I've had very little experience with it, except the immensely awesome demo I got from pixelcub, who is one of the experts with the cam. I also saw the incredible Peter Jackson short at NAB in '07 (twice). My take on RED is the pros are almost boundless: resolution, all settings to color and look happen in post and not on-set (kind of like film), extraordinarily versatile and at a price point that is basically unbelievable. And the cons, which I've gotten second-hand, are all temporary.
I've heard from ADs who are good friends who describe the cams as buggy and breaking down on set. I know the workflow is potentially pretty sweet but it's still a work in progress. And I hate compression and need to know more about how this REDCode works. And is there any viable way to actually master and project anything in 4K? But the cams will get more robust (if they aren't already-- I've read nothing but raves reported from the Soderbergh shoot) and computers/hard disks/monitors will all bring 4K to a more viable, cost-effective (renderless??) reality at some point within 5 years.
However, and this is key, I think it's vitally important to remember that RED is just another tool. It shouldn't, and in my opinion can't, replace shooting film stock. At the base of it you have a fixed matrix of pixels in an electronic world and a random matrix of pixels in a film world. (I like the spinning-ground-glass solution of the PS Technik 35mm adapters you put in front of HD cameras-- we used one extensively on PORNOGRAPHY-- to give the illusion of some grain and pixel randomness). But as another tool in the toolbox, it looks like a useful and immensely versatile one.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: for my next feature if you said I could shoot it with HVX200s like on PORNOGRAPHY or with RED cams with no effect on budget, schedule or ease of workflow, I'd pick RED easy. But depends on what it is-- if you said the same thing but with Super 16 cams... I could be tempted to go there instead.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Also, if you can get over Wired's spooge dripping, your thought on Red One http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera would make an entry I'd really want to read.
no subject
I've heard from ADs who are good friends who describe the cams as buggy and breaking down on set. I know the workflow is potentially pretty sweet but it's still a work in progress. And I hate compression and need to know more about how this REDCode works. And is there any viable way to actually master and project anything in 4K? But the cams will get more robust (if they aren't already-- I've read nothing but raves reported from the Soderbergh shoot) and computers/hard disks/monitors will all bring 4K to a more viable, cost-effective (renderless??) reality at some point within 5 years.
However, and this is key, I think it's vitally important to remember that RED is just another tool. It shouldn't, and in my opinion can't, replace shooting film stock. At the base of it you have a fixed matrix of pixels in an electronic world and a random matrix of pixels in a film world. (I like the spinning-ground-glass solution of the PS Technik 35mm adapters you put in front of HD cameras-- we used one extensively on PORNOGRAPHY-- to give the illusion of some grain and pixel randomness). But as another tool in the toolbox, it looks like a useful and immensely versatile one.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: for my next feature if you said I could shoot it with HVX200s like on PORNOGRAPHY or with RED cams with no effect on budget, schedule or ease of workflow, I'd pick RED easy. But depends on what it is-- if you said the same thing but with Super 16 cams... I could be tempted to go there instead.