Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Updated! Peter Jackson WW1 short film is screening in Vegas at the NAB trade show!!

First by malamatijm	Apr 18th, 2007 05:01:35 PM
erm.. havent even read story yet :-s
3+ hours, bloated journey, extremely boring by Heckles	Apr 18th, 2007 05:03:10 PM
What is: childhood trip to Grand Canyon and Peter Jackson's movies.
Well thats good... by skycrapper	Apr 18th, 2007 05:04:35 PM
Now stop fighting with New Line and make the Hobbit already.
WHEN IS LOVELY BONES GETTING STARTED by THE KNIGHT	Apr 18th, 2007 05:07:11 PM
anyone?
It'd be kind of cool if Jackson... by Childe Roland	Apr 18th, 2007 05:08:38 PM
...would just go ahead and give Raimi a wink and a nod to let him know it's okay with him if the Hobbit moves forward. Maybe then I'd be more inclined to look at anything else Jackson does with unbiased eyes.
Mr. Peter Jackson, please direct JUSTICE LEAGUE!!!! by JDanielP	Apr 18th, 2007 05:09:01 PM
This project was made for you, Pete. And plan for about seven flicks, will ya? (End it with "KINGDOM COME", based on the graphic series/album.)
BTW by THE KNIGHT	Apr 18th, 2007 05:11:54 PM
this sounds too cool... I can't wait to see it...!
HELL YES, THE RED CAMERA by BadMrWonka	Apr 18th, 2007 05:18:57 PM
not only does this thng officially kick ass, it looks like Darth Vader's dick... http://www.red.com/index.ph p I have been saving up, KNOWING that sooner or later someone was gonna get something like this onto the market. man, I'm eating ramen for the rest of the year to buy this bitch.
PLANT!!! by whoopdeedoo	Apr 18th, 2007 05:19:22 PM
What? Someone had to do it. This actually is very interesting. If this level of technology is being made available to the public at reasonable costs this could set the indie film world on fire.
They better upload that short on the RED site soon by Evil Hobbit	Apr 18th, 2007 05:22:01 PM
A nice 1080p quicktime will do just fine and a few screens in the 4k resolution. So much fun that a guy like Peter steps in on this realy revolutionary camera. This thing can very well rock the Indy filmmaking world as well, specially Indy filmmaking. Might be a very serious deathblow to 16mm filmmaking...
evil hobbit by BadMrWonka	Apr 18th, 2007 05:28:37 PM
I agree about 16mm...I shot a short on super 16 last year, and with all the processing, combined with the increased rehearsal time (since you can't just roll and roll forever like you can on digital), it really was a pain. and for all the tricks you can do with light on film, it's getting to the point where you can do a shitload of that in post with a decent effects editor. so eah, I think you're right. I mean shit, if you can get this for 17500, that's the film STOCK budget on an indie film, let alone camera rental, processing, etc. plus if you go this way, at the end of it, you got a damn camera to keep! man, I'm drooling over this thing, can't wait to see what Jackson did with it,.
"Rumor is...$17k"? by GregoryHarbin	Apr 18th, 2007 05:39:43 PM
Um, it's not really a rumor, RedOne is going to hit the market for $17,500. You can buy it at their website. They even have a tentative shipping sked up. And yes, this will be online in the next week or so; check the Red forums.
Saw it...Loved it... by Lau Kar Leung	Apr 18th, 2007 05:44:04 PM
I was at NAB on Monday and got to check this out. Being a RED ONE reservation holder since last year's NAB, I was excited to check out the camera. I had no idea that this short was going to be playing. Honesly, even after buying into the camera, I wasn't expecting it to look this awesome. I truly love film, but this isn't just a deathblow to 16mm filmmaking - this is truly the end of film...period.
RED #456 by lboyce82	Apr 18th, 2007 05:44:05 PM
I can't freaking wait to see this. I'm a reservation holder. I bought camera no. 456 so I'll get mine around August of this year. Needless to say I'm chomping at the bit to see this freaking short. I really wish they'd hurry up and get this thing online.
fine print by 5thBusiness	Apr 18th, 2007 05:44:47 PM
If you go to the red site, $17,500 is for the stripped down camera. It's designed to be modular, so you can add all kinds of accessories. It looked to me that a versatile, functional version of the camera setup to make a feature would be somewhere in the mid-20,000 range or more. Still, this is pretty amazing news. With professional level technology like this in the hands of so many more folks, Hollywood might be set to go the way of the record industry even sooner than we think, or hope.
