22 of 36
What is so game changing about RED is not that any schmoe fuck can buy a near-film quality camera, it's the rental market.

There are approximately 42 Panavision Genesis cameras in the world, and a similarly limited number of Vipers, and other mega-quality HD cameras. RED, with its much smaller price point, has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 cameras in the market. This means the availability for rental is enormously higher, and much cheaper. It also creates a cottage industry of add-ons and extra equipment, all available.

So no, you can't spend $500 bucks and make There Will Be Blood. However, if you are a independent or smaller production, with a reasonable budget you can film your story without being encumbered by crappy video quality.
post #23 of 36
The exciting thing about RED is the picture quality - and that it's coming from digital. It's not all about resolution - if it was, digital would have trounced film long ago.
post #24 of 36
RED seems to be a big step for the serious little guy.

End of story.
post #25 of 36
Ah, didn't know the other options were so rare.
post #26 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
Movies are still expensive as hell to make, and always will be.
That's not entirely true.

Hollywood would like you to believe that because that's part of the glamour people associate with the film industry. But the basics of moviemaking can be accomplished with very little money. The insane costs come from paying every single crew and cast member lots of money and renting every single location for incredible ammounts of money, staying in expensive hotels, etc.

You can make a movie for under $10,000 with the RED camera and it would completely watchable. It would have to be small, but if it has a great story, and you were clever with production value, it would go far.

For instance, instead of paying your actors and crew, you can defer salaries. This is a pain in the ass because people work well when being paid, but as long as they love the project and are also trying to make a name for themselves, you can get great results. Just keep them fed.

Your locations you can borrow by pretending to be a film student doing a short, when in fact you're really doing a feature, but since it's only one location, they'll believe you. You do that for every location and with some luck and charm, you'll be fine (I've done this).

Most of the costs will come down to the camera rental and P2 card stock, lighting and grip equipment...and you can even eliminate most of that by shooting handheld in natural daylight, or getting a discount rate on a lighting package by finding someone on craigslist....alot of DPs will rent you their camera, lighting and grip package for free in exchange for being allowed to DP the movie themselves.

If you already have a pretty decent laptop you can even edit the thing yourself. Alot of macs come with final cut pro, or imovie...just buy a couple 500 gig hard drives (you can get a good one for under $200), capture at a low res and you'll be okay.

The only thing you're probably gonna have to pay extra for is a sound mix. Most student and low budget movies live and die by this. Your great movie can be completely fucked over by a terrible sound mix, which will decrease its impact, and increase it's irritating factor. But if you have pro-tools, again, not that expensive, and build your own ADR booth (styrophoam enclosure, mic), do your own foley and use pro-tools, it make take a while and be really hard, but it can be done. And a good sound mix isn't really that important if you're trying to get a distributor to buy your movie by sending your dvds out...they watch alot of dvds on just a basic TV, so they wont notice your lack of a 7.1 DTS mix. You can even tell them you couldn't afford a good sound mix, they will understand. If they choose to buy your movie, they will front the money for a good sound mix. But if you get into a festival, you'll need a good sound mix...I'm not sure how much it is, but you can go to a post production house and ask to get a discount by asking for a graveyard shift mix. If you get into a big festival, you can easily get a company to look at your movie beforehand and maybe get them to front the mix.

The point is, if you just use your head, some common sense, and are thorough, and work hard, it can be done.
post #27 of 36
That was an uplifting, informative forum post. The greatest difficulty, I fear, is finding the right actors. At least one project didn't go anywhere because I couldn't find anyone who could act the part without it being intentionally cheesy.
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
The only thing you're probably gonna have to pay extra for is a sound mix. Most student and low budget movies live and die by this. Your great movie can be completely fucked over by a terrible sound mix, which will decrease its impact, and increase it's irritating factor. But if you have pro-tools, again, not that expensive, and build your own ADR booth (styrophoam enclosure, mic), do your own foley and use pro-tools, it make take a while and be really hard, but it can be done. And a good sound mix isn't really that important if you're trying to get a distributor to buy your movie by sending your dvds out...they watch alot of dvds on just a basic TV, so they wont notice your lack of a 7.1 DTS mix. You can even tell them you couldn't afford a good sound mix, they will understand. If they choose to buy your movie, they will front the money for a good sound mix. But if you get into a festival, you'll need a good sound mix...I'm not sure how much it is, but you can go to a post production house and ask to get a discount by asking for a graveyard shift mix. If you get into a big festival, you can easily get a company to look at your movie beforehand and maybe get them to front the mix.
Thisthisthisthisthisthis.

Sound is by and far the most overlooked aspect of amateur productions. No contest. It's also the biggest deal-breaker. Can't emphasize this enough.
post #29 of 36
Amen.
post #30 of 36
Yeah, my students mainly fail on sound work because it simply gets the least attention. Most of our audio gear is pretty decent though.

But yeah - you could technically make a movie for free if you're not paying salaries and already own the gear to do it.

Cost, to me - has mostly been about man-hours. People's time is the most valuable asset.
post #31 of 36
RED's found its match!!!

http://www.bluedigitalcinema.com/
post #32 of 36
That's an esoteric joke if I've ever seen one, but goddamn that's great. Especially...

post #33 of 36
Hey, at least Blue is being honest about their shipping dates.
post #34 of 36
There are... OTHER colors!
post #35 of 36
post #36 of 36
Those EX1's are amazing too. It's times like this i'm glad we're spoilt for choice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Budding Filmmakers
CHUD.com Community › Forums › ARTS & LITERATURE › Budding Filmmakers › RED ONE - Scarlet - Epic - 2,251,799,813,685,248 Possibilities