Spider-Man reboot using RED Epic cameras
 

‘Spider-Man’ Began Shooting on Monday; Cinematographer Praises New RED Epic Series Cameras | /Film

Interesting that they're using the RED Epics to shoot.

heath

It marks new ground for the RED team. Shooting 3D at 5K (just over 4K recorded) on a camera rig that weighs a bit more than my outfitted EX1.

Amazing technology... Been reading about this and the tests for the past few days.

Sounds amazing..... Epic actually in the trenches.... cool.

Wait until the buzz on the Hobbit Starts. They've secured *30* Epic cameras for that shoot.

Exciting times.

Wow.


The Spiderman reboot

The Hobbit

The 4th Pirates of the Carribean movie


EASILY three of the biggest franchises of the last decade (Batman is the ONLY one I can think of that is legitimately bigger).

ALL TO BE SHOT ON RED.



If this isn't a CLEAR indicator of the impact Scarlet and Epic are going to make on the film industry (as a whole, not just indies), I don't know what is.

The future is RED.

Well no one is going to shoot 3D with film.

Having held an Epic, they are truly small.
A 3d rig would weigh less than almost any other high end single camera.
Revolution!

Sorry, but meh.

You don't revolutionize stuff by supplanting the stuff the RULING CLASS uses. You revolutionize stuff by putting that same power into the hands of people with NO BUSINESS being able to afford it.

Once upon a time I thought that RED might be a contender in re-inventing the video industry. But they chose a different path.

RED took the path of re-inventing the INDUSTRIAL WORKFLOW of Hollywood. Bravo. Nothing wrong with that. But the truth is that those ideas and productions were NEVER in jeapordy. The limitless budget 250 member cast and crew film has NEVER been in any kind of trouble. IT's an insular and fully mature business.

Yeah, RED workflow is now inexpensive enough to now take the place that BETACAM had during the previous geneartion. Great quality at a price that makes it an easy selection for some working pros. But I truly don't think it will EVER supplant the truely revolutionary direction mapped out by accident by Canon with the 5d. THAT has already put most of the same power into a package that a college kid with a new credit card can not only buy - but use right away.

RED will NEVER be the camera of the common man. Nor should it. IT's great at what it is. There are just very, very, VERY few people who can justify owning and operating any RED - in the face of the alternatives that have developed under their noses while they were trying to build a video camera for industry pros.

They changed their philosophy, and I for one respect them for it. It's still an expensive camera, no matter how you slice it.

But I also know that just having a RED ONE doesn't mean you're movie will automatically look good. I've seen great XL1 footage thanks to a skilled DP and his gaffer (lots of great lighting) vs. crappy RED ONE footage from a subpar DP and director who both thought the camera would make up for lack of talent.

But even that's RED's philosophy.

Heath

Great post Bill.

I think the democratization brought about Red is more the effect it has had on other manufacturers. Would Panasonic be releasing the AF100 and Sony the F3 if it wasn't for Red? I certainly think that Red has had a positive effect on the industry and the end result is that you can now buy a camera for a few thousand $ or £ that can produce stunning results. No longer is the equipment the limiting factor.

I think the Sony and Panasonics coming out are probably mostly due to an evolution in chips, but I'm sure RED did help them to push it out.

heath

I think rather than the RED, the huge impact that the Canon 5D created made others sit up and take notice. The publicity was amazing which made Panasonic, Sony etc start moving. Canon opened up a pandora's box. Lets see, how much improvements and innovations they bring in, to truly democratize cinema making.

If Canon can somehow make a 5Dish camera with a removable low pass filter (for video) or something that has that effect things will really get interesting.

One of the nice thing about RAW, is that you can do OLPF *after* the fact. As well as white balance and everything else. That's really where I'd like to see these camera's go. And why, for filmmaking purposes the RED, Alexa, Viper, Genesis, and these other digital cinema cameras are so favored. RAW won't appeal to a lot of shooters, but it's a real joy to work with for those who are involved in post. I've been playing with ARRIs basic RAW tool and it's ok. The newest Redcine X is an absolutely joy to use.

