I just wanted to address some of these points, not starting a war just stating my opinion on the matter.
MarcVanOsdale wrote:How many promises will RED have to break before everyone realizes that it's the biggest scam on the market?
I agree that Jannard is over optimistic with his product release dates but if you took the time to look into Epic development, you will see that there are moving along at a blistering pace. Keep in mind that Arri is much more secretive about their product releases. You never know, the Alexa could have had a ton of delays that we will never know about. When they first released info on the camera, it was mostly done and already shooting material in places like St, Peters Basilica. Red talks about their plans long before the even start physical work. I personally think that is a bed idea but most of the Red Faithful like that they are able to correspond with the Red engineers online. Good luck talking to Sony engineer about the F35. I believe that Red's online presence is comparable to Roger's on this forum. Sure there are other great DP's out there but how many talk to average Joes about their techniques like Roger does? Sure there are other great camera companies but how many will give you the time of day if you do not have an ASC title after your name?
MarcVanOsdale wrote: I could easily list off several big name Directors and Cinematographers that wouldn't be caught dead using a Red Camera.
Like who? I'm sure you could find a couple but most who have vowed never to shoot Red have also vowed never to shoot digitally. Tarantino said he would never shoot digitally but even he said in a recent interview that it is the direction that the industry is going and he will have to get on board sooner or later. Spielberg said he would never shoot on anything other than film but with 3D, even he is looking more into digital acquisition.
MarcVanOsdale wrote: If you would actually like to discuss the facts of the Red One, it's a 3.2K camera claiming to produce a 4K image, It claims to offer over 11 stops of dynamic range when it in fact offers only 8. 3.2K and 8 stops are impressive enough in their own right, but when you consider what sacrifices that the camera makes, it's easy to see why the camera is inferior to the professional digital cinematography cameras.
The sensor is 4.5k (recent MX upgrade) but Red never claimed that the resolution stayed at 4k through the post process. Yes, it is a 3.5ish K camera but the Arri sensor is 3.5K which is designed to produce a stunning 2K image which it does very well, so Red is not the only one that makes K claims. Red is an 8 stop DR camera? Really? I am not sure where you got that. The MX sensor has been independently rated at 12 to 13.5 stops of DR. Please get your facts straight. The Canon DSLR's are like 6 to 8 stops of dynamic range, not the Red. The Red is inferior to "professional" digital cinema cameras? I love how you don't think that Red is professional. I guess for it to be professional, it needs to be a six figure rental house only piece of kit. What if Arri later comes out with an Alexa replacement that costs $15,000? Is it no longer professional.
MarcVanOsdale wrote: Despite Red's superior marketing and online promotion, the best engineers and technicians in the digital world still work for Sony.
They have more engineers, not better engineers. Guys like Graeme Natress at Red would talk circles around most so called experts. I guess those perfect engineers at Sony are the reason why their cameras are two or three years behind Arri and Red. Hell, even Aaton is more cutting edge with their 4K digital Penelope back. The F35 is fine for now but with a six-figure price tag, I would hope Sony would be more future proof. They make 4K projectors but no cameras to produce footage to project at that resolution.
MarcVanOsdale wrote: I can't see how you can take a company like Red seriously when they claim to soon be coming out with a camera with a 168mm wide sensor capable of capturing resolutions at 28,000 by 9000 pixels.
I am assuming that you are referring to the 6x17 panorama camera? Ya, it is a little impractical but I would not doubt that Red has the capacity to build the thing. And they never said that it is close to release. Jannard said that it is least 5 years+ away. There is a Swiss company with a 6x17 CMOS camera that you can buy at around $60,000 and Canon has built working sensors larger than that. Right now, it is more processing, post and storage restrictions that prevent such a camera from existing but that does not mean they will not build it. I am sure that when Jannard said that he wanted to fit a 5K S35 sensor with usable ISO ranges up to 3200, with a dynamic range of 16+ stops and frame rates in excess of 120 frames per second in a case only a little larger that a DSLR, people laughed but if you have held or seen an Epic in person, you know it is not vaporware.
Marco wrote:The people at Red are more listening to some kind of amateurish filmmaker instead of listening to real cinematographers as well as directors.
I think, it is because of their reduser.net. Red shows some kind of product and everybody freaks out, whether this is good or bad, so they think that everything is great, what they do.
