View Full Version : Analog Meets Its Match in Red Digital Cinema's Ultrahigh-Res Camera
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera
http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1609/ff_redcamera_f.jpg
A crowd has gathered in front of the Las Vegas Convention Center, where a security guard is about to unlock the main entrance. It's less than a minute before 9 am, the official opening of the 2008 National Association of Broadcasters Show—typically a sleepy sales and marketing event known more for schmoozing than buzz. But as the glass doors open on this April morning, a hundred people race toward a large crimson tent in the center of the hall.
The tent is home to Red Digital Cinema and its revolutionary motion picture camera, the Red One. Standing nearby is the man who developed it—a handsome guy with a neatly trimmed goatee and a pair of sunglasses perched atop his clean-shaven head. He clutches a can of Diet Coke in his left hand, an unlit Montecristo jutting from between his fingers.
Jim Jannard, 59, is the billionaire founder of Red. In 1975 he spent $300 to make a batch of custom motocross handlebar grips, which he sold from the back of a van. He named his company Oakley, after his English setter, and eventually expanded into sci-fi-style sunglasses, bags, and shoes. In November of last year he sold the business to Luxottica, the owner of Ray-Ban, for a reported $2.1 billion.
Jannard won't say how much money he has poured into Red, but his target market clearly appreciates the investment. Supplicants swarm the tent, many of them with offerings—fine wine, gourmet coffee, single-malt whiskey—all to thank Jannard for building the Red One. "I guess they just like me," he says with a wry smile.
It's more than that: His team of engineers and scientists have created the first digital movie camera that matches the detail and richness of analog film. The Red One records motion in a whopping 4,096 lines of horizontal resolution—"4K" in filmmaker lingo—and 2,304 of vertical. For comparison, hi-def digital movies like Sin City and the Star Wars prequels top out at 1,920 by 1,080, just like your HDTV. (There's also a slightly higher-resolution option called 2K that reaches 2,048 lines by 1,080.) Film doesn't have pixels, but the industry-standard 35-millimeter stock has a visual resolution roughly equivalent to 4K. And that's what makes the Red so exciting: It delivers all the dazzle of analog, but it's easier to use and cheaper—by orders of magnitude—than a film camera. In other words, Jannard's creation threatens to make 35-mm movie film obsolete.
Two years ago, Jannard brought a spec sheet and a mock-up of a camera—not much more than an aluminum box about the size of a loaf of bread—to NAB 2006. Even though it wasn't a working product, more than 500 people plunked down a $1,000 deposit to get their names on a waiting list. For months, industry watchers wondered if the company was for real. Today, there's no question. The Red One is being used on at least 40 features. Steven Soderbergh, the Oscar-winning director, borrowed two prototypes to shoot his Che Guevara biopics, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May, and later purchased three for his film The Informant. Peter Jackson, the Lord of the Rings himself, bought four. Director Doug Liman used a Red on Jumper. Peter Hyams used one on his upcoming Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Digital cinema that's all but indistinguishable from film is finally coming to a theater near you.
Digital cinema that's all but indistinguishable from film is finally coming to a theater near you.
...where it will be projected as a 35mm film print.
mabelsound
08-26-2008, 09:15
Lock the thread! We're done here ;)
Double Negative
08-26-2008, 09:15
That is one bad-ass looking camera. I notice there's no price mentioned. ;)
I found this interesting; "...but the industry-standard 35-millimeter stock has a visual resolution roughly equivalent to 4K." Sounds like I'll stick with my film and not have to spend ANY money. :D
Good point, Kevin - unless they show it digitally as some theaters did for Star Wars (no idea if they upgraded to do it and can still do so; or if the gear was rented, etc.)
Lock the thread! We're done here. ;)
Ha, good one! :D
not a small camera.... i'll guarantee he sells quite a few of them to production companies, both big and small
visiondr
08-26-2008, 10:17
You still have to convince the big theater chains to retrofit tens of thousands of theaters with digital screening systems. Then you have to expect them to suck up the tens of millions of dollars to do that. Then you have to convince moviegoers that the subsequent giant hike in ticket prices will be worth it. This will all eventually come to pass. The only question is; when.
