Seeing RED
Posted on April 29, 2009
I’ve had several discussions with my colleagues regarding the historical perspective I expressed about the RED. (see my post, The Big RED one:)
http://www.richardmassey.tv/2009/the-big-red-one/
I’m surprised that I have to clarify this most important fact: I do know the difference between an HD camera you can get at Walmart and the HD ENG models we use.
My point is that once such a new technology begins to trickle down to the first generation of users, the use of such new toys is conservative, to say the least. Therefore, observing how they’re used, judging the initial products produced with these cameras, you would not be able to tell the difference which camera was employed (the pro or the consumer.) That disappoints me (which is not the intent of the camera’s manufacturers.) It happened ten years ago with HD, it’s happening today with RED.
I have several colleagues who’ve used it. They’ve proudly posted their photos. Yet, every production still I’ve seen shows it deployed on a tripod, 36′ – 48″ off the ground. Occasionally a high-hat, sometimes handheld, a steadycam once. But, no foot chases or car rigs, no jibs or dolly. They deploy the matt box, monitor, drives, focus assist… an entire spaghetti tangle of crap, every single accessory drips of it in order to attempt to make it look menacing.
I haven’t seen it with macro, diopter, anything greater than a 100mm lens, or less than 25mm. Have I seen it with any primes at all?
Everyone uses that matte box, though. But, what filter are you using in that box? (You do know that it is painfully obvious when you attempt a gradated ND or color effect in post, instead of in-camera?)
Furthermore, looking at the set, there’s still the standard flat lighting, same shitty office location, same crappy indie effort.
My point is clear: where’s the spectacle? Where’s the stunt? Why go to such an expense to have the same mundane task? (Now in even higher definition!)
If you’re going to dump a wad of cash for a special element to add to a project, wouldn’t it be better spent on some talent, location, costumes, pyro, fx, stunts, crashes, extras, CGI, etc.
The RED: If you have one, I’ll be impressed when I see it strapped to a motorcycle or Cesna. I’ll be envious when I see it with a probe lens, a Revolution lens, or a bellows tilt-shift kit.
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
It’s too bulky and heavy without the dressings, making it almost impossible to handheld. It attempts to put the amateur and professional on the same playing ground, and to a certain extent, that is what it does. But I have not seen extensively impressive rigs used by any of the independents. What I have seen is sloppier lighting design compensated by overbearing post color-correction. This makes everyone feel like they are shooting Amelie.
People get a little too caught up in image and forget that its worthless without and good story and even then, cinematography and composition only serve to buttress the narrative. Self-conscious photography proves nothing to an audience. It only pleases the behind-the-scenes amateur.
What has really impressed me is the Canon 5D Mark II 25p. Everything I’ve seen on vimeo from that hardware looks terrific. It smaller, very good for documentary, I would say, and pending a external sound mixer, one might have a fancy-looking piece of film.