[UPDATE, 27 August 2008: Charles Papert (SOC), in a comment below, makes some important corrections and clarifications to my post below. Thanks, Charles.]
This article by S. James Snyder, “New Camera Poised To Alter Filmmaking”, is the best summary for non-film professionals of why Red is revolutionary. This is the article I’ll give my friends and family (who don’t know much about film-making) to explain why I’ve been so excited about Red, since November 2005, when rumors of its existence first leaked. This statement from the article, for example, would have been dismissed as hyperbole and “fan boy-ism” 12 months ago, but today is just insightful and accurate journalism:
Beyond directors and cinematographers, a whole industry is rising up around the belief that Red is going to revolutionize cinema.
My only quibble is with a couple inaccuracies in the article:
- Red was not used on Wanted. The Sun has posted a correction on this. See my comment in the comments section below.
- “Peter Jackson agreed to test out Red’s cameras for a short film titled “Crossing the Line,” and the result was screened at the annual meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters. Then a few months later, at the Cannes Film Festival, Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour epic, “Che,” the first film shot entirely on Red, made its debut.” Wrong. “Crossing the Line” was shown at NAB in April 2007. Soderbergh’s “Che” debuted at Cannes in May 2008. (And clips of “Che” were shown at NAB 2008, along with other Red footage.)
- “Since the machines [Red One cameras] started shipping late last year, nearly 5,000 units have been sent out to filmmakers in almost 70 countries.” Wrong. Nearly 5,000 units have been ordered. But only just over 1,000 units have been shipped as of a couple weeks ago. (And I have one of them, #1304. If you’re an indie filmmaker in Hong Kong and are interested in using a Red on your production, drop me an email: dan.carew@kandariver.com)
Also, while the article covers a lot of what’s great about Red,
- deep color, like film
- high resolution, like film
- very low disruptive price
- “full sensor” and ability to use 35mm film gear and lenses,
it doesn’t mention a few other very important and excellent things about Red
- Red allows for shallow depth of field (because it’s full sensor is as big as a frame of film, thus allowing traditional 35mm film and still lenses to be used). And shallow depth of field is essential to storytelling in modern filmmaking and cinematography: only the element the viewer should “focus” on is in focus, everything else on the screen is out of focus. e.g., medium shot man’s face in focus -> focus changes -> to shot of his son standing in the doorway looking disappointed. This is difficult or impossible to achieve with most previous video camera (who have small sensors, thus everything appears in focus). Here’s an example of shallow depth of field in a contemporary movie (used courtesy of “fair use” here), with the mother out of focus and the son, farther away but in-focus:
- Red allows you to shoot more footage and do more takes (film was very expensive; Red files are digital and recorded to inexpensive re-usable media). This fundamentally changes the creative process of film making.
- Red allows you to shoot with a smaller crew and get faster results. In other words you don’t need to use the “Hollywood industrial” method of dozens of crew members that’s been used for the last 100 years. How? Well,
- Red shoots in lower light than film (if you use a good fast lens), so you could use less lighting crew (gaffers).
- Red is both a camera and a “virtual digital intermediate scanning facility”. In simple terms: after a day of shooting with film, you had to send the film to an expensive high-end film lab, to get the film developed, so you could watch the “dailies”. With Red, just pop the footage into your Mac Book Pro on set and watch it–without any processing. This fundamentally changes the way films are made, especially by auteur writer/directors. (I’ve heard Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith, amongst others, comment on this in interviews.)
- A light Red rig is significantly lighter and more mobile (i.e., easier to carry and shoot with) than a light film camera rig. This allows the possibility of “stealing” a shot by, for example, having your actor walk across a busy city street and shooting it guerilla-style (or like a dad with a camcorder, if you prefer a less bellicose metaphor). As opposed to blocking off a whole city street and having a crew of hundreds.
The NY Sun article references Wanted, which merely tested using RED. They posted a retraction on the site, indicating all the sequences were shot using a Panavision film camera. Jannard himself said on reduser the workflow had myriad issues, which have since allegedly been worked out.
Nevertheless, the references to Wanted and its association to RED are just flat out wrong.
The recently published article about RED’s involvement is wrong. RED was not used on the final cut of “Wanted”. It was shot on Panavised Arri’s and on Kodak film. I’m not exactly sure how this article happened, but we do NOT want to take credit for something we did not do.
