The Red One Digital Cinema Camera is poised to make a revolution in film-making. I believed this 25 months ago when I first heard rumors of the camera. And now that Steven Soderbergh and Peter Jackson are raving about it, and Hollywood films being shot on it, it’s a commonplace notion. But here’s a synopsis of why this is so:
The camera produces images which are “as good as” 35mm film, and the footage looks very film-like:
- It shoots in 4K, meaning it shoots six times as many pixels per frame as a standard “high def” 1080p camera.
- It has a very big sensor, as big as 35mm film is (minus the space for the sprockets and optical sound track on the sides).
- This, in turn, means that standard film lenses can be used. Even any old Nikon 35mm SLR lens will work (e.g., cheap, off eBay.) And it means that a very shallow depth of field can be achieved. A shallow depth of allows a filmmaker to rack focus back and forth between subjects, which aids in storytelling. (It also means that it’s very difficult to achieve focus, and “pulling focus”, often with a full-time assistant, is required).
- The camera has a very high latitude (11 stops) which means that lots of detail (in the shadows and bright areas) which is usually lost with video cameras is still retained with Red.
- On top of all this, Red is relatively small (10-12 pounds) and can be hand-held. And it’s not tethered with wires like other digital cinema cameras.
- Because it’s digital, you don’t need to buy expensive 35mm film. Which means you can shoot a lot of takes, or just keep the camera rolling. Very spontaneous.
- Perhaps most important of all: the .r3d files coming out of the camera (onto tiny 8Gb compact flash cards, which hold 5 minutes of 4k “film”) can be popped into Final Cut Pro and edited natively straight away, for film (or transcoded straight away to Apple ProRes 422 for editing in high quality 10-bit high-def. This workflow stuff is extremely important, as Red has acknowledged from the beginning. Stay tuned for recommendations on 2 helpful books in this area…
- The camera only costs 10-20% what the nearest comprable digital or film cameras cost. (Cost for Red One body is US$17,500; for a “loaded” camera with lens and accessories, it’s about US$30-40K)
All of this combined means that the Red camera has the potential to do what the Cineflex 16mm did for the directors of the French New Wave in the ’60′s:
Forty years ago this low-budget ethic was facilitated by new advances in technology. Today it’s the digital camera, but in the late 1950s it was the Cineflex 16mm camera-then a recent innovation-and new, faster film (TriX). The Cineflex was light and small, making it much more portable than cameras previously available to moviemakers. “That camera,” emphasizes Jean-Jacques Annaud “helped filmmakers to follow people onto the streets and climb staircases, very much like Steadicam did later. It was a revolution for storytelling. And the invention of a more sensitive stock, by Kodak, had a great influence. It helped to make it easier for people who had something to say to tell a story, because it was cheaper. Instead of putting Brutes on scaffolding through the windows of an apartment that is three stories up, you just go with that camera and that film inside and shoot without extra light. It was like the video revolution.”–from MovieMaker magazine article, “The French New Wave Revisited”
Mike Curtis, in his blog HD For Indies, has been a balanced and thoughtful Red advocate from the beginning. Here’s his take on “Why Red Matters”, in much more detail and with a lot of authority:
http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/10/my-ifa-spain-red-presentation-with-pics_25.html
You can also check out this nice in-depth overview of the camera by Red’s Ted Schilowitz
http://www.hdexpo.net/virtual/panels_RED.html
Check out some demo footage from Red cameras:
http://www.red.com/shot_on_red
http://www.redlab.es/ (go to “Bobina” under “Menu Principal”)
And for a great test shot “in the backyard” of Red shooting 72fps (i.e., slow motion), see this clip from Shawn Nelson:
http://brainspasm.com/red/JumpinInTheRain.mov
Anyway, I’ll be writing more about the Red camera here, in the context of indie filmmaking. Can’t wait to get my Red Reservation #1304, in February or March 2008!
Forty years ago this low-budget ethic was facilitated by new advances in technology. Today it’s the digital camera, but in the late 1950s it was the Cineflex 16mm camera-then a recent innovation-and new, faster film (TriX). The Cineflex was light and small, making it much more portable than cameras previously available to moviemakers. “That camera,” emphasizes Jean-Jacques Annaud “helped filmmakers to follow people onto the streets and climb staircases, very much like Steadicam did later. It was a revolution for storytelling. And the invention of a more sensitive stock, by Kodak, had a great influence. It helped to make it easier for people who had something to say to tell a story, because it was cheaper. Instead of putting Brutes on scaffolding through the windows of an apartment that is three stories up, you just go with that camera and that film inside and shoot without extra light. It was like the video revolution.”–from 








