Will that fabulous sensor in the Red camera make it to the consumer market some day?
well there was the Scarlet at one time, a prosumer camera from Red. Look it up, I've been out of that area for a while.
Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#12Will that fabulous sensor in the Red camera make it to the consumer market some day?
well there was the Scarlet at one time, a prosumer camera from Red. Look it up, I've been out of that area for a while.
Scarlet was originally supposed to be a 3K sensor for $3k. After a while, there were comments that $3k was no longer going to happen because of costs and feature set, and it got upped to about $5k.
A few weeks ago, the entry-level Scarlet with a 7x fixed lens was canned altogether. Red is instead focusing on providing a solid "professional" camera. Their Scarlets now use sensors that didn't make the performance cut for their top-of-the-line model, the Epic.
Scarlets now start at $9,750: http://www.red.com/store/scarlet
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#13Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D ? If Red has made 3D more common then I regret that part happening, extra especially if it changes the script or action just to appeal to the effects.
> If Red has made 3D more common then I regret that part happening
I don't think Red is to blame for this. At the end of the day, it's all about the money, so if we as consumers keep going to watch things in 3D (and pay even more money to do so), it's a no-brainer for the studios to keep making crap in 3D.
Given how many films are converted to 3D in post-production, it's hard for anyone to argue that it's about the aesthetic.
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#14Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D ? If Red has made 3D more common then I regret that part happening, extra especially if it changes the script or action just to appeal to the effects.
> Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D?
Because Peter Jackson wanted to film it in 3D.
From the point of view of filmmakers, stereoscopic 3D is something new to be explored, like color, or before that, sound, or before that, editing.
Avatar and Hugo are two solid examples of 3D done right. I hear that The Great Gatsby will be another great example, as well as The Hobbit, which will be the first major 3D studio release filmed at 48 fps (which makes the stereoscopic effect much easier to watch).
My own company, Fohr, among other things deals with some major issues affecting live-action 3D. (To date, the best 3D is being done by computer-generated animation films. This is because each element in the scene can have it's stereoscopic parameters adjusted independently. When live footage is captured, though, this is far more difficult to accomplish.)
Bottom line: filmmakers are embracing 3D because they like it, and because they want to help pioneer the storytelling devices that make for good 3D.
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always really liked 3D movies when it's well done. I thought it really made Avatar more amazing and it gave Alice in Wonderland an even more other worldly effect. Most animated movies turn out really well too. Of course, most movies aren't filmed with 3D in mind and it is crappily added in post. Those suck.
Actually Alice in Wonderland's 3D was done in post.
But was shot as a 3D movie apparently, Wikipedia:
'Sony Pictures Imageworks designed the visual effects sequences.[54] Burton felt 3D was appropriate to the story's environment.[11] Burton and Zanuck chose to film with conventional cameras, and convert the footage into 3D during post-production; Zanuck explained 3D cameras were too expensive and "clumsy" to use, and they felt that there was no difference between converted footage and those shot in the format.[55] James Cameron, who released his 3D film Avatar in December 2009, criticized the choice, stating, "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2-D and convert to 3-D".[56]'
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#16Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D ? If Red has made 3D more common then I regret that part happening, extra especially if it changes the script or action just to appeal to the effects.
The strangest thing about the whole 3D cinema trend is that it seems to have sprung out of some anti-piracy / anti-home-cinema idea among the studios. I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is just another reason to wait and watch the film at home. Why would I want to watch a blurry, dim version of the film through a pair of glasses on top of my regular glasses? I did watch Avatar in 3D, and I regret doing so. It'…
I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is just another reason to wait and watch the film at home.
why wait? i can't think of any 3D movies that have been released lately that didn't also come out in a regular version. there are a ton of theatres that don't have 3D projectors and a lot of people don't like it or don't want to pay the extra money to see it in 3D. i just recently saw hugo in standard projection at a theatre that had both versions playing.
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#17Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D ? If Red has made 3D more common then I regret that part happening, extra especially if it changes the script or action just to appeal to the effects.
> Why is the Hobbit being filmed in 3D? Because Peter Jackson wanted to film it in 3D. From the point of view of filmmakers, stereoscopic 3D is something new to be explored, like color, or before that, sound, or before that, editing. Avatar and Hugo are two solid examples of 3D done right. I hear that The Great Gatsby will be another great example, as well as The Hobbit, which will be the first major 3D studio releas…
Unfortunately, Avatar only had budget for a total of four dimensions. So they gave three to the visuals, and just one to the characters.
Holy hell was that an awful, awful film.
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
well there was the Scarlet at one time, a prosumer camera from Red. Look it up, I've been out of that area for a while.
Scarlet was originally supposed to be a 3K sensor for $3k. After a while, there were comments that $3k was no longer going to happen because of costs and feature set, and it got upped to about $5k. A few weeks ago, the entry-level Scarlet with a 7x fixed lens was canned altogether. Red is instead focusing on providing a solid "professional" camera. Their Scarlets now use sensors that didn't make the performance cut f…
Yeah - that was a pretty sorry tale of vapourware. I know a couple of indie guys who were super jazzed about the Scarlet, and delayed buying equipment because they were convinced it would come out.
It was hard to tell whether it was vapourware. They had defied expectations in actually producing a real camera in the Red One, but they also had marketing material advertising a sensor that was something like 17cm wide - which seems to me utterly unmanufacturable today.
An odd company.
[EDIT: atrocious grammar]
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can't figure out if Peter Jackson is genuinely excited about 3D or if he's in some kind of reality distortion field where 3D will save the art of cinema. I imagine he has no choice, that the studios stipulate he must use and promote 3D to get the funding. The studios want it, like you say, because they think it will encourage people to go to cinemas again. If you saw Scorsese promoting his new flick recently on th…
I saw Hugo in 3D and Martin Scorcese made it look _amazing_. I have never seen it look as good as he managed. I don't know how he comes across in interviews, but he is clearly a virtuoso with it in practice.
I came here to say basically the same thing. It can be used as a subtle effect to add a great deal to the depth of the setting. I feel like it's just another added dimension of cinematography.
Re: Red: The Camera That Changed Hollywood
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The strangest thing about the whole 3D cinema trend is that it seems to have sprung out of some anti-piracy / anti-home-cinema idea among the studios. I can't speak for everyone, but for me it is just another reason to wait and watch the film at home. Why would I want to watch a blurry, dim version of the film through a pair of glasses on top of my regular glasses? I did watch Avatar in 3D, and I regret doing so. It'…
I've always really liked 3D movies when it's well done. I thought it really made Avatar more amazing and it gave Alice in Wonderland an even more other worldly effect. Most animated movies turn out really well too. Of course, most movies aren't filmed with 3D in mind and it is crappily added in post. Those suck.
Agreed. Sometimes HN seems like a bunch of hipsters -- yes it can be done incorrectly, but by that token you shouldn't ever use color (and all movies should be silent).
3D is an enabling technology. It will not prevent bad films from being made, anymore than Ruby will prevent bad developers from creating a mess.