I'm gaffing a short that's about 80% shot. (On the "Scarlet" model, though, not their upper range.) It's a very nice camera, though R3D (its RAW format) obviously takes a lot of disk and CPU to edit.
That same format makes it nice for grading, though. Lots of dynamic range, not nearly as much trickery required if you're doing day-for-night, and it's single-system, unlike the cumbersome outboard audio recorders needed with DSLR production.
I've shot on them twice. Not my preferred system, for a variety of reasons, but if you need 4K output it's the way to go right now. I prefer either the CineAlt series by Sony (which I own) or the Arri Alexa.
As far as using them to shoot video intended to extract stills from, I don't think they're there, but that's just me. They don't produce files that I would want to work on from that standpoint.
Is there something specific that you would like to know about them?
Just curious, but why would you be interested in the RED system? As a motion film camera, it records in formats and resolution that NO consumer monitor can display and no consumer editing suite can edit.
As a camera to grab stills from video, it's only 8MP.
I think this makes great sense to serious film makers who will project this onto big screens with pro level equipment. But for anything else, it seems a little inappropriate.
Sort of like putting $30,000 of performance updates into a Honda Civic but driving on only 35MPH limit roads. (the Ferrari analogy doesn't really apply because even at 35mph, shit, it's STILL a Ferrari!!)
Edit: my mistake. It seems Final Cut Pro and even Premiere Pro will edit 4K video. But there still aren't monitors to show it.
Good Egg Productions wrote: Just curious, but why would you be interested in the RED system? As a motion film camera, it records in formats and resolution that NO consumer monitor can display and no consumer editing suite can edit.
As a camera to grab stills from video, it's only 8MP.
I think this makes great sense to serious film makers who will project this onto big screens with pro level equipment. But for anything else, it seems a little inappropriate.
Sort of like putting $30,000 of performance updates into a Honda Civic but driving on only 35MPH limit roads. (the Ferrari analogy doesn't really apply because even at 35mph, shit, it's STILL a Ferrari!!)
Edit: my mistake. It seems Final Cut Pro and even Premiere Pro will edit 4K video. But there still aren't monitors to show it.
Shooting in 4k does have advantages, even when outputting to 2k, because it allows you to crop in post, while still maintaining 100% resolution. This can be pretty useful when shooting video. Let's say you're doing a talking head shot that will be intercut with B-roll footage. You can frame for a standard medium shot and then, in the editing bay, cut to a close up shot at anytime from the same footage. For web, we do that a lot by shooting 1080 for 720 output.
Shooting in 4k does have advantages, even when outputting to 2k, because it allows you to crop in post, while still maintaining 100% resolution. This can be pretty useful when shooting video. Let's say you're doing a talking head shot that will be intercut with B-roll footage. You can frame for a standard medium shot and then, in the editing bay, cut to a close up shot at anytime from the same footage. For web, we do that a lot by shooting 1080 for 720 output.
Or, for 1/20th the cost, I could use two camera. I suppose that it's far more convenient to have one source that you can crop, but only if you can justify the costs.
-JAY- wrote: I know there are a few on here who have, but those are the guys with the six figure budgets
ei Total Productions wrote: I have a friend who spent $150k on a Red Epic system and then turned around and bought a Scarlet as well. They are not for the meek of wallet.
Or, for 1/20th the cost, I could use two camera. I suppose that it's far more convenient to have one source that you can crop, but only if you can justify the costs.
It's a convenience factor for those who already own it and something they use to market themselves (as owner/operator DPs). But the fact of the matter is that even big studio features are rarely shooting 4k these days. The hottest digital cinema camera going right now is the 2k Alexa. Red's workflow (with their version of "raw") is not easy to work with, isn't really raw in the sense a still shooter would think of it, and isn't as flexible as some other workflows when it comes to grading (depending on workflow). Having said that, if you know what you're doing, you can get AMAZING results out of it, but I still prefer the Alexa over it.
An MUA I know made one that looks very similar. It was open at the feet, so the model could hike it up and walk while wearing the tail. The only drawback was that the fabric tended to cling to the model's legs when it was wet, i.e., the outline of the model's legs showed through slightly.
I do think that one's going to be a game changer, both price and output-wise.
The one thing I do have to say, though, about DSLR shooting, RED, and this, is that over a long enough time of professional production work to have formed some real "second nature" movements, all these oddly shaped little boxes are incredibly unergonomic and thus rather user-unfriendly.
Give me a Sony, a Panasonic, a JVC or (please! please! please!) an Ikegami and I know exactly where every control is, not to mention they sit, nicely balanced, on my shoulder when I have to go off the legs and move around.
Why can't someone give just a minute's thought to those of us who use the damn things and build that capability into a user-friendly physical form?
MN camera wrote: I do think that one's going to be a game changer, both price and output-wise.
