Hi All,

Well the Red One has hit the streets and I was wondering how many folks have had one in their hands.

Our DP brought one in last week and I have to tell you, for me, this is the biggest piece of vaporware I've ever hand in my hands in in 20 years.

After going through it with him, I was left with the distinct impression that filmography has come full circle. It is now to the point that shooting video is actually MORE expensive than 35 mm film.

First off, no OPTICAL viewfinder?!?! What DP is gonna want to look at a monitor to judge lighting and contrast? Our guys said they couldn't use this camera without going back to a light meter, a color meter and a prayer that what you've captured looks the way you THINK it should have looked. The electronic image out of the camera is an "Approximation of the actual image"...huh? Couple that with the fact that you get 2 mins per card of recording time, then you have to offload and the rendering time for one two minute card was 3.5 hours!?!?! Who's got that kind of time? you're back to shooting 1/2 scenes at a time in most cases.

At least for us, our 35mm rigs are more flexible and cheaper to produce an end product than this much-hyped "new technology". Has anyone else got a different point of view? I would love to hear an argument on the other side 'cause everything I saw about this camera made me go "no way".

Now I could care less if Avid has a "Red" solution or not.

We've explored it as well... we still prefer 35MM for our high end shoots hands down.

Todd -

here is an article written by Oliver Peters on the Red workflow. 

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=196603846


I think this entire file based workflow has yet to be defined.  I am doing a job shot on XD Cam that I will rough on Avid and finish on a FCP HD system.  There is no good way to get the metadata from one to the other (I checked with Wes Plate, founder of Automatic Duck) so I am dumping everything to HD  tape and making EDL's

It will get there, and the Red has a chance to take the very high end.  But there is a lot to shake out yet.  I am also going to forward this to Lucas Wilson, a good friend at Assimilate.  They make a DI product called "Scratch" and is working closely with the Red folks.  Hopefully he can add something to this discussion.  Thanks.

I've read that Article but there is still nothing in it to Add value to this product for us.

Again, if you have a product that produces an image that is inferior to Film and yet costs more to produce, what's the point in using it?

Couple that with the (albeit preliminary) fact that the few DPs I've spoken to (including a friend in L.A. who DPs a lot of WB shows like Reba) have taken one look at the camera and walked away.

I'm looking for someone who can tell me where they see value in this product. Is it just that it's an analog to FCP 1.0 and is not ready for prime time? Is every one going "Well it's a start"? This I could understand.

With all the hype, it kind of makes sense that they teamed up with Apple!

very true.  I know 2 DP's here in my little town who have bought the camera but several others who are not sold and are in the "wait and see" mode.  That seems very logical to me at this point.

sw

Red Heads: It's 4K!!!

Editor: This Redcine app isn't working correctly.

Red Heads: It's 4K!!!

Editor: The timecode's on the QT's don't match the source.

Red Heads: It's 4K!!!

Editor: I really don't want to purchase Scratch just to work with my footage.

Red Heads: It's 4K!!!

Great it's 4K - now how do I get it into my Avid, FCP or Premiere? And how can I do this quickly so I can make a profit, I'm not an indie film maker so the profit margins are an important consideration.

...and it's not even 4K!

Bench tests show it to be closer to 2.5K.

(According to what I'm Reading from Oliver and Ian).

Todd -

this is a great post and could have some interesting real world information in answers.  Perhaps cross post this to the Avid-L for more involvement?

sw

I actually did. How long do those posts take to show up over there?

not seeing it there either....usually post up pretty quick...hmmmm

BLKDOG:

Hi All,
Well the Red One has hit the streets and I was wondering how many folks have had one in their hands.

Our DP brought one in last week and I have to tell you, for me, this is the biggest piece of vaporware I've ever hand in my hands in in 20 years.

My DP friend just got his. We're shooting tomorrow. And I will be editing in Avid.

It is now to the point that shooting video is actually MORE expensive than 35 mm film.

I disagree. There is no developing or telecine costs. The camera package is cheaper by a couple of hundred dollars. I would like to see the breakdown of your Red vs 35 mm budget.