This weekend I did some basic RAW file grading and output to DPX to see how it worked. It's just stunning to be honest. Pulled in some RED files from years back, and tried the new tools on that older stuff. Just amazing. That's the other thing about RAW. As the tools improve, you can go back to old stuff and improve it. Like being able to re-develop a negative with new chemicals. Amazing stuff.

I think at the mid-levels and high end, the writing is on the wall. RAW is the way to go. It will be interesting to see how far down the pipe that get's pushed. I don't think the DSLRs are quite there yet, but moving to RAW would obviate all the OLPF stuff. We really need SDXC to take off. And I saw that there has been a few compact flash standard put forth that would push the speeds much higher and capacity out to 2TB.

I think you nailed it on the head, it's the HDSLR movement that's forced Sony and Panasonic to go 35mm. And I answer, lenses! Glass! Give us those tools, as well. And if possible, and keeping prices lower, less compression.

Heath

I don't think the equipment has been a limiting factor for a number of years. There are other factors which remain just as difficult regardless of the camera that a film may be shot with. Now, it'll just be taken that a film is shot on something more than a HDV camera.

The shooting format was often used a s filtering mechanism, so that distributors etc didn't need to do any further work on a large number of productions they probably couldn't sell. It's like the line producers use about you've done too much script development to a writer.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, I'm talking lower budget here. 10 years ago a XL1 or PD150 was about all you could get for £5K and you simply couldn't produce a picture that would get anywhere near 35mm film no matter how talented you were.

Now, cameras like the AF100, F3 and even DSLRs can produce an image almost indistinguishable to film, at least for a layman. The user rather than the camera is often the weak link.

I watched "Monsters" last night at the cinema. It was shot on an EX3 with a Letus adapter. Many (not all) scenes looked just as good as 35mm originated footage - pretty incredible IMHO.

Whilst I think the Sony F3 is partly motivated by Red's success, I think you guys are right and that the lower end like the AF100 and NEX-VG10 are more a reaction to HDSLRs.

I'd argue that the right DP with the right gaffer, crew and G&E can make XL1 footage look film-like. But I do get your point--you still need to convert the footage to 24p and possibly color correct the gammas, etc., to get a more film-like color. Many of those features are standard on modern day cameras.

Heath

Quite a few successful DV films didn't look anything like film, but got theatrical releases. The camera is only a small part of the equation of why a low budget films succeeds.

I'm not saying the technical aspects are to be ignored, but it's only the tail.

I gather the title of "Monsters" is causing false audience expectations in what I understand is a character driven road movie.

I rented Monsters on iTunes in October, and it was fantastic. Great story, great acting, great visual FX. It's a character-driven road piece, yes, but set against the devastation caused by giant alien monster octopus.

Heath

Brian, I totally agree. I'm only saying that with these new cameras, the talent is the more often than not the limiting factor in terms of image quality. Financial and critical success are another ball game all together and whilst a good image can help, for certain films, the crappiness of the image has been part of the concept - e.g. Blair Witch.

There are many, many barriers preventing "democratization" of the film industry. What the latest cameras, including Red have done, is remove just one of those barriers. Monsters is a stunning and rare example of a film that has succeeded in breaking all of the others.

Like many here, I dislike the false notion that owning a Red or (insert any other camera of the week) will make you a great DP/filmmaker and all of your films will be successful.

I agree with Mike. Just over two years ago, if you wanted a 35mm look, you either needed a RED ONE or you needed an HDV camera with rails and an adapter. The former was $17.5K for the body alone. The latter (with something more than an HV20) was cumbersome, needed a lot of light, and could easily set you back $10k.

Now, we can get a roughly S35 sensor size with good light sensitivity in a small package for under $1k. You can outfit it with cheap, off-brand lenses, go for L glass, or even get CP.2 cine lenses.