Dropping loads all over Peter Jackson's face! by crackerfarmboy	Apr 18th, 2007 05:47:48 PM
That's right beardy you love that shit!
$17k = Bargain = True! by Lau Kar Leung	Apr 18th, 2007 05:53:07 PM
Considering it blows $100k cameras out of the water.
Yeah, what is the story with THE LOVELY BONES? by brokentusk	Apr 18th, 2007 05:55:54 PM
Haven't heard anything from Peter's camp in a long time (which is very unusual). Any idea what's happening?
"Considering it blows $100k by GregoryHarbin	Apr 18th, 2007 06:09:04 PM
"Considering it blows $100k cameras out of the water." Yeah. Lucas wishes he could have shot the prequels on Red rather than those horrible Sony camcorders.
BadMrWonka - absolutely by Evil Hobbit	Apr 18th, 2007 06:15:21 PM
I shot a short on super 16 last year that was to be blown up to 35mm cinemascope. So that was like, you pay for the stock. Then you go to the lab for developing and a telecine for offline edit. Then with the edl another scan to 2k digital intermediate for online edit, special fx and grading. Then from that master the blow up. All in all it was like 10.000 euro's, all for film processing Up untill now all this stuff is worth the money because digital filmmaking just isn't up to par yet with the look and feel of film. But the RED seems to be closing that gap. The gossip says it realy has the touch and feel of traditional film recordings, much like Arri is closing in on that as well with their D-20. But the price on this baby and the 4k possibilities with Red Raw makes this a realy realy realy good, perhaps superior, alternative for the S16 process. It will be so great to skip the developing and scanning parts and just go straight into editorial and grading and fx. The support in Final Cut 2 for the red raw codec, damn, it's like a dream come true for low budget Indy filmmakers. With a master in 4K you can still make better 35mm prints or Digital Cinema Packages then with a S16 blowup. Reading that someone like Jackson picks up this camera to experiment shows how much of a major break this can be in digital filmmaking for feature films.
17K? Not quite by ebolamonkey	Apr 18th, 2007 06:18:02 PM
First, getting your hands on one for the first year is going to be next to impossible. Second, you've got to add in the cost of lenses (Red does sell some cheap ones, but you'll probably need all of them), camera support and accessories, and a massive investment in hard drive space and the computer to handle HD (or are you actually thinking about going 4K?). Even a basic kit and edit system is going to set you back 75K or so. Still, that's a lot cheaper than the alternatives. Hope they can deliver as promised.
Thank you for the Artie Lange/Howard Reference Cracker by uss cygnus	Apr 18th, 2007 06:18:06 PM
"Tell Richard to come out of the closet--er--I mean the elevator."
it looks like Darth Vader's dick... ???? by jimmy rabbitte	Apr 18th, 2007 06:25:48 PM
Wasn't that burnt to a useles cinder?... I'm just saying...
closer to 17k than 75! by knuckledragger	Apr 18th, 2007 06:37:57 PM
a barebones usable hookup will cost you around 25g, not 75! i'm a cheap bastard, so i checked before i reserved...
I really don't care... by Quintus_Arrius	Apr 18th, 2007 06:44:57 PM
... just make the Hobbit and all will be fine.
$$$$$ TALKBACKERS $$$$$ by THE KNIGHT	Apr 18th, 2007 06:56:22 PM
Guys here have a lot more money to spend than I thought!
Re: 17K? Not quite by playboater18	Apr 18th, 2007 07:03:02 PM
You obviously haven't done your homework. First, 4K is realistic. Final Cut will natively support it soon using REDCODE RAW which consumes a mere 27 MB/sec which is quite managable. Theoretically, editing REDCODE might be easier than HD, given uncompressed HD is a hell of a lot more with much less quality. Second, RED is developing 4K displays AND projectors, so the viewing will be there shortly. In addition, you are wrong on the "basic kit and edit system" setting you back 75K. I believe a Mac Pro can be configured quite adequately for around $7000-$10,000 with everything you would need for RED at the moment. A solid RED package without all the lenses should cost around say $35,000 so really, not the full 75K you say. Also, few people are likely to buy the edit system in addition to the camera unless you are say a house with very specific needs. You are blowing things out of proportion. The point IS, RED destroys all the Arri, Panavision, Dalsa etc cameras at a tiny fraction of the price. RED is good because it is a 4K camera, meaning equal res to 35mm, it shares all the qualities of film including color, depth of field, etc, and it does all this at an extremely cheap price. Additionally, shooting with it is quite feasible, with cheap ($900 for 320GB drive) hard drive options available. Lastly, RED excels in the compression and workflow, meaning that once you have shot your 4K movie, you can actually edit it, and indeed the REDCINE software will apparently be free for download, as well as being included with the camera. For a max. price of around $35,000 (and it CAN be done cheaper given the modularity and options given by RED such as the use of still lenses), RED is THE camera to get for feature film work (though commercials mostly not).