First off, no OPTICAL viewfinder?!?! What DP is gonna want to look at a monitor to judge lighting and contrast? Our guys said they couldn't use this camera without going back to a light meter, a color meter and a prayer that what you've captured looks the way you THINK it should have looked. The electronic image out of the camera is an "Approximation of the actual image"...huh?

An optical viewfinder is also an approximation of the final result (on film). And not knowing what's captured? Sounds exactly like a film shoot to me.

It's a digital sensor. Using a lightmeter is silly. Capture as much information without clipping. If it's a scene with high dynamic range then you have to choose what's important and expose for that.

Couple that with the fact that you get 2 mins per card of recording time, then you have to offload and the rendering time for one two minute card was 3.5 hours!?!?! Who's got that kind of time? you're back to shooting 1/2 scenes at a time in most cases.

The 8 GB card holds 5 minutes. 16 GB cards are coming soon and will hold 10 minutes.

We will shoot with the "Red drive" tomorrow and we can roll for about 3 hours in 4K if we wanted to. If we choose 2K we could roll for 12 hours. You would need a hell of a camera mag to do that on 35 mm.

At least for us, our 35mm rigs are more flexible and cheaper to produce an end product than this much-hyped "new technology". Has anyone else got a different point of view? I would love to hear an argument on the other side 'cause everything I saw about this camera made me go "no way".

Please describe the additional costs associated with the Red camera. If you convert the selects from the offline inhouse over night wouldn't that be a lot cheaper than film, developing and telecine?

Now I could care less if Avid has a "Red" solution or not.

It's a growing market. Why not compete in it with a tool you prefer?

Today it takes about 150% of realtime to convert footage to an Avid format of you choice. (From the proxies)
I can have a locked edit from Red footage before the 35 mm scan/telecine is delivered from the lab.

Just my 0.20 SEK

This is great, another point of view to consider...just what I was hoping for, let's see if you can follow the logic our DP is laying out.

rebusfilm:

I disagree. There is no developing or telecine costs. The camera package is cheaper by a couple of hundred dollars. I would like to see the breakdown of your Red vs 35 mm budget.

The cost associated with rendering 3.5 hours per finished 2 mins more than eclipses our developing and telecine costs right now. We already own our 35mm rigs so cost of the camera doesn't factor in. That's where we were going with that.

rebusfilm:

An optical viewfinder is also an approximation of the final result (on film). And not knowing what's captured? Sounds exactly like a film shoot to me.

No, Optical viewfinders are not an approximation (an electronic one anyway), they are much closer to the light conditions the DP is actually seeing on set (his words, not mine).

rebusfilm:

It's a digital sensor. Using a lightmeter is silly. Capture as much information without clipping. If it's a scene with high dynamic range then you have to choose what's important and expose for that.

(Okay, we can't go over that 'cause the guy who does the work is here and doesn't agree with that statement in the least)

rebusfilm:

The 8 GB card holds 5 minutes. 16 GB cards are coming soon and will hold 10 minutes.

Apparently we didn't have an 8 gig card 'cause we only got two mins and even that took forever to "render"

rebusfilm:

We will shoot with the "Red drive" tomorrow and we can roll for about 3 hours in 4K if we wanted to. If we choose 2K we could roll for 12 hours. You would need a hell of a camera mag to do that on 35 mm.

Ok...how much is the "Red Drive" added to the package? How long will 3 hours of footage take you to render?

rebusfilm:

Please describe the additional costs associated with the Red camera. If you convert the selects from the offline inhouse over night wouldn't that be a lot cheaper than film, developing and telecine?

Red drive, render times, additional color correction time, additional lighting time as it is MUCH different to light for (again, this is what I'm being told) and Card costs. Additional time in Post workflow to transfer proxies (you know it won't work right the first time).

You can develop and CC a hell of a lot of film for the cost of Red's extras (at first glance)

rebusfilm:

It's a growing market. Why not compete in it with a tool you prefer?

Today it takes about 150% of realtime to convert footage to an Avid format of you choice. (From the proxies)
I can have a locked edit from Red footage before the 35 mm scan/telecine is delivered from the lab.