So far the only thing that I have heard cinematographers ask for that Red does not offer is an optical viewfinder. Most customers get by fine with the digifinder and the cost of an optical would raise the price dramatically. In fact, there was an option for an optical finder at one point but Red received only two or three orders which did not work out in terms of development costs. Believe me, they do listen to real cinematographers. There are a few ASC members that frequent the boards on Reduser quite regularly.
MarcVanOsdale wrote:I think it's interesting that despite all of this talk and the fact that all of these big name directors have been shooting on Red, there has yet to be one picture shot on the Red that has been nominated for an Oscar for Best Cinematography. Even more interesting that for the past two years, the Oscar has gone to films shot on high end digital cameras....captured at 1080p, and 2K (which is basically just 1080P for snobs).
Red has essentially been thrown into the spotlight by several embellished numbers and this absolutely ludicrous claim that "Oooh, but just wait until you see what Red comes out with next year....its gonna change everything", give me a break...in 100 years Slumdog and Avatar will still be visually mind blowing...and films like "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", will still look like shit.
The Academy award for best cinematography has nothing to do with the camera but what you do with it. Slumdog Millionaire used an SI2K which has produced some of the worst digital footage results I have seen personally but it looked stunning when Boyle used it so there you go. And about Avatar: the CG stuff (60% of the film) looked great in Imax but the live action stuff filmed in 1080p fell apart.
Marco wrote:I think, "The Social Network" looks terrible. It has the same problems, than any movie shot on Red. Not good looking colors, problems in movement and so on.
I saw the trailer on my Macbook, in a normal cinema and on a giant IMAX-screen, everytime the same effect, that we start to discuss, what Fincher likes about the look. His previous movies shot on Viper are better looking. Remember the days, when Fincher and his DPs used 35mm? "Fight Club" has great cinematography.
I disagree, I saw it projected in 4k a test screening and it looked great. The footage was very distinct and unique. It did not look like film but it also did not look very digital. It was somewhere in the middle. The colors had more to do with the palette than the sensor. The DP stated he was going for a low contrast look with a limited color palette for both the Boston and Silicon Valley locations. Red has never had an issue with color. Have you seen Winter's Bone or The Secret in Their Eyes? If you want a vibrant explosion of color, the cam can do that as well, that is why Arri and Red went for Raw, it is very flexible.
MarcVanOsdale wrote:I've had a chance to see some Red 4K Footage which was shot with a very capable eye, projected on one of the finest Sony 4K projectors and I'll say, from my eye, it did not compare to the professional 1080p cameras (Genesis, F35,D-21) not to mention 35mm. Obviously this can be dependent on who is behind the camera, but the way that people have been treating MX and Epic, it does not add up.
Arri has been around for a very long time because it makes exceptional products. Despite these directors who have decided to try using Red, Red still has a marginalized spot in the professional markeet compared to Sony and Arri cameras. Red, however, is absolutely the best option for low budget and independet market simply because it is priced so reasonably...but you do get what you play for.
Wait what, D21 and Genesis footage that looked better than Red MX, I doubt that. That might be possible if you smeared grease on the Red's lens. There is a reason why Arri replaced the D21 and why the Panavision Genesis is getting less use each year. I believe Secreteriat was shot on Genesis and it screams of digital capture in the previews. It sounds like you are bashing a product without knowing the facts. In terms of cost, you get way more than you pay for. At over 7,000 Red One bodies in circulation, I do not believe that Red is marginalized at all. With films like Pirates 4, Soderbergh's Contagion, Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Terrence Malick's next film and future Peter Jackson projects being shot on Red, expect industry acceptance to increase even more. Sorry to tell you this but Red is no longer stuck in the indie sandbox. Red is popular with next generation filmmakers like Neil Blomkamp and I would not be surprised if Red is a household name in 15 years with the power of a company like Panavision. Everyone has to start somewhere. You forget that companies like Arri and Aaton had to prove themselves in order to get where they are today. Expect the same from Red.
I think people forget that a mere 4 years ago, the first 2006 Red One prototype looked like this, no joke:bboxcam
It is remarkable that in those 4 years they have shot a Best Foreign Picture winner, a Best Picture nominee and have a very strong chance of having a film shot with their cameras win Best Picture in the next Academy Awards. Give Credit where credit is due.