Why go to a movie theater, anyway? The projection is usually indifferent, if not actually horrible, and the crowds remind me of that Sartre quote about hell being other people.
I miss the "movie-going experience" but I don't know where it exists anymore, so, with some sadness, I'll stick to my plasma TV and DVD player. :(
Haha, misanthropy.
there are still some excellent theaters here in New York. I admit that in my time in Connecticut, I didn't want to go out to the big chain theaters either.
Why go to a movie theater, anyway? The projection is usually indifferent, if not actually horrible, and the crowds remind me of that Sartre quote about hell being other people.
I miss the "movie-going experience" but I don't know where it exists anymore, so, with some sadness, I'll stick to my plasma TV and DVD player. :(
But big screen to plasma screen to less and less community in entertainment - where is it headed?
And on that note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
Tuolumne
08-26-2008, 10:46
I believe the bulk of analog film sales is to the movie industry. If this becomes the standard (and no "ifs" about it) it will be a struggle to keep producing 35mm analog film.
/T
Tuolumne
08-26-2008, 10:47
You still have to convince the big theater chains to retrofit tens of thousands of theaters with digital screening systems. Then you have to expect them to suck up the tens of millions of dollars to do that. Then you have to convince moviegoers that the subsequent giant hike in ticket prices will be worth it. This will all eventually come to pass. The only question is; when.
Studios are starting to subsidize the cost of the transition. No doubt about it - this will happen. It may take 5-10 years, but it's as good as done.
/T
amateriat
08-26-2008, 10:53
The Red One has been in gestation for a while, so we'll see where it goes.
Most of the big-screen digital stuff, to my eyes, has been middling to dismal from a technical standpoint. Sidney Lumet's Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, a great (but depressing, never mind misanthropic) film, was shot in Panavision HD, which did nothing for my eyes. The bits of the Star Wars "prequels" I could stomach watching didn't look so hot even on an HD home screen. Big-screen HD shooting has a lot to prove besides saving the studios bucks in film stock and processing (though I'm sure that's enough of a selling point for them right there).
If the Red folks price this thing right, where I feel it could take off is with small indie producers who, being unable to afford a proper film shoot, will finally have an alternative to crappy, broadcast-quality-at-best DV gear. (Of course, there's also Super 16, which has become quite popular over the last few years, and is also a treat for the eye.)
Remember, when the Compact Disc arrived in the early 80s, it promised no less than to wipe the floor with even the best LPs. In some basic ways (convenience, absolute lack of surface noise), it certainly did, but the sonic shortcomings of early discs and players didn't require golden ears to detect. It took quite a few years before the digital production (and reproduction) chain became suitably refined for a carefully-produced CD to rival and occasionally surpass the very best analog has to offer.
(And then what happened? Everybody quit listening to their home systems and moved to compressed MP3s. And watching movies on them. "What now?", indeed.)
- Barrett
There are still many hidden costs to the Red One - someone touched upon the fact that you still need a film transfer which is mostly true. I don't think Red will touch film for a while - there is still a certain color and texture involved with film that Red has not replicated, and many DPs are very old school about what they use. I was at the Cannes screening of CHE and also at some other films that were shot and projected digitally. One of those works was incredibly beautiful and unbelievable in sharpness. Nonetheless, it was a different look from film altogether.
Instead of thinking that this is replacing that, I think we'll move into a phase in which there are simply many options for the vision one wants to accomplish, and that, to me, is a very good thing.
Overconfidence
08-26-2008, 11:07
If you've kept up at all with Red, you'd know that they're coming out with a "5k" camera and they have an affordable (<$3000) 3K camera that will be released soon enough. I think the Red One accepts nikon F-mount lenses as well.
photogdave
08-26-2008, 11:11
The RED has been around for a while now. There is reportedly still some workflow problems with it and you need to spend $30-$40,000 to really get going.
I think there is some very interesting stuff being shot on digital video. Cloverfield's POV stuff was shot on Panasonic HVX 200. Murderball, Tadpole and others were shot on Panasonic DVX100 standard def cameras. Some of it looks good on 35mm projection, some doesn't.