Yes but you still have to render the full res and there is a cost associated with that (a BIG one). It may take a little more time for the Telecined film to get to me but with DI recorded on the set, it's virtually the same workflow. The film, however will end up being cheaper to produce for a final result. Add to that the picture, side by side with 35 MM, doesn't hold up at all. the film wins hands down. So, for us, why use a product that delivers an inferior result at a higher cost?

Additionally, I'm reading about all the horror stories in post just getting the stuff in the box. Capturing film from HDcam is pretty straight forward so, also add in the increased post costs in time spent creating a workflow.

Haze also laid out some good points in addition to the fact that Red's 4k isn't even close to it. it's like 2.5 according to what I'm reading in the bench tests.

Blkdog, interesting thread. However, if I were to translate your stance to  the transition from 35mm editing (flatbed or upright), you are basically in the camp of those folks, claiming that non-linear digital editing will take more time and more money, and you don't see the added value.
In stead of having film developed and printed overnight, you now have to have it developed, telecined AND captured. This capture happens in a low resolution, not even close to the resolution it has in telecine, so you are looking at an inferior picture compared to a 35mm editing system. If you want to screen your workprint, it has to first be conformed, unlike a 35mm workprint, which you can immediately project on any industry standard projector. To keep the conforms up to speed with the editing process, you'll actually need more assistants with this digital workflow.

Red is new, it's not finished (has beta ended, yet?), and its value is probably more in the near future than it is in today's production. Will DP's have to make adjustments? Very likely, since exposing digital is different than exposing film. Also, since there is no longer any grain, anything slightly out of focus will feel very out of focus.

As for storage, memory prices come down every day, and more and more data can be stored on ever smaller devices. Render times are much, much cheaper than telecine time is. It is paramount that Avid facilitate the use of this camera with their systems.

To call it vaporware is an exaggeration. Would I start shooting on Red tomorrow? Unlikely. Will Red (and other forms of digital cinema) replace 35mm filming? For a significant amount, likely.

Job ter Burg:

Blkdog, interesting thread. However, if I were to translate your stance to  the transition from 35mm editing (flatbed or upright), you are basically in the camp of those folks, claiming that non-linear digital editing will take more time and more money, and you don't see the added value.

Well, since I was one of those editors, I don't think you are correct here. The first time I sat in front of an Avid, I could see the value and potential immediately. I don't get the same sense here.

Job ter Burg:

In stead of having film developed and printed overnight, you now have to have it developed, telecined AND captured.

I get that but the enormous "Developing" time of this camera's solution is, for us, a deal breaker. Can someone tell me that the rendering times are not as great as we experienced?

Job ter Burg:

This capture happens in a low resolution, not even close to the resolution it has in telecine, so you are looking at an inferior picture compared to a 35mm editing system.

Right...so where is the benefit in the new camera?

Job ter Burg:

If you want to screen your workprint, it has to first be conformed, unlike a 35mm workprint, which you can immediately project on any industry standard projector. To keep the conforms up to speed with the editing process, you'll actually need more assistants with this digital workflow.

Not sure I understand that Job...can you elaborate a bit?

Job ter Burg:

Red is new, it's not finished (has beta ended, yet?), and its value is probably more in the near future than it is in today's production.

That's kind of what I was asking. Is this a "Concept model with it's actual value to come later?

Job ter Burg:

Will DP's have to make adjustments? Very likely, since exposing digital is different than exposing film.

Problem here is film still looks like the superior workflow for price/product. So why put yourself through the pain?

Job ter Burg:

As for storage, memory prices come down every day, and more and more data can be stored on ever smaller devices. Render times are much, much cheaper than telecine time is.

How do you figure? 1.5 hrs per finished minute is a lot of wear and tear on this expensive gear. We would have to amortize this at a rate just slightly higher than our film telecine rates. So, cost to the client will be actually higher when figuring time/cost between the two.

Job ter Burg:

It is paramount that Avid facilitate the use of this camera with their systems.

To call it vaporware is an exaggeration.

When you compare the hype to the actual product....not really.

Job ter Burg:

Would I start shooting on Red tomorrow? Unlikely. Will Red (and other forms of digital cinema) replace 35mm filming? For a significant amount, likely.

Not if they look at the result. Thanks Job, I aprreciate your point of view. I'd really be interested in what you think after you've actually gone through the workflow as we did this week.