
How RED Cameras Changed the Game - fezz
https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/how-red-cameras-changed-the-game/
======
ginko
>RED’s story is one that is rooted in the American tradition of game-changing
companies that started in a simple garage.

>Jannard was the founder and owner of sunglass and sportswear giant Oakley,
providing him with the capital and means to literally engineer the future of
digital cinema

That must have been a nice garage.

~~~
bsder
Quite. Jannard pumped a _LOT_ of money into it to pull it off.

While I absolutely applaud him for doing actual R&D, it's not clear his ROI
was actually that good.

~~~
cptskippy
I guess it depends on whether or not his investment was for purely financial
gain. From what I've read, it sounds like he was in it for the love of film.

He is directly responsible for revolutionizing the film and TV industries.
That's a pretty good ROI if you ask me.

~~~
bsder
> From what I've read, it sounds like he was in it for the love of film.

Ayup, he's a big photography/movie buff.

> He is directly responsible for revolutionizing the film and TV industries.
> That's a pretty good ROI if you ask me.

It's not clear he did revolutionize the industry. Digital was obvious to
everyone. The question wasn't whether it was going to happen, it was _when_ it
was going to happen.

By doing it when RED did, they had a _LOT_ of problems that the companies
doing it now don't. They were developing sensors in VLSI technologies that
really weren't up to the task. They had _gigantic_ cables leading to a
refrigerator cabinet of disk drives because storage technology wasn't up to
the task (small disks, slow transfer rates, no SSD's). They were continuously
swapping batteries because battery and power management technology wasn't up
to the task.

All of these things improved simply with time. VLSI nodes changed to 12"
wafers. Disks got way bigger and then switched to SSD's as well as developed
faster versions of SATA. Lithium batteries came online and lots of power
management technologies improved.

I remember talking to the folks at RED at one of the NAB shows. I had a very
nice technical conversation with the engineers as everybody else was drooling
over the booth bunnies (some inconsequential Hollywood actresses). My first
question was simply: "Every engineering student has effectively been required
to purchase a personal computer since about 1995. Why aren't film majors
required to outright _purchase_ one of these cameras are part of their
tuition?"

After they both broke up in laughter, they explained to me that the yield on
the sensors was so bad that it completely gated their ability to ship cameras.
They were estimating that it was going to take 2 more VLSI process nodes to
clear the backlog of orders. It looks like they were about right.

~~~
stephen_g
> They had gigantic cables leading to a refrigerator cabinet of disk drives
> because storage technology wasn't up to the task (small disks, slow transfer
> rates, no SSD's)

This was only at the very early prototype stage, of course. By the time they
shipped, the cameras could record to hard drives and Compact Flash cards using
their wavelet-based raw codec. Later the cameras were upgradable with a module
swap to use SSDs.

4K onto CF cards was a huge thing at the time - at this stage, a lot of people
were still using HDCAM SR tape and only a few cameras recorded onto file based
media, like the Panasonic HVX200 that recorded 720p to PCMCIA cards!

------
royjacobs
It's hard to overestimate the way RED has brought quality digital cameras into
the hands of people who are working on low- to medium-budgeted films, series
and commercials. For me though, the game changers were cameras like Thomson
Viper and the Arri D-20.

Tangent: Around 2005/2006 I worked on the software for a HD-SDI field recorder
that could be used to record the raw output coming out of these cameras. We
had to use a big RAID array just to be able to sustain the data rates (dual
link HD-SDI is about 370Mb/sec). The thing weighed a ton and was probably
considered luggable, just like your Osborne-1.

The quality that came out of these cameras was really awesome though. Viper
was a bit noisy in low light and had an awful green tint that you needed to
post-process (it was really just RAW sensor output) but it looked stunning.

Fast forward just a couple of years and RED came out with visuals that are
maybe slightly worse than Arri's but much, much cheaper. And nowadays
companies like Codex and Atomos have tiny form-factor recorders that record to
flash storage that weighs a couple of grams. It's really amazing to see the
progress.

~~~
cptskippy
I think the real game changer was that one could outright purchase a RED
system for the cost of renting comparable units.

------
l33tbro
Red is great, but it is still a crazy expensive high-end range of cameras. The
real game-changer, I'm hoping, will be Blackmagic. Their new mini 4.6 Ursa
camera could really change things for the low-to-medium budget.

[http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1137310-REG/blackmagic...](http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1137310-REG/blackmagic_design_cinecamursam46k_ef_ursa_mini_4_6k_digital.html)

~~~
superuser2
RED is neither crazy, expensive, nor high-end. It's a piece of professional
equipment, and pretty competitively priced as such, though on the low end of
quality and capability. Most big-name movies of the last few years that were
shot digitally were shot on Arri Alexa.