Before the shooting began, the VFX supervisor (Jon Farhat) selected RED for the effects part of the film. Universal issued the following release, which we naturally published:
“Director Timur Bekmambatov of Bazlevs Film in Moscow, has chosen the RED ONE digital camera for all the digital cinematography used in Universal Pictures’, WANTED, staring Angelia Jolie, Morgan Freeman and James McAvoy. Though the body of the movie will be shot in film, there is a substantial digital component to the filming which will be used by Bekmambetov’s VFX and production company in Russia. Wanted begins shooting in Prague in April, 2007.”
There was an expectation that we would be further along in development when shooting began. Nonetheless, we had every reason to believe during production that RED footage would be included in the film until Jon Farhat had to leave the production for an illness that required surgery. When it became apparent that RED footage would not make the final cut, we promptly removed all reference to “Wanted” on our website.
We apologize, particularly to Panavision and Kodak, if anyone was confused by what transpired. There is plenty good news surrounding RED and we do not ever want to take credit where it is not due.
Jim Jannard
http://www.red.com
WA, CA & NV
Thanks for the anonymous corrections to the article (which itself has a correction posted also), tealeaf and Peter P. The Sun writer should have checked his facts better.
Peter P, you don’t have the quotation marks around Jim Jannard’s quote. (E.g., I presume you don’t work for Red–since you have a .hk email address, and not a red.com email address–thus the “we” in the first paragraph of your post is wrong.) So your post itself is confusing.
I hope what motivates both of you is an interest in journalistic accuracy, rather than a desire (as many vested interests have) to see Red fail.
Many, many important features will be shot on Red. I’m working on one, with an ASC member. Hundreds more Red-Shot films will follow. Film will be an interesting media that some will use on certain projects. Just as some still photographers sometimes use film–but the vast majority of professionally shot photos are shot on DSLRs.
But you don’t need to be a weatherman to now see that soon most movies will be shot on digital cinema cameras, like Red. I find it amusing to hear some creative people in film say “I’ll always shoot on film”. Well, I hope they are self-financing their films. Because otherwise, they’ll be told by financiers and producers that they’ll be shooting on Red–once it’s clear to all that a similar quality product can be shot at a fraction of the price.
And this sea change is what the (poorly fact-checked) Sun article hits on.
Dan, in the name of “journalistic accuracy” I feel you might want to look at your statement above:
“Red shoots in lower light than film (if you use a good fast lens), so you could use less lighting crew (gaffers).”
Common wisdom is that RED is rated at 320ASA, slower than industry standard film stock 5218 (and the new 19) which are 500 ASA. Couple that with the 3200K sensor, which complicates tungsten work (do you correct internally and risk increased noise, or correct in front of the lens thus reducing the ASA further, or gel your lights which cuts their output?). There is no reason to think you need to use less lighting equipment or crew to achieve the same results you would see on film–you can shoot high speed film with little or no additional lighting too, you know. Incidentally, there is only one gaffer on a set, the rest of their crew are called electrics or set lighting technicians.
As far as a light RED rig being smaller than a light film rig–they are pretty comparable in weight and arguably size. There are 35mm cameras that beat the RED in weight (SL Cine). There’s no reason why you can’t “steal” a shot with a film camera, and why it would take a “crew of hundreds” to do so. Just because large films are shot with large crew on film doesn’t mean you can’t shoot film with a smaller crew. You need just as many people in the camera department if you want the same efficiency; same with grip and electric. Obviously you cut out the costs and personnel involved with processing and telecine, but those are post-related.
On a large-scale production, the cost of film negative, processing and transfer is a relatively small line item, so switching to digital acquisition is not the holy grail that it is in the indie world. What is important is whether the camera is reliable enough to operate in challenging environments, because downtime on set translates into a great deal of money lost, and the post workflow continues to be a sticking point for some of the studios. Obviously these issues are part of the evolutionary process and are being addressed, but this is the status quo at present.
Before you think that I am a RED naysayer, understand that I have shot with it, overall I like it, and in fact I am a reservation holder. I do however believe that the digital “revolution” is often interpreted to mean “we need less crew and equipment”, and that is to my mind not a true statement, and is dangerous for the continued livelihood of those who make their living in this industry; producers don’t need any help in trying to whittle down their crews to squeeze their dollars further.
Charles Papert, SOC
Hi Charles,
Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough comment. I stand corrected. Shooting more with my Red myself affirms what you write. Bottom line still is: great low light 35mm-esque camera w/o the cost of film.
cheers,
Dan
Cheers back, and glad you are enjoying your camera. It is indeed fun to shoot with!