Don't you think RED's colours look pale and washed out compared to 35mm?

Aye, but it's designed for the crowd that doesn't care what it looks like off of the camera - just how well it grades.

And it seems from looking at a lot of graded stills, mainly on hdforindies.com, that it grades rather well!

C

I think that purchasing a Red camera setup does not make someone a good music video producer.
Just like purchasing a sound Effects library does not make someone a good Sound Designer, or purchasing a midi synth and Digital Performer does not make someone a good composer.

But all or those tools in the right hands can create magic!

There is only so much grading that you can do to an image. I've seen pro film adverts such as the demos on the RED camera site, which have gone through pro grading and colour correction. However, colours still look pale (eg especially skin colour). It just looks like digital video, no where near as nice as 35mm film cameras in my opinion. Does anyone agree?

If you don't like the look of the RED imagery, don't use it. Considering their limited availability you might not have much choice anway.

NO, i think bad color grading and color management can make any camera or film look good or bad. The camera is good, if everything else is good the result will look great. If everything else was bad, d=some good filmstock was waisted and the product sill be just as bad only have waisted film to get there.

No, I do think most of what we see on any computer screen looks like crap, much looks much better on a real TV, and if HD a real HD TV, luckily most consumer hdtvs have so much boosting of contrast and color most anything looks not to bad, nothing like it should or was intended but hey what do they know everything else they see on that tv looks just as fine or bad. Go to a best buy and just look at the wall of screens. I really like that they sell them based on how well some look compared to others on the wall and none have ever been adjusted for anything but to mute the sound.

And I shoot and retouch skin for most major beauty companies in my still photography life, so I heard the arguments against digital and that they do not look like film, and I took some time to find the cameras that developed to the point that they did and learned to make the colors look better, and now I can't ever get a film scan or chrome to ever look near as good as I get from the digital cameras I use today. Lots have changed and its left quality control in the tweaking stage a bit behind but once you find people who know how to use whats in the cameras its more power than we ever could have had predigital.

Worth rereading! :)

Shot this video with fairly low budget.

paid for 2 days worth of studio time
paid for 1 day rental of professional dolly system
paid for 1 professional lighting guy
paid for 2 day rental of two HVX200s
paid for 1 steadicam guy
bought a couple of USB drives from Costco to unload P2 footage on site.
bought a couple of Vizio LCD HDTVs from Costco as in studio monitors.

Shot the whole thing in 13 hours straight, effects+editing done on a MacBook.

www.bhangrachick.com

It was in regular rotation on several TV networks including Dish Network IMF and MTV India.

Total budget was by far less than $10,000. So what I'm saying is that a successful low(really LOW!) budget video is definitely doable. We basically did not have any set designer so the concept was purposely simple. If you have a marketable end-product you'll do just fine. Image quality wise, lighting is the most important factor rather than the difference between HDV and RED. Oh and if you're going to have dancers - hire professional ones! Don't rely on friend of a friend who claims she is a good dancer. We learned our lesson the hard way.

Behind the scene pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ywen/se...7600100857976/

just make them. this video i did is very low budget
 

check it out,

it is what it is. i guess.

not my best work but i made it work i think.

shot the band just 2 times. 2 takes of the song.

1 mini dv tape
sony v1u
editing, fx. and




http://www.virb.com/davemorgan/videos/35659

Ok, comparison time
 

Here a two music videos, both were done for what would be considered very low budget in most circles, both rented gear, used pro crews who worked very cheap or donated time. Same band, two different DOPs, same producer and director, same editors, same machine for editing and colour grade (all done on an Intel Imax 2.0ghz with FCP 5.1.4 and nattress plugins for the grade)

The first one Bitter, was the higher of the two budgets, and shot on Varicam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i33eOsQJCds

High Def version on Stage 6 here: http://www.stage6.com/Slipping-Tongue (requires DivX player)

Was a single day shoot, with a evening before hand prepping the location, with volunteered set building and art department crew etc.

The second one, My Kingdom Falls, was shot on a mix of HVX with some DVX footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs7YS-yHFF0

High Def version on Stage 6 here: http://www.stage6.com/Slipping-Tongue (requires DivX player)

This one is a much lower budget, as the lower production value on screen can attest to, but was made up for by the fact that we managed to gain access to professional lighting and grip equipment despite an incredibly low budget (through favours mostly). All the drama footage was shot on HVX, the band footage was shot live on a mix of HVX and DVX.

The larger of the two budgets, for Bitter, was under US$4000, (shooting in New Zealand however, so crew rates and rentals and the general industry vibe may be different to where you are) the lower budget I am not really going to talk about, because a lot of favours were involved and we had access to gear that really couldn't be got for the budget we had - but a big part of the reason we had access to that gear is the contact we had got through working with professionals previously, which you really most often get when you start hiring good people and renting gear that you could not afford to buy.