It's a different world out there. Doing film production well is an
unbelievably expensive game, and the camera rental is not even that
significant.

~~~
Keyframe
While true that Alexa gained traction, don't forget the nature of this
business. Every time a new shiny toy comes out, suddenly the older one "is
crap". Alexa has a nice tonal range, especially the skin. However, Red cameras
are very very much in use, both in Hollywood and outside (in fact I have
delivered one from post-production just yesterday for a Monday premiere on a
festival). Sony's F-65 seems to be the only one that didn't get much traction
so far.

What people outside don't understand is that camera is only a part of an
equation. That's why you see lots of amateurs buying their own Scarlet, Epic,
whatevers and thinking that's what they need to shoot a film. I'd rather have
a slightly worse camera and good lens than vice versa. Then there's grip,
light, people that know how to use all of that and have experience...

Regarding cameras, there's still a lot of space to improve on and if one could
either source good CMOS sensors or make their own - this could easily be a
space for a startup to thrive at.

edit: What ARRI did right, apart from tonal range (which isn't an issue with
Red and a good colorist) is that they have tons of experience how to do the
hardware right that plays well with grip.

~~~
dharma1
making your own CMOS sensors - sounds like a pretty money intensive plan for a
startup! Who would your market be?

Sony owns the market for mobile/dSLR sensors, RED make their own with
TowerJazz (and their R&D cost must have been monumental, hence the high
prices) and blackmagic uses CMOSIS sensors, which I'm sure is half the reason
they can price the cameras the way they do

edit: sensor in the BM Ursa Mini is based on this, not CMOSIS anymore -
[http://fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-
arrays/scmos...](http://fairchildimaging.com/catalog/focal-plane-
arrays/scmos/ltn4625a)

~~~
Keyframe
Same market as Red/ARRI at first. But I haven't thought about it since I think
it's a rather daunting task (CMOS).

Each has weaknesses. For example, Red's build quality isn't all that great and
their lack of awareness for what cameramen need on set is lacking. ARRI has a
price issue, as well as resolution and raw left to be desired. Especially
their AMIRA camera, which could be a first target for a startup - a good
documentary camera. Blackmagic is usually all talk - their software is abysmal
and hardware has a cheap taste to it. Sony lives in their own world (their
professional market division is a bit out of touch with reality).

In my opinion, there's a great space to be filled (at first, but there are
others) in documentary and/or ENG camera space. Making a good ENG camera
paired with a lightweight version of codex at a reasonable price would be a
killer combo. Two main (of many) issues are CMOS design and production and
either custom lens manufacturing or sourcing those.

I am not even sure where one would begin to implement their own CMOS.
Everything silicon production seems like alien, otherworldly, tech to me once
you start thinking of production. Design is on another area51 level as well.

~~~
l33tbro
How is BM abysmal? I understand that they are confidence men with release
dates and what not, but Resolve is the cornerstone of any pro colorist suite
in 2015.

~~~
Keyframe
Resolve is good, not great, good. Resolve was also not originally a BM
product. Resolve is pretty decent though, I use it at home sometimes because
it's free. There are better tools though, for example Baselight, Lustre (in
combo with Flame - this is what we use at and for work), and Pablo. But you
can't beat free in price dept. You can do most, if not all, in all four -
difference is mostly in speed of working with them.

Back to original issue. Resolve and Fusion are not originally BM code. Resolve
has got some issues since it got acquired (stability for one). BM cinema
camera overheats and is barely usable in a production environment, pocket
camera is a nice toy but lacks software features (for example - take a one
picture only). I used both and will not use them again. I will have a look at
URSA once it will be available in general. I was very interested in their
scanner as well, but I am starting to think it's vapourware at this point.

------
beagle3
At the much lower end (below BlackMagic), a Canon 5D mark III equipped with
Magic Lantern (by thudson of ThunderStrike / ThunderStrike 2 fame) is an
exceptional 35mm platform for cash-poor movie makers.

See [0] under "Why not just buy a video camera?", although IIRC the $25K price
for the RED is circa 2009, and it's much cheaper now.

[0]
[http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wi...](http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki)

------
etrautmann
This appears to be just an ad for Red cameras.

~~~
tajen
It's an ad, correct. There's more than one superlative per sentence in the
first two paragraphs, no mention of alternatives and a very frequent
repetition of the name, like TV does for advertising spots.