Interesting. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Apr 18th, 2007 07:06:53 PM
I don't know anything about HD/4K or whatever. But it sounds pretty cool. ($17K? Damn!) Now, cue Ringw(b)earer9's entrance in 5...4...3...2...
Dang... missed it. by director stan arthur	Apr 18th, 2007 07:21:25 PM
Well I'm here at NAB and somehow I missed this. Been here a week. Going home to FL tomorrow. Crap.
Soooooo stoked by R_D_P	Apr 18th, 2007 08:03:36 PM
I have a friend of friend there, that promises to get some up close and personal footage of the RED. I had no idea that "pj" had tested the camera much less de-virginized it. playboater you Rawk!
The RED camera will change the face of cinema by Tubbs Tattsyrup	Apr 18th, 2007 08:03:54 PM
I mean, my film school just spent $NZ80,000 on an Aaton 16mm film camera. The RED is far cheaper and is fucking 4K resolution. Seriously this thing is fucking revolutionary.
Thanks R_D_P! As somebody on by playboater18	Apr 18th, 2007 08:38:33 PM
Thanks R_D_P! As somebody on reduser.net noted however, Aintitcool describes the RED camera as the "first consumer camera of its type". Give me a break Quint. Do your research. As much as I like your reviews, this is simply wrong. This is NOT a consumer camera. It has all the markings of a professional camera aimed at a professional market. The RED camera has a PL mount and 4K. Last I checked, consumer cameras today don't come with 4K recording and professional PL mounts for mounting 35mm lenses. Furthermore, a consumer camera today such as the ones made by Sony, Canon or JVC do NOT produce images like the RED's. Their images can only be described as one thing: VIDEO. RED on the other hand, produces film like, CINEMA images (it's a loose term, I know). SO yes, point being, this is no consumer camera. Sheesh. Finally, aintitcoolnews describes it as being "a supposedly revolutionary HD 4K camera". It's not "supposedly revolutionary" Quint. Anything that produces 4K that looks as good if not better than Dalsa's camera at a tiny fraction of the price with a simple, efficient and easy to use workflow is not "supposedly" revolutionary. It IS revolutionary. Sony and all the other makers have much to fear. Especially as RED is developing 4K projectors and displays, as well as a "Mini RED" camera. No doubt they will also be extroardinarily well priced. Few details are available on those yet but after what they've done so far and all the people who said it was a hoax, well my bet's on them. 'Nuff said.
To go back a bit... by playboater18	Apr 18th, 2007 08:48:11 PM
Actually, I have to say on second thought, my apologies to Quint. Overall that's a pretty positive look at the camera. Just a few minor errors is all. Sorry.
Droollllllling! by Mace Tofu	Apr 18th, 2007 09:07:22 PM
$25K : ( I'll have to wait for the "Mimi Red" and stick with HDV for now lol.
"Mini" : ) by Mace Tofu	Apr 18th, 2007 09:09:51 PM
The new FCP STUDIO 2 features should keep me busy 'till I can save up for a RED. Good time to be an Indi.
It's not on RED's site yet because... by erikharrison	Apr 18th, 2007 09:12:18 PM
...of music licensing issues. Some music from Universal's library was apparently used (knowing PJ either original, or his remake of King Kong), and it was going to have to either be rescored, or Universal was going to have to give permission. Rumor is it'll be on the site tomorrow.
It will be up by playboater18	Apr 18th, 2007 09:33:33 PM
According to Jim Jannard, they have been given permission and it will be up in a couple days (as of yesterday) so tomorrow or the day after would fit in.
To give you non techies an idea of what this means... by blackmantis	Apr 18th, 2007 09:47:33 PM
The average film print you see in a theater is at most, on its best day in a perfectly calibrated projector, around 2,000 lines of resolution or 2k. RED is twice that, and when projected by a 4K projector, blows any film projection short of IMAX out of the water.