DSLR's aren't perfect. You need to stabilize them. You need to avoid content that will alias. You need to light it well to keep the 8-bit codec from letting you down. But those limitations don't keep you from telling your story.

@Mike - I learned that "cameras don't make you better" lesson many years ago.

@Jon - Amen! When I dove into HDV in 2003/04, I was told it was limited (as was DV in 99), but I never let it stop me. I learned the limits and focused on the strengths, but mostly the story and acting.

Monsters did well because the story, acting, direction, cinematography and sound (they discuss how important great sound is), oh and FX are all great. Especially the story, acting and overall quality.

heath

Absolutely the tools are now there. How important the 35mm depth of field is compared to use of sound and a compact low cost quality 1/2" camera and other elements is open to debate. Personally, I'd put use of sound above a 35mm DOF.

Interestingly the director seems to have to decided to come at this type of genre from a different angle and I think this is one of the keys of success on a low budget film.

Not every story needs shallow DOF. But not having shallow DOF as an option had been a big limitation on what we could achieve - until recently.

Personally, I think being able to control DOF is critically important for low budget film. By being able to blur backgrounds, we can make a so-so background look quite good. To get great looking images with everything in focus can be a real artistic/time/money/location challenge.

In the two years since I bought my 5D2, I've learned that it's not about shallow DOF. It's about control of DOF.

Critical is rather strong, more nice to have, there are other factors which come first, although 1/3" can have rather too much DOF for certain styles.

Critical is what I'd use for a good script, cast and crew, that's regarded as 80% of what makes a good film, the rest is actaully making the film.

Smaller the sensor, the wider the lens has to be, hence the deep focus when zoomed out. Other than a 35mm adapter, you can always cheat it by pulling back the camera, zooming in and opening the iris all the way. And use either a polarizer or ND filters to control light coming in.

Heath

That's pretty friggin' cool! Exactly what they said it would essentially be, since April 2008.

Heath

They are so tight lipped, I wonder what pricing will be on those things?

The posted images I've seen from it look rather good,

I imagine in practise a shooting Scarlet will be a bit longer when a couple of extra modules are clipped to the back to meet many people's requirements,

There was a $1k price increase to allow the high dynamic range feature to be used. $5,000 seems to be a figure that's been mentioned recently. Although, I suspect it really depends on the accessories you buy.

Hopefully RED will have built up a stock pile to meet the initial surge of orders.

Totally agree with this Jon! I can't imagine with a limited production budget, how we can shoot the scenes having too much crappy or junk in the background with 1/3-4" cameras like the Canon XF300/305 or Panasonic TM/SD700. Not that the cameras are too cheap or have sub-par IQ. We just have to blow the junk out of focus. The blurrier, the better!

Just be careful that you don't blur out the mise en scene; there could be important visual subtext lost in your blur. The art direction is an important part of a film.

I'll be surprised if Scarlet is delivered in volume before 2012. $5K would be a good, aggressive price. But evaluating features, specs and price without a delivery date is likely meaningless.

I'm not even confident I can buy an Epic in 2011.

Yes, they're not too good at getting product out there in quantity, the new V/F currently seems to be slow in being delivered.

That's the problem with RED, because they're small, and also a lot of their suppliers/vendors went out of business.

I've read that RED is raising the price on Scarlet by about $1,000, so I'm guessing it'll cost anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000.

heath

Has Epic actually shipped to some Red One owners? Or are the units just going to high profile projects?

I think the "tattoo" program users are getting it first.

heath

Interesting to see how long customers in the lower price band will be prepared to wait before delivery compared to those people in the higher price band, Traditionally the former has been available pretty much off the shelf, where as the latter has traditionally had an element of ordering and then some waiting time in the purchasing process.

A significant milestone will be Epic "in the wild"; Shipped to people they don't know personally who are not doing high profile projects. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet.

I am optimistic about Epic and Red.