HN is all about presenting companies and product, so it's hard to draw the
line, but this article hasn't broadened my knowledge of the cinema industry.

~~~
mozumder
Ads are specifically paid statements.

This is an article.

There is no requirement in journalism to be critical, or even informative from
your perspective.

Did you know that some people have positive opinions on things?

Or, that, some other people didn't know about Red cameras?

------
Jupe
The price tag is probably way less than a single helicopter shot in some movie
budgets, so it seems like a steal to movie industry veterans who watch the
demo reel.

Every segment of their demo reel seems to have been filmed with a
drone/quadcopter. The fact that they can put a platform that powerful (REDs
can do full remote zoom/focus/aperature/ISO/etc.) is impressive.

~~~
ancientworldnow
Just a note here. RED can't do remote focus, iris, zoom (FIZ). You need a
remote follow focus with zoom and iris gears to do that, something like the
Preston FIZ. In fact, RED doesn't even make one of these.

You are correct that you can adjust ASA, shutter speed, etc with the REDmote
add on. Historically though, they are rather finicky pieces.

------
dharma1
love RED. We shoot aerials with RED Dragon -
[http://londonhelicam.co.uk](http://londonhelicam.co.uk)

The footage is like butter in terms of dynamic range. Just wish they made more
of an effort in terms of making it more affordable.

Blackmagic is another great innovative camera company, based in Australia.
Both them and RED have a very involved, hands on founder with a clear vision
of what cameras should be like and pushes for the future now - something that
gives them an edge over the Japanese camera corporations.

------
chetanahuja
From my limited experience with video production, if you want to make
something good, a decent camera is only the start. There are a whole bunch of
things that'll make your production look like crap if not done right. But if I
have to call out three, they would be

1) Tight pacing (script+editing)

2 ) On camera talent (whether shooting fiction or documentary)

3 ) sound capture (if doing sync sound at all)

Given a basic level of image quality, say that from a 5D mark II, the above
three factors will make or break your production. Not a more expensive camera.

------
bobcostas55
This hardware obsession when it comes to photographic equipment is so silly. A
skilled cinematographer can do magic with extremely limited equipment; a
mediocre one can't be saved by the most expensive camera in the world.

Just look at Shane Carruth's Upstream Color for example, shot on an $800
camera (a modded Panasonic GH2) yet it looks better than tons of movies shot
with equipment worth two orders of magnitude more.

~~~
Joeboy
If you're employing a cast and crew at sensible rates, plus the costs involved
in set building, lighting etc, skimping on the camera is just perverse.

Edit: Having said that, I'd have to agree that a lot of people buy expensive
cameras for no reason beyond having too much disposable income.

------
slr555
I attended NAB (National Association of Broadcasters trade show) in 2006. The
buzz about RED was incredible. They had a leadership team that included some
heavy hitters in innovation. Jannard not only had money by he was driving a
vision. Still, many of the engineers I spoke with at the conference were
skeptical that a new entrant could overcome the barriers presented by the
dominance of Sony, Ikegami, and to some extent JVC in the market.

Cameras are lot more than just the body which is the core of the system.
Lenses, camera control units (CCUs), monitoring, media all have to work
together. A producer/director/DP has to be convinced that the will save money
or have a better product with the new system.

Red forced everyone to raise their game. ARRI's Alexa comes to mind. I have to
applaud the RED team for shaking up a tough market to break into.

------
coldpie
After noticing the first image is horizontally mirrored, that the author
thinks the founder of a multimillion-dollar fashion accessory company works
out of a "garage," and an "it's/its" typo, I stopped reading. Someone needs an
editor, badly.

------
Joeboy
Interesting open source cinema camera:

[https://apertus.org/axiom-beta](https://apertus.org/axiom-beta)

Would be interesting to hear opinions from knowledgeable people.

~~~
ancientworldnow
I've been following this camera since everyone considered RED vaporware.
Development has been agnozingly slow and now that they're getting close there
are better options for less money. It's great if you want something open
source (which I can't applaud enough) but in terms of shaking things up it's
too little too late.

------
werber
The only reason I don't gag when I see people wearing Oakley sun glasses these
days.

------
jetm9
not a pro videographer. RED colors seems soft (under saturated). looks like
they give RAW for intensive post-processing instead of mostly usable film
output. on paper digital matches or exceeds film but real world output does
not say so. For example Wolf of Wall Street looks very cool (shot on film).

I think filmmakers which make real money off films use film or some esoteric
digital camera and for cost reduction (aerial shots very low-light shots wtc.)
use things like RED.

~~~
ancientworldnow
As a colorist the look is mostly a creative choice and can be made to match if
you want it too.

Also, much of wolf of wall street was digital Arri Alexa. Another example of
matching digital and Film seamlessly.