As far as the theatre experience goes, I think it all depends on what you go to see. An indie flick will generally have a respectful, appreciative crowd. A blockbuster will have a bunch of jerks checking their messages and getting up all the time. I thought I was pretty safe waiting six weeks to see the Dark Knight but I still went 45 minutes early to get my favorite seat. Sure enough, five minutes into the move, just as the Joker is being introduced, a woman walks through the aisle in front of me standing straight up and blocking my view, and starts trying to convince the people sitting there to change seats with her so she can sit next to her friend! They won't budge, she won't move, I'm yelling at her to get the hell out of my way but she's ignoring me!
After that the constant distraction of flashing cell phone LCDs while people check their messages throughout the show didn't seem as bad as it usually does!
BTW, Dark Knight is overrated and too damn long!
Remember, when the Compact Disc arrived in the early 80s, it promised no less than to wipe the floor with even the best LPs.
"Perfect sound forever" was the motto right out of the gate, and that was, what, 1982? :p
monochromejrnl
08-26-2008, 11:43
A friend of mine is a cinemetographer and apparently the demand is so high that Red can't make enough of them. There are only three or four of them in Toronto at the moment and ALL of them are in production. Apparently it would make good business sense to buy one to rent out. The quality is amazing and it's cheaper than any film or other digital cinecamera currently available.
Part of the reason is because Red is a small company and releasing the cameras in small quantities.
Nonetheless, renting 35mm motion picture cameras is now much cheaper than it used to be - I think this has to do with many people switching to various formats (video, Super 16, Red, HD, etc).
A friend of mine is a cinemetographer and apparently the demand is so high that Red can't make enough of them. There are only three or four of them in Toronto at the moment and ALL of them are in production. Apparently it would make good business sense to buy one to rent out. The quality is amazing and it's cheaper than any film or other digital cinecamera currently available.
We have 4 of them at my work. They are good. Are they better than film? Probably not. The reason that most production companies like them is that they imagine that digital is cheaper than film. Everything comes down to money and the people who have it really don't care too much about the artistic merrits of film.
kino eye
08-26-2008, 13:48
I'm an art director in advertising and just finished shooting two 30sec spots on the Red. The Industry is still getting used to things (Red supplied us with on a on-site tech for the whole shoot) but in terms of work flow its pretty much the same. Yes, you still have to do a transfer but that will never change as things will always need to be colour corrected, objects removed, sharpened, etc. I was pretty concerned about it having a "video" look but was really impressed with how it turned out and would shoot with it again.
The money wasn't there to shoot film so we were planning to shoot tape but I think Red is eager to show that it can be used for advertising and not just features so they gave us a deal. In talking with my producer we saved $10k compared with shooting the two spots on 35mm. Not sure what the normal price is for using the Red but even at full rate I'm sure we still would have saved a good $5K compared to 35mm and a little bit more with super 16. Of course tape still would have been the cheapest. So if you do the math the savings can be substantial on a feature or even in my world with cheap clients who don't care about the "look" of film.
I'm not really sure what will happen but I'm just going to enjoy being able to still shoot on film.
"Perfect sound forever" was the motto right out of the gate, and that was, what, 1982? :p
1982? Woah, that is forever!
It's probably a good thing that production is getting cheaper for the production companies; I go to the cinema sometimes, but does anyone else?
Just wait for the HD purists; none of this new fangled "4k".
outforalaska
08-26-2008, 18:56
Or maybe go back to old, still better than today's tech, 70mm film? Anyone waiting to see Lawrence of Arabia in Hi-Def?
photogdave
08-26-2008, 19:27
Or maybe go back to old, still better than today's tech, 70mm film? Anyone waiting to see Lawrence of Arabia in Hi-Def?
Exactly why Nolan filmed some of the DK sequences in IMAX!
I don't think studios use film to shoot features because it is the cheapest option up 'til now. I have a feeling it's the same reason they cast Steve Buscemi instead of Tom Cruise - it ain't the money. IMHO :)
I remember reading that Peter Jackson (King Kong ... Lord Of The Rings etc) is involve in this and has been behind it from it's inception and definitely sees it as the future in movie making!
What would he know! :p
[edit] ... at first glance I thought it was the latest lunar landing vehicle. It wouldn't look out of place on Mars!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.