RED Digital Cinema Camera

This is only going to be interesting to the film technology minded.  I don't talk much about technology - but this might be interesting information for those who need to know about such things.

RED:  Crossing the Line

Peter Jackson's short film "Crossing the Line" which was shot with the RED Digital Cinema Camera was playing at the Cinegear Expo today.

If you ever visit cinegear, Here's a fun game to play:  Count How many times you can over hear James Cameron's name be dropped in different conversations by different people.

Anyway  - on the the main attraction.

My headline is.  It's not video, it's not film, it's something different.

It was very obvious that there were some variations in how it was shot (learning on the go) as well as a very quick color grading.  In fact, I think the color grading may throw most people off from what they're seeing because at this point we are used to seeing such dramatic color grading - notably on period pieces.  I know if I were at the controls I would have evened out the color then dumped the saturation and increased the contrast.  But that is not how I would want to see this because I liked the not incredibly graded version for the purposes of seeing what the camera catches.

Here are some notes:

Grain:  You don't see grain.  I thought this was a huge benefit on the scenic stuff.  There are shots where you see entire landscapes and the lack of grain in those cases really added a benefit.  That was not expected, but it makes perfect sense.  I know that one of the times you see the most grain in 16mm in when you're looking at landscape shots or any shot with dominant colors. 

Faces:  No grain is an issue for faces.  I think make-up artists will need to learn to not coat on the make up or the actors will look like plastic dolls.   One actor in particular seemed to have way too much make up and since there is no grain to moire out the obviousness of this - it ends up looking like doll plastic.  I think lightening up on the base cover will be the main solution.

Highlights/Lattitude:  This is usually my biggest concern when watching film vs. video (like the Genesis or Silicon Imaging devices).  There was a lot of uncontrolled light all over the place and I wasn't at all thinking "Oh - hey- that highlight is blowing out early!"  I think before light blows out on peoples faces and such - it starts to get a certain artificial look.  Did this happen before it would have happened in film?  Boy, it's getting so close at this point, I can't really say.  There are enough other variables in play (like no grain) which makes it hard to assess that from a purely aesthetic point of view.  I know the last time I shot on 35mm I had shot a few things on video and was so excited to get my 35mm footage and when I was working with it I thought, "Hey, this is blowing out.  I forgot film does that too." 

Film vs. Video vs. Red:  Film is organic, has grain, has latitude.  Video seems "hyper-real" (punchy), can have noise, and has limited latitude.  Red is neither hyper-real/punchy nor organic, it has no grain, and I would say it has a latitude.  I would have to see more samples to know how much latitude exactly - but you definitely are not getting the blow out level you're used to with video.  I think in reality the Red is looking more like what real life is looking like than film.  I suspect a lot of people at first will be trying to add back in some grain or making other efforts to "organic-ify" the look because it does not look like most movies.  I won't be.  I like the way it looks.  I'll be grading it a lot - but I think I will be inclined to just love it for what it is. 

Red vs. Film:  First of all, Red vs. HD is not a question, other than for standardization, I can't imagine why someone would shoot HD.  Red vs. Film - I think a lot of people will want that organic look.  I can definitely think of certain movies for which it just might feel right.  Monet could have painted like Caravaggio, but he wanted a different look.

Indies:  How does red save you money?  Usually you figure that shooting on film vs. HD costs about $60,000 more because of the stock and processing and telecine.  That's a minimum.  Even on indie movies - especially with directors and producers not used to limiting their shooting ratio - that can balloon to hundreds of thousands.  So, that's where the savings comes in.  What if renting a RED is still out of the question?  Personally I think if you're considering an HVX or similar camera rental then you should probably consider pushing  up to a RED instead.  I've shot a lot with the HVX and you just can't compare the two.  If you can't push up to a RED, an indie might really want to consider the HV20 (or similar cameras) with or without 35mm adapters (like the Brevin or M2 or the others).  For the low cost it can deliver some truly impressive results.  Be sure t add an external mic for dialogue  - Rhode has some affordable options. 

The Short Film itself:  Actually I liked it, it's an entertaining piece, I think it could be about 2/3rds the length and be stronger as I felt the cutting got a little redundant - we saw everything one to many  times and were holding a bit long on some things.  But it was actually entertaining to watch.  I found myself watching the story and not the camera specs often and to sum up - I think the audience will do the same.

[Disclosure:   There are over 1500 reservations on the RED camera awarded in the order the deposit was received.  I am number 89.   My number is lower than any of Peter Jackson's five reservations I believe.  :)  ]