The one thing I do have to say, though, about DSLR shooting, RED, and this, is that over a long enough time of professional production work to have formed some real "second nature" movements, all these oddly shaped little boxes are incredibly unergonomic and thus rather user-unfriendly.
Give me a Sony, a Panasonic, a JVC or (please! please! please!) an Ikegami and I know exactly where every control is, not to mention they sit, nicely balanced, on my shoulder when I have to go off the legs and move around.
Why can't someone give just a minute's thought to those of us who use the damn things and build that capability into a user-friendly physical form?
I largely agree with you. But you're seeing a divide among the two types of people doing video that is widening.
It is the difference between the A/V guy and the art guy. The A/V guy was the kid in school who pushed the projectors around to various classes. They wound up getting into video, both low end consumer work and very high end network work. They are used to shoulder mounted cameras, zoom lenses and doing whatever they have to as a camera operator (often in less than ideal circumstances) to "get the shot".
Then you have the art guys, these are the ones who spent their high school days getting stoned listening to Pink Floyd albums and making crappy 8mm art films while debating the merits of Werner Herzog. These guys shoot narrative, and for them a camera is almost always part of a system that they may never hold. It is rigged and mounted for an operator and focus puller to be able to use in motion on dollies, jibs, sliders or a steady cam. It's output is recorded off-board and a video tap is routed to production monitors with a LUT correcting color for the director and crew to see.
The two cultures do not mix well - at all. lol...
For those in the former category, a camera should conform to certain standards, for those of us in the latter, it doesn't need to as much - although, it still should to some degree. I would never, shoot a commercial on a DSLR, yet people do it all the time - although, with the advent of quality digital cinema cameras at under $100k that is becoming less the case.
Canon just introduced a s35 video camera for under $10k that would be great for smaller projects where one might opt to use a dSLR instead of a proper video camera.
"Luke Scott in cooperation with RED Camera presents "LOOM". A film shot completely in 4K format in the tone and style of Ridley Scott's dystopian Blade Runner. The film was originally intended to help showcase the prototype REDray 3D laser player. The film was constructed for 3D, the film needed to push the limits of the cameras exposure sensitivity and colour range and 4K projection. Visually the film is unmatched to date in it's use of RED's new technology."
Michael Bots
Posts: 4,159
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Paramour Productions wrote: I've shot on them twice. Not my preferred system, for a variety of reasons, but if you need 4K output it's the way to go right now.
Sharp is already showing prototype 4k and 8k LCD television sets. 4k source material will have a market (and maintain it's value).
I'm familiar with them. I'm also familiar with many, many 4k shorts and features shot on Red Cameras. I've used them on two productions. My comments regarding camera choice still stand and, at least for now, are shared by most Hollywood DPs.
A 4K television is ludicrous, which of course doesn't mean people wont buy it.
Swank Photography wrote: I thought so...they are terribly expensive. But man they look sweet!
I've ben wanting to shoot video and looked at those. Reds are so expensive that I'd have to have an income of a very wealthy man to be able to afford one!
MN camera wrote: Balanced, yes, phantom, no, mic/line switchable, yes. It's meant to be used downstream of a mixer, which is usually a good idea anyway.
Its not likely you are going to record anything but scratch audio on the Red or the Black Magic. You get to a certain point and its all going to be a separate recorder usually with time code.
Patrick Walberg wrote: I've ben wanting to shoot video and looked at those. Reds are so expensive that I'd have to have an income of a very wealthy man to be able to afford one!
Most productions rent. Makes no economic sense to own one of these if you are not shooting year round.
Most productions rent. Makes no economic sense to own one of these if you are not shooting year round.
Exactly. When I decided I wanted to own a camera for some on-going art projects, I went with the Sony F3 with an off-board recorder. After a lot of research, I felt it offered the right value proposition without sacrificing any quality. For others in the same position, I would highly recommend it.
nwstudios wrote: For a typical film you would might have....
2 to 3 months of pre production.
1 to 2 weeks of shooting.
6 months to a year of post production.
For any kind of narrative feature this is undoubtedly correct. However the situation changes if you're shooting a documentary (or commercials or fashion films, etc.).
For what I do, renting an Alexa is 90% of it. For my own personal projects that are ongoing, the F3 is a great solution which gets me nearly same quality.
MN camera wrote: Balanced, yes, phantom, no, mic/line switchable, yes. It's meant to be used downstream of a mixer, which is usually a good idea anyway.
nwstudios wrote: Its not likely you are going to record anything but scratch audio on the Red or the Black Magic. You get to a certain point and its all going to be a separate recorder usually with time code.
Beyond a certain point, the two available tracks of even some of the current small portable outboard recorders are insufficient.
Dude if I had that kind of $$$ don't you think I would have treated myself to that camera first? 
| 
| 
| edu