It'll be $10k by Jaka	Apr 18th, 2007 09:54:03 PM
In a couple years. We're not quite there for me, personally, on this technology front. But things are looking better all the time.
re: rant by TyHutch	Apr 18th, 2007 11:07:24 PM
I think the advantages of editing digital media is well worth all the excitement. In my personal experience, at least.
SK229... by TheFutureDirector	Apr 18th, 2007 11:07:39 PM
"What I"m getting at is that I just can't believe how many people are just way too focused on the quality of the image instead of the quality of the story they're telling." Bravo, sir.
I concure by THE KNIGHT	Apr 18th, 2007 11:17:25 PM
Double Bravo....
SK299... by blackmantis	Apr 18th, 2007 11:36:05 PM
The majority of the people who are going to buy this camera are cinematographers who like owning their own gear or rental houses, not film school kids who want to shoot a short film, so the main premise of your rant is flawed, despite many of the truths you arrived at. The excitement over this camera is that it's the first digital camera that produces an image equal to, and some even say superior to that of film with no compromises, at a relatively affordable price, and without the inconveniences regular film has like processing and not knowing if you've got a properly exposed scene until a few days after you've shot. Of course it's just a tool, and while it will allow lower budgeted indie films to have a more professional look, I don't think your average 21 year old film school grads, most of whom are broke, are gonna buy it thinking they can shoot their epic short film with it.
Re: playboater18 by ebolamonkey	Apr 18th, 2007 11:42:01 PM
I think I'm very in proportion for a standard camera package and support. And why would you want to shoot 4K and compress it down to 27MB/sec? That doesn't make any sense, that's an offline bit rate for 4K footage. I doubt you can do much color grading with compression that heavy (if you've ever had to color correct DVCProHD in the DVCProHD codec, you understand the difficulties). Are you going to head to the rental house every time you want to shoot with it or are you going to pony up for good sticks and a head (10K), Red's lens set (20K for the primes), a telephoto zoom lens (25K for a decent one), the Red viewfinder (3K), matte box and a couple basic filters (5K), Red RAW port module (6K), enough batteries to get through a day (3K), etc. Why would you buy and own a camera and not have an edit system that can work with the best quality the camera can produce? You'll want a high end Mac Pro (4K), at least 8GB RAM (1K), a color accurate monitor (ours is 10K), a video card that can output 4K video (3K), a RAID 5 array (5K-12K)(can't risk losing your footage), and enough 500GB hard drives to back up all your footage for the rest of time because that's the only format it exists in. And there's thousands more in smaller expenditures. If you're a production company, why would you own a camera but have to take the footage to an edit house to look at properly? If you're a DP, why would you want the cheapest rig you can put together? The bottomline is that affordable filmmaking is already here. Been here for years. People have gotten deals off of DV footage. Television shows and movies have been shot on DV. Good story tellers don't need this or any other camera necessarily.
i need one of these by Tbuel	Apr 18th, 2007 11:50:47 PM
as soon as possible. RED is one of the coolest camera inventions in quite some time. its perfect for us film makers, desppite its 17k price tag. ouch
SK229 by BadMrWonka	Apr 19th, 2007 02:34:54 AM
the problem is, you have obviously spent a lot of time listening to people talking about this stuff, but not actually doing it. as a couple people pointed out, if you think that a film school grad has $30,000 sitting around, you're completely out of your mind. would that we all had the problem of deciding the best way to spend our imaginary chunk of change, then your rant might make some sense. bottom line: just because a bunch of film geks sit around talking about getting a camera like this, so their short films look like 35mm...doesn't mean they actually buy it. indie production houses, freelance videographers, etc. those are the people that will actually be buying this camera. you're ranting about pie-in-the-sky wishes of broke film geeks that have a non-existent representation in reality. calm down, brother.
MrWonka... by TheFutureDirector	Apr 19th, 2007 02:49:13 AM
His assumption isn't as far off as you'd think. I'm a film major in the LA area, and I know two people in my class who have reserved the Red Camera already. Two. Individually. Unfortuna tely, neither can write worth a damn (self-admitted more than my own personal opinion). So although I'm completely happy that cinemtographers around the world are getting excited about this new technology (and they'd be crazy if they didn't), 229's point that film students are seeing the shiny new pictures they can create with Red instead of the STORY those pretty pictures will tell is dead-on. I relish the opportunity to work with these cameras, but first I want to have AT LEAST two or three short scripts worthy of that level of professionalism. Sadly, I'm afraid many, many film students would rather jump the gun and make an amazing(looking) film before they have a decent story to tell.
