Great images, depth-of-field control... okay, fine, but for Producers and UPMs and ADs that's not their issue. From a practical standpoint — production people want to know — what's it like to shoot with a Red camera? Is it like HD video?

So What Is It Like?

Shooting with the Red Digital Cinema Camera is like shooting 35mm film.

You will need an experienced 1st A.C. and probably a 2nd, maybe a loader. The support, crew and lighting requirements are pretty similar shooting with film.

But then, so are the results. And that's why you're here, isn't it?

The difference - and the savings - is in the cost of film stock, processing and printing: there isn't any. With 1000 feet of 35mm film going for well over $500 (and that being 11 minutes of shooting) that's a significant savings. Total stock and lab costs for even a low-budget 35mm movie can easily top $100,000 and we're not even talking about printing or post-production there.

Production with the Red can yield the same formats as HD video production (via rendering), but with superior image quality, depth-of-field control, and the ability to revisit the 'negative' since the Raw original is never touched in processing. As with non-destructive editing the original files are not altered in rendering or color correction, so can be used again to output to a different format as your needs change.

What About the D.I.T?

The Red doesn't require a dedicated DIT as you may be familiar with them, as there are no off-board controls. The D.P. and A.C. control the camera, just as with a 35mm package. It's easiest to think of the Red Raw image as a digital negative, where almost every factor except focus and frame-rate can be altered after the shoot, even (to a surprising degree) the exposure.

The Red does benefit from an experienced "image wrangler" (among the many colorful terms for the job so far) to deal with the files coming from the camera, secure backups of the valuable "footage", grade sample images, render dailies, etc. One alternative approach we offer is a combined gaffer/image tech role — we'd be happy to discuss the needs of your specific production. Call Nelson (303.506.2456) on that topic.

Could you do that with a P.A.? Well, some of it, yes. Maybe. ...but just how valuable is that footage you spent all morning shooting?

So Where Are The Savings?

Shooting 35 takes time and a support crew. So where are the savings?

4K production yields savings in several areas:

• Film Stock. There isn't any. Thirty-five millimeter film costs on the order of $700 for a thousand feet of flm - and that's just the raw stock.
• Processing and related lab costs. There aren't any. Yes, there can be rendering costs, depending upon the style of your production (talk to Nelson about it), but they pale in comparison to processing film.
• Knowing you've got the shot. I.e. peace of mind, without waiting for a lab report. One of the great advantages of video over film is simply knowing you've got the shot. Works that way with the Red, too: playback right at the camera with the option of on-set color grading as well.
• Digital backups right on the set. Try doing that with film.

While shooting with the Red is definitely not the cheapest way to make a movie, it is a less-expensive alternative to 35. The standard for comparison is 35mm film.

But Can I Do It Cheaper?

Yes, you can. There are a number of HD and HDV cameras that can be used more inexpensively (in fact Rich can help you there as well, with both HD and P2 cameras), but none of them yield the kind of results that the Red can.

Once again, shooting with the Red is like shooting 35 — with the same gorgeous results.