RED Camera

Hello again,

Been a while since I wrote so thought I'd check in. I've decided not to go into too much detail with regards to what happened on the shoot until I've at least got a good rough cut of the film done. This is so I'll have a chance to go over ALL the footage so I can better jog my memory and try to figure out what happened between my initial plans for shots etc and how things actually turned out while filming. I expect this will be quite a useful thing for me to do as a learning experience and perhaps it will be interesting for anyone planning to direct themselves. 

In the meantime I've decided to write about things that seem to be a point of interest to people about the film as they are the questions I get asked most frequently.

My first blog along these lines is about the new RED camera that a lot of people seem very interested in. I'm afraid if you want to know things like: what's the difference between the Luma Histogram and the Mono Histogram? etc these kinds of questions will not be answered here. This is just a general outline for people who want to know what its like to shoot on RED not having done so before which is the position I found myself in.

Enjoy!

For those who don't know the RED camera is a (fairly) new digital camera that has created a lot of buzz in the film industry. I won't go into too much technical detail but it has around 4 times the resolution of most other digital cameras and so its resolution is equivalent to that of film.

I used it for my film and was fortunate that Henry Chung my DP already has a great deal of experience with this camera. I used it because I figured I would have to spend a lot of money on the film anyway so why not go for the best format possible? The RED camera wasn't my first choice when I initially had the idea for the project but more on that in a later blog.

There is a lot of talk about cameras like the RED replacing film in the next few years. Having worked with the RED I find this quite likely. The camera records the footage onto a hard drive or cards depending on your preference so there is no processing costs like there are with film. The quality of the image you get from RED is generally on a par with film. You can shoot slow motion on the camera ( you lose resolution but can shoot up to 120fps) which was previously a sticking point with Hi-definition formats and if you go to their website you can see they are planning on releasing even better cameras in the next few years. Couple this with the fact that most of the viewing public (often myself included) can't tell the difference between the two formats and indeed rightly don't care as long as the film itself is good and you can see why the RED or another digital format a very attractive proposition for both artists and especially the money men involved in productions.

I personally still prefer the 'look' of film. I should maybe clarify and say I think that film, if exposed and framed properly, still yields a better look than the RED or any other digital format can offer at the moment. I would have shot this film on 35mm but it would have been impossible to afford the lab and transfer costs. The RED camera gives a very 'clean' image which can take away the mystique of the film somewhat. My favourite looking films, John Woo's The Killer for instance, has a dreamy otherworldly quality to the point that you find it hard to imagine that they filmed it at all, it just magically appeared on the negative! This is merely a personal preference and I can say that the footage we shot outdoors and in one interior location in particular the footage looks practically indistinguishable from what we could have achieved with film. There is one scene in the film where I am a little disappointed with the results and it has quite a 'video' look. Its unfair of me to criticise it too much as the footage is ungraded at the moment and this may solve the issue. I will blog later and let you know if it does/doesn't.

The camera is good for artists as it gives the aforementioned great results combined with the speed of shooting on a digital format as opposed to film. I have only worked with film on student sets which naturally tend to be slow anyway but I can say that I cannot imagine us finishing the film on schedule and with good results if we had shot on film. The RED is very light and agile (it was still to heavy for me to operate for more than 4 takes but Henry seems used to it) and obviously there is no need to change magazines. The biggest flaw I could see with it was that the battery gives out with only a 30 second warning. This cost us a take one time and did hold us up once or twice. Since I can't remember details of any of the other times it can't have held us up too much. Be aware though that it does take a while to warm up after you re-insert the battery.

With regards to post-production I heard a lot of stories. One professional DP even told me I would need a technician to transfer the footage onto my laptop! If you go to RED's website and follow the link to reduser.net you will find lots of people with varying opinions on post production. I am not a technically gifted person so I will explain it as best I can. Be aware I am only detailing MY post production experience which is still ongoing (halfway through a rough cut since you ask) so I will not detail each and every way to do it.
First off, transferring the footage to my laptop (Macbook pro, 4G memory, 2.6 Ghz processor, 7200rpm). After my expectations of needing a tecnician to help Henry took the hard drive off the camera plugged it into my laptop (firewire 800 lead) and transferred it like it was a normal external hard drive. Thats it, it is that simple.
With regards to editing there are a number of ways to do this. You need to download programs from RED (they're free) to make the footage compatible with Final Cut Pro (as I understand you can now edit using Adobe as well). Having done this I decided to edit by transcoding to pro res 422 HQ. To the layperson (me) this basically means I am editing using very high quality files. Personally I have found this to be no more time consuming than editing using smaller files like I did for the trailer. The transcoding can be done by Final Cut itself and is quite easy to do as the plug in program needed to do it comes with an easy to follow guide (again all these plug-ins/programs are available free at the RED cam website).

I'm afraid I can't go into outputting yet bacause I haven't gotten that far! I will blog about it as soon as I do, but at the moment I can only speculate.

In general I am very very pleased with the quality of the RED camera. It was far from the technical nightmare many people promised. Personally I think if someone warns you off the RED it is because thay don't know much about it. It is a very new concept in many ways even in relation to other digital cameras and I think there is even an element of fear in some peoples attitudes. All I can say is get yourself a good DP and listen to their advice. Henry knew about the RED cameras capabilities, if I had a question he would answer it and the production while no walk in the park, was as free from technical problems as any I've been on.

If you have any specific questions about the RED feel free to leave a question in my guestbook and I will try to answer (please keep in mind my previously mentioned lack of technical expertise). I am still editing, so it may take a while to get back so please be patient.

Besides that, the edits coming along nicely and to anyone of a skeptical mindset out there I recently became aware of an awesome new website www.skeptoid.com Its basically a podcast by a guy who takes pop cultural myths, researches them with a critical eye and then draws conclusions from that. His subjects are genuinely interesting and he always presents them in an entertaining manner.

All the best,
Seamus