*cinematographers by TheFutureDirector	Apr 19th, 2007 03:05:44 AM
Editing feature= super.
I'm shooting HDV on a $1000 Canon by Mace Tofu	Apr 19th, 2007 03:09:58 AM
http://tinyurl.com/2nvynw You can output full quality 1920X1080 HD thru the HDMI cable into a PC using a $250 PCI Card or shoot HDV onto tape. This sure beats splicing super-8 film in the 70's lol
HVX solutions doesnt shit over 16mm imho by Evil Hobbit	Apr 19th, 2007 03:25:43 AM
Because it's still a video source that shoots like video and feels like video. I'd rather shoot on S16 then. Anyways, I agree with what you say about story>technology. But the value of the RED package is tremendously and a great long term investment for Indy filmmakers. Specially cinematohraphers, fx-houses and even production houses. It's a lot more cost-effective then film and specially dvcprohd/hdv solutions. Even with Pro35 attached it still looks like video. Can't wait to see how the PJ short looks and feels.
Peter Jackson for JLA! by UltimaRex	Apr 19th, 2007 04:13:50 AM
Everything else I wanted to say has been said. Twice.
Can't wait to see the film. by DocPazuzu	Apr 19th, 2007 05:02:11 AM
If the quality of the camera is what they say it is, then it's good news because it means Ringy will finally be able to afford bringing his own unique vision of LOTR to the ravenous public. That having been said, I'm sure he'll show up here telling us how this is in fact the worst camera ever produced because PJ is endorsing it. Dare we look forward to another hilarious review of the short film by Ringy next week? I live in hope.
Been waiting ... by Dazzler69	Apr 19th, 2007 06:39:18 AM
...for HD camcorders to go down in price b4 I ever get one.
Fancy Cameras do not mean Good Filmmaking by Ringwearer9	Apr 19th, 2007 06:43:03 AM
As long as Jackson is focusing on his Toys instead of on his Craft, he'll always be a shitty storyteller/director/writer. Hi DocPazuzu!
oh brother by THE KNIGHT	Apr 19th, 2007 07:52:29 AM
here we go...
"Promises to be the first consumer camera of its type." by SadCadillac	Apr 19th, 2007 09:34:48 AM
At 17.5k, the Big Red is a prosumer camera at best. You think these things are gonna end up in the cameracorder section at Best Buy? Think again.
I used the HVX with 35 lenses on a few shorts by Evil Hobbit	Apr 19th, 2007 09:49:47 AM
and yes, it is a fantastic setup for low cost high definition filmmaking. Totally agree. In still shots it can even look exactly like film but as soon as you move the camera, beng, there is the video blur. You see the same with high end HD camera's like the Genesis. It'll allways move like video. See Apocalypto forrest run sequences for example. But this is also a personal taste. And very much an artistic choice by the director. In the end it all comes down to what style fits best to the story and what can we get out of the budget. The HVX with Pro35 is an absolutely great alternative to 16mm indeed.
HVX... and ebolamonkey by playboater18	Apr 19th, 2007 10:45:05 AM
Yes the images from the HVX can look awesome if you light it well and all. The film Illegal is a good example of this from what I've seen. However, there's a few errors there. 2K is NOT half the res of film. When printed and blown up to 35mm, it will not look as good as say 4K. In fact, 2K is just slightly better res than 1080p. So really, while it's good, it's nothing special. But I see your point. It has good image quality. As for ebolamonkey's comment, maybe you should look at David Mullen, ASC and his thoughts on the RED camera, as posted on cinematography.com. Furthermore, the Peter Jackson film used 500GB of hard drive space and was shot on 4K REDCODE RAW and graded using the pablo color correction system. Evidently the compression can withstand some grading. While we have yet to see how far it an be pushes, that is nonetheless quite positive. As for editing, as some have mentioned, MOST people will not be buying to own. High end filmmakers like Peter Jackson may but most will probably be rental houses and cameramen with their own package. Such people do not generally look to provide the editing solution therefore that cost is unrelated. While professional, color calibrated monitors can in fact run you arround 10K, you should speak to Mike Curtis at www.hdforindies.com. While I am not an editing guy and therefore may be wrong, I believe he could show you how you could put together an amazing 4K RED capable Mac Pro system for far less than you are suggesting. My 2 cents.
