This article was edited on 22 October, 2007. Same info, words are reconstructed to make more sense.
The first short movie to be shot with RED Digital Cinema cameras, Peter Jackson’s short World War one film entitled Crossing the Line, is making a slow trek to the net in bits and pieces. Today, 4k frame grabs (in compressed JPEGs) and a short Quicktime excerpt (at 1k) were released. They are hot.
For those wondering “what is RED?”, basically this is a camera that is better than film quality. Think the size of film with no grain. (Unless of course you want it.) The camera is entirely digital too, so you don’t have to worry about any complex scans - just import the data off your RED Drive (or whatever storage method you choose) onto your computer and process it with the included software.
Further, the camera is modular, like a LEGO toy. Don’t be tied into your camera manufacturer’s configuration, switch it up however you like. There is no limit to the number of combinations you can assemble.
What’s best is the price - at only $17,500 indie filmmakers (and studio filmmakers) will save millions of dollars because they don’t need to worry about film processing (think of what you save by not having to develop dailies) not to mention the price of the film stock and the film camera themselves. For the price of a new car you have better than anything available now. This is revolutionary. Furthermore, RED is backed by Jim Jannard (creator of Oakley sunglasses) so we know there is a name to trust. Jim communicates frequently with RED fans at REDuser.net in an act of radical transparency.
Even after seeing this 1k sample, it’s apparent that the RED will be a force to be reckoned with. This is a defining moment for the digital revolution.
Find the video and credits at REDUser.net and the stills at RED.com.
Images copyright 2007, Wingnut Films. Used for educational purposes.
Trackbacks/Pings - Trackback URL
Comments
Thanks a lot for making me want a Red One camera.
Looks pretty sweet, though.
The Author says “basically this is a camera that is better than film quality.” This is a common misconception. Film Stocks nowadays and the super 35mm film format is still better quality than any digital imaging at present time.
What it is, is cheaper for high definition. Granted it looks great, sounds great, and for the money would create a huge competitor for the likes of Sony and Panasonic and the Panavision Genesis system. Red is now on an “Engineering delay” from their web page, “RED is currently on an engineering delay, as we refine some components to reach our target image quality for the initial camera release. A revised approximate shipping schedule will be posted sometime in the near future.”
The release date was to be a month ago, now they have anounced a delay in June 2007. I believe the actual release date for this camera (bug free) is more like 2009. All the pictures you see of the camera are CGI, so dont be sucked in just yet.
(1) I disagree. It is better than film quality. It is grain/dust free. You can try to keep a clean environment all you want, but you can’t avoid it. Perhaps film can reach a higher actual resolution (were you to convert it to pixels) but what good is it going to do you? Unless you are shooting IMAX, I still feel that RED is better than film quality.
I was under the impression that we’ve known they would be delaying. They’ve told us the camera would be delayed for some time now, and the community was content with that. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve seen a film shot with it and it looks -great-. That’s proof enough for me.
All I see here is a disgruntled fan-boy who isn’t getting what he was hoping for!
I just came back from the Cine Gear Expo in Los Angeles. They screened CROSSING THE LINE on the giant screen of the historic Wadsworth Theater and I was blown away by what I saw. The team from RED with the camera and I stood inches away from the real thing (it’s a beauty).
‘Scuse me, I meant to say,
“the team from Red was there with the camera…”
Granted the excerpt has weak points - the camera shakes are pretty bad (really - what was up with that? were they afraid of breaking the prototype?
I think you confusing camera shake for style. The style was supposed to make you feel like you are there. And the shakes only occurred when there was an explosion (most likely added in post production). It was all part of the story telling and from a producers point of view. It was done well. Now if only I can see the full length version, I will be in heaven.
Jared:
I think Chris was saying that they did the shakes poorly, not that they shouldn’t be used. I believe he’s saying that the shakes were not as dramatic as might be seen in other war films, and he’s saying that perhaps they were being a little too delicate with the camera.
Joel is right.
For what it’s worth, I’ve edited the article to reflect some newer developments and changed thoughts on the subject.
they did all the shakes in post… that’s why they look so bad.
35mm Film is actually better quality then anything digital. including the red cam system… If you do the math a 35mm frame for film holds about 27mp (MEGAPIXELS) per frame. so having a storage space of about 320 gigs, for only 3-4 hours of footage isnt that bad for a day of work with the red cam… but it doesnt compare to 35mm. There is even higher capture settings for digital cams, red cam doesnt even come close to what 4x more the others offer. RED CAM is basically 2-4x more then current 1080p resolution… 35 is over 6x more… close to 10x
Post a Comment