RE: Fancy Cameras do not mean Good Filmmaking by Mr. Nice Gaius	Apr 19th, 2007 10:48:14 AM
No, but they sure beat those stick-figure flipbooks you use for your version of LOTR, eh Ringo?
David Mullen, ASC by playboater18	Apr 19th, 2007 10:48:48 AM
Here's a lengthy quote. "For me, the RED camera was the highlight of NAB. The Peter Jackson short film shot on the two RED prototypes was an amazing achievement. I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean. Fine detail even in extreme long shots (of course, the demo also points out the beauty of 4K digital projection to show-off that detail.) It's to the point where I don't care if "de-Bayered 4K Bayer-filtered is truly 4K", etc. because all that matters to me is that I didn't see any compromise in image resolution compared to 35mm, unlike with HD where it visibly craps-out in extreme long shot on the big screen. Exposure range was excellent, though I would say that color negative still holds the edge in overexposure detail. This was closer to what you'd expect from a high-end digital SLR still image in terms of dynamic range, or a slightly contrasty color negative stock like 5245. I didn't see any problems from the REDCODE compression, even though it's something like 12:1. It truly seems to work, although I'm sure someone could design a test that could stress it probably. But it seems a godsend for making RAW Bayered-4K field acquisition practical. An attached hard drive the size of a camera battery can hold something over three-hours of 4K material because the data rate is so reduced. What was great about this demo was that it wasn't some studio controlled situation, but two days of shooting run-and-gun in changing outdoor light and weather many set-ups per day with barely a moment to grab a meter reading, fast camera moves from full sun to full shade and back, etc. the worst combination of elements for a digital camera, yet it handled it great and didn't slow down the production."
playboater18 by BadMrWonka	Apr 19th, 2007 04:31:21 PM
you must work for RED, but thank you for all this info brother. it's whetting my whistle and priming my pump.
BadMrWonka by playboater18	Apr 19th, 2007 06:32:03 PM
No no I don't actually (although that would be way cool!) I'm just starting out in the industry and really I know very little in comparison to a lot of others. I'm in University for politics and currently working at a commercial production company as an intern to help me get where I want to be. So I'm VERY low on the ladder. But I'm glad you appreciate the info! I always like to help others out if I can. I've learned a ton from Mike Curtis at www.hdforindies.com. He really knows his stuff. Good luck though with any projects!
yes exactly now ringy with equpiment so cheap by slappy jones	Apr 19th, 2007 07:18:10 PM
you can start showing us how its done!!obviously yu know more about story telling then most of us and even jackson himself so please start shooting!!!!
Well 2K is I believe by playboater18	Apr 20th, 2007 08:41:54 AM
Well 2K is I believe 2048x1080 whereas 1080 is 1920x1080 (or 14140x1080 for the low end Sony HDV cameras). So there's a difference, but not nearly as much as 2K to 4K.
source attribution by MikeCurtis	Apr 22nd, 2007 06:23:05 PM
Hi there - I'm the fellow who wrote the quoted second selection, Mike Curtis from hdforindies.com. I've been covering the Red camera's progress for about a year and a half. The quote comes from the page: http://www.hdforindies.com/200 7/04/mikes-day-one-report-from -reds-booth.html Also, David Mullen is a highly regarded director of photography, not employed by Red - his commentary and perspective is EXTREMELY well informed and credentialled. I'm just a blogger who works with Red in their booth from time to time. -mike
Saw RED and DALSA shorts in CANADA last week! by aSmallWhiteBunny	Feb 16th, 2008 03:08:01 PM
I red about the RED camera here for the first time last April. I wanted to post an update to this discussion, because I finally got to see it for myself last weekend in Canada. It was the Peter Jackson WWI movie and there was also a short shot on the DALSA 4K camera. The Dalsa short was a David Carradine martial arts film called Trident. BOTTOM LINE: RED didn't look very good. It looked SOFT compared to the DALSA. Maybe it's because of the compression? Major disappointment! You really do get what you pay for. Star Wars was shot on a Sony HD Camera at it looked way better too. The Dalsa camera looked so much better RED, It would be stoooopid to shoot a big budget movie on RED over Sony or DALSA.

Talkbacks

Updated! Peter Jackson WW1 short film is screening in Vegas at the NAB trade show!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks