Why do people think guns make films more exciting? I've seen far better films shot on mini DV. Learn to write and direct and then try hiring an expensive camera. That way you won't waste as much money paracticing ;)
Nice work, i have to say, nice editing, good camera work...see it like this, whoever complains about it, is jealous of your work and wishes he/she could do better. good work**
@jogbird and karamelokaramelo- What is the benefit of being so negative to a filmmaker? If you can offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, I am sure Brian would appreciate it. I am still impressed with the content. I think that it is a fine piece and accomplished what they wanted to do.
its because a bunch of shitty film makers were able to afford a red one.. and now we have shitty film school-esk student films.. guns.. chase scenes..so on
No Im not liberal, a gun with a point makes sense. Lazy directors put a gun in just to make it look 'better' when in reality you can have a better story if you just take the time.
Oh, and randomly placing a gun in a film wouldn't be lazy directing, it would be lazy writing...or maybe the scene just called for a gun. Who knows...I didn't finish watching this boring video.
The final image is defined by the lens, lighting, depth of field, resolution and post. Film or RED digital are both capable of delivering stunning results. Add a great script and fine actors and you have a winner. End of.
Now this is something any true movie-maker can agree on. Without the substance and a story people want to hear, the best Red or film production is a waste.
well, story is the most important thing in a movie no matter how it looks overall. I have seen low budget movies with higher production values than million dollar films...
Not quite true. There is no real FOCAL point to a movie, every area is needed, whats the point of a good story if the actors can't act it out? Whats the point of good acting if the camera crew can't shoot it professionally. Whats the point of a good camera crew if they are under bad direction... Etc..Etc..
first off some really nice shots. B nice to see then in RAW rather than even HD because generally REDRAW is UHD.
It does make me laugh when people look at the RED and say yeah but film is still better. My ASS. And for a little bit of information DOF is all about the LENS people. The RED has a PL mount meaning it hold 35mm Lens. By the by 4K. That is 4096 x 2304 now compare that to the F900 they shot star wars with at 1920 x 1080 pixels. they scan film at 2K. dont diss RED!
Film Forever!. To hell with DOF, film has grain and a look I've yet to see reproduced on a video camera.
And any body who has played around with any camera with an adjustable lens knows that thats what's responsible for DOF. I think they're still manufacturing a lens for mini DV cameras thats supposed to mimic 35mm look and DOF (i.e. mini35)
No, No, No. Whats Laughable is you belief in your own understanding. 90% of real filmmakers would rather shoot on good ole' fashioned celluloid. The selling point of RED is how functional it is and how fast you can work and how cheap it is yada yada. If you only pay attention to how a film looks and less on the story you either have an experimental piece or some shitty hollywood Blockbuster.
There is a big difference between video and digital cinema...
Firstly I am tired of people attempting to recreate the 'film look' on video. I hate the obsession people have with DOF. It is a tool with which assist in the selling of a story.
It is hypocritical to go on about grain and the look of film and then presumptuously accuse me of only paying attention to the look.
Firstly, I never accused you of only paying attention to look.
And yes I'm tired of everyone trying to achieve a film look with video. You want it to look like film, then shoot on film, (and as aforementioned DOF can be achieved on video, it's in the lens.)
And the reason I mentioned grain is because film grain only happens on film and so when I see it in the cinema it reminds that this is film.
Call me nostalgic or stubborn but film is film and video or digital cinema does not compare.
I guess it depends on how much you are willing on spending. RED is pretty cheap for the picture quality it gives compared to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 35mm.
It never ceases to amaze me what people are willing to believe. I read a similar argument in American Cinematographer. I felt like I was reading the whole thing all over again.
Hello... anyone heard of Red One?????? Ummm can we say 4k???? 5K???? This is not 2k film. This is 4k digital. Yes there is a difference. They are not in the same league. Why would I want to pay my money at the theater to watch degraded film, scratches, grain and burns? I prefer quality over nostalgian and propaganda.
It still doesn't match the quality of film. Another reason I'd prefer film is that it takes longer to shoot a movie with it (as far as set up's are concerned.) and thus forces the filmmaker to put more time into the film where as with video you shoot quicker and the quality reflects this. (a la Robert Rodriguez)
It's film quality. It's not as good as the BEST film, but I've seen plenty of films which look worse. It's the first cam, imo, that looks better than *most* film. I just can't believe it. Watch e.g. Donnie Darko. This is better quality than the Panavision camera they used on Donnie Darko imo... I mean I think. It's close.
Doesn't look much different than HD at all once you get it on youtube and compress it. Until compression on the internet problems are resolved the true quality of this camera will not be apparent.
Said it before...I'll say it again...Love your work. You make ANY camera produce quality images. I truely believe it is your talent that is showcased here & not the Red Camera. What is that 4,000p? It is beautiful, but the credit goes to you B.
it has a much larger image processor making the depth of field much more shallow and filmlike. the color is also a little better (a lot better if its not on youtube) and you have more flexibility with fps than with the hvx.
Actually what matters is the quality of the movie. It looks like a real film! The lens DOF and the way the RED ONE captures the footage! That's what I care about when I see these videos... not necessarily the resolution.
Looks good and all... although I never really thought that it would happen... I mean... somebody buying a 4k-cam (4k standing for the noumber of pixels horisontally, I might add... 1080p has 1920;)) for 10 000 dollares, and then output the tests to youtube... Just makes me snicker... Nothing personal... I just thought it was funny in someway.
As I said at first... looks really neat... I want one too:P
Why do people think guns make films more exciting? I've seen far better films shot on mini DV. Learn to write and direct and then try hiring an expensive camera. That way you won't waste as much money paracticing ;)
iwasapea90 11 months ago
@jogbird. Your a fuckin idiot who obviously knows nothing about
film. Youtube downgrades th equality of all video posted to
well below 1080p. That is why his video turned out the way it did on here.
ANd the constant cuts were needed to convey the message.
Its the transitional point in a film wheres she's thinking and you
can see her throughts whether they happened or they might.
KodieBlue 1 year ago
looks like its ripped from an unrealesed movie, just awesome!
tehneighborhood 1 year ago
cause
brianhammster 1 year ago
@onjoFilms Nevermind, I see it is 2 years ago, before HDYouTube.
onjoFilms 1 year ago
Nice work, i have to say, nice editing, good camera work...see it like this, whoever complains about it, is jealous of your work and wishes he/she could do better. good work**
StefanieCoimbra 1 year ago
Nice, I like it.
JamesPineStudios 2 years ago
@jogbird and karamelokaramelo- What is the benefit of being so negative to a filmmaker? If you can offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, I am sure Brian would appreciate it. I am still impressed with the content. I think that it is a fine piece and accomplished what they wanted to do.
cowtownfilmpro 2 years ago
i like it
tydra74 2 years ago
wtf is this garbage? oits like the diurector has adhd.. how many cuts/transitions can you make a second?
JogBird 2 years ago
Im so sorry it wasnt what you like. I apologize. I mean its my fault. I mean, what can i do to make you happy.
brianhammster 2 years ago 6
Still looks awesome B. Have u seen the UNBROKEN trailer yet? We shot with RED too. Swing by Cowtownfilmpro's channel for a look-see. :)
cowtownfilmpro 2 years ago
My goodness, so many RED camera footage films have SO many guns...
Boom this
shoot that
It would honestly be nice to see a REAL film.
RET80 3 years ago
hahahaha thats a great observation actually. i am so sick of seeing god damn guns in short films period.
pfranks44 3 years ago
seconded, where has the lost art of scriptwriting gone?
Writing a story not based on explosions, guns and money, something just beautiful to watch. If anyone has such a film, please forward me the link.
kixio 2 years ago
I agree. NOt everybody likes everything. I hated the movie the Black Knight, but I really digged one flew over the cookoo'st nest.
KarameloKaramelo 2 years ago
its because a bunch of shitty film makers were able to afford a red one.. and now we have shitty film school-esk student films.. guns.. chase scenes..so on
thebluecadet 2 years ago
The literally made no sense. Guns are in real films you crazy liberal.
bobseyeview21 2 years ago
No Im not liberal, a gun with a point makes sense. Lazy directors put a gun in just to make it look 'better' when in reality you can have a better story if you just take the time.
Get your facts straight and spelling too.
RET80 2 years ago
A typo is a typical online mistake. Being an ass hole is something you can never erase.
bobseyeview21 2 years ago
Oh, and randomly placing a gun in a film wouldn't be lazy directing, it would be lazy writing...or maybe the scene just called for a gun. Who knows...I didn't finish watching this boring video.
bobseyeview21 2 years ago
wooooooow
videocamdesign 3 years ago
What is this?
botcpro 3 years ago
The final image is defined by the lens, lighting, depth of field, resolution and post. Film or RED digital are both capable of delivering stunning results. Add a great script and fine actors and you have a winner. End of.
thetiktokman 3 years ago
Now this is something any true movie-maker can agree on. Without the substance and a story people want to hear, the best Red or film production is a waste.
singeon1 3 years ago
well, story is the most important thing in a movie no matter how it looks overall. I have seen low budget movies with higher production values than million dollar films...
sidney765 3 years ago
Not quite true. There is no real FOCAL point to a movie, every area is needed, whats the point of a good story if the actors can't act it out? Whats the point of good acting if the camera crew can't shoot it professionally. Whats the point of a good camera crew if they are under bad direction... Etc..Etc..
There are tons of factors; not just one.
HawkStud1os 2 years ago
quote by Writer/Director Steven Soderbourgh, "Hello, film? I've met someone else."
brandonboll 3 years ago
Good, and good point.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
people please!
first off some really nice shots. B nice to see then in RAW rather than even HD because generally REDRAW is UHD.
It does make me laugh when people look at the RED and say yeah but film is still better. My ASS. And for a little bit of information DOF is all about the LENS people. The RED has a PL mount meaning it hold 35mm Lens. By the by 4K. That is 4096 x 2304 now compare that to the F900 they shot star wars with at 1920 x 1080 pixels. they scan film at 2K. dont diss RED!
culturebloc 3 years ago
THANK YOU!
GordonPictures 3 years ago
Film Forever!. To hell with DOF, film has grain and a look I've yet to see reproduced on a video camera.
And any body who has played around with any camera with an adjustable lens knows that thats what's responsible for DOF. I think they're still manufacturing a lens for mini DV cameras thats supposed to mimic 35mm look and DOF (i.e. mini35)
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
That is the first time i've ever heard a positive comment about grain.
klpeekl2000 3 years ago
I'm an odd one, I'll admit it. But never in m life has someone tried to tell me video is better than film. Yes its cheaper, and it shows.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
The fact that you refer to RED as video shows your lack of understanding.
The only positive to film is its Dynamic Range the negatives far far outweigh the positives.
Please do not even try to put MiniDV in the same boat as RED...that is completely laughable.
culturebloc 3 years ago
No, No, No. Whats Laughable is you belief in your own understanding. 90% of real filmmakers would rather shoot on good ole' fashioned celluloid. The selling point of RED is how functional it is and how fast you can work and how cheap it is yada yada. If you only pay attention to how a film looks and less on the story you either have an experimental piece or some shitty hollywood Blockbuster.
Yes RED is good but I'll stick to film.
Oh, and RED's still video.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
There is a big difference between video and digital cinema...
Firstly I am tired of people attempting to recreate the 'film look' on video. I hate the obsession people have with DOF. It is a tool with which assist in the selling of a story.
It is hypocritical to go on about grain and the look of film and then presumptuously accuse me of only paying attention to the look.
culturebloc 3 years ago
Firstly, I never accused you of only paying attention to look.
And yes I'm tired of everyone trying to achieve a film look with video. You want it to look like film, then shoot on film, (and as aforementioned DOF can be achieved on video, it's in the lens.)
And the reason I mentioned grain is because film grain only happens on film and so when I see it in the cinema it reminds that this is film.
Call me nostalgic or stubborn but film is film and video or digital cinema does not compare.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
Please add your Red One Footage to:
RedOneFilms(dot)com
BlareMedia 3 years ago
Damn people with their red cameras. I want one so bad!
japhyriddle 3 years ago
yeah what do you recon is better 35mm or RED
TeeSav 3 years ago
35mm. We're still pretty damn far off from achieviving a video sytem that can match the eleagance and feel--So important-- of film.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
I guess it depends on how much you are willing on spending. RED is pretty cheap for the picture quality it gives compared to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 35mm.
klpeekl2000 3 years ago
Yes, but it still doesn't have the look and feel of film. I'm a FILM enthusiast and I think its sad that it's on its way out.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
Welcome to Progress :)
klpeekl2000 3 years ago
Yes we are progressing, we're progressively getting worse.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
It never ceases to amaze me what people are willing to believe. I read a similar argument in American Cinematographer. I felt like I was reading the whole thing all over again.
Hello... anyone heard of Red One?????? Ummm can we say 4k???? 5K???? This is not 2k film. This is 4k digital. Yes there is a difference. They are not in the same league. Why would I want to pay my money at the theater to watch degraded film, scratches, grain and burns? I prefer quality over nostalgian and propaganda.
singeon1 3 years ago
It still doesn't match the quality of film. Another reason I'd prefer film is that it takes longer to shoot a movie with it (as far as set up's are concerned.) and thus forces the filmmaker to put more time into the film where as with video you shoot quicker and the quality reflects this. (a la Robert Rodriguez)
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
It's film quality. It's not as good as the BEST film, but I've seen plenty of films which look worse. It's the first cam, imo, that looks better than *most* film. I just can't believe it. Watch e.g. Donnie Darko. This is better quality than the Panavision camera they used on Donnie Darko imo... I mean I think. It's close.
TheRealBladeRunner 3 years ago
If I was trying to make an indi film, I'd probably try to get a hold of one of these. But Given the option between film and video, i'd shoot on film.
SavageHenry78 3 years ago
Doesn't look much different than HD at all once you get it on youtube and compress it. Until compression on the internet problems are resolved the true quality of this camera will not be apparent.
cagwa 3 years ago
yeah that is true but it does have a greater depth of feild and color range at least we can experience that :D
TeeSav 3 years ago
Less depth of field actually, which is greater for us.
japhyriddle 3 years ago
ahh Touche when i posted that i barely knew what Depth of Feild was lol
TeeSav 3 years ago
It looked as though some of the extreme hot spots came out black.
greatwareagle 4 years ago
Is this due to a specific setting in the RED camera, or is it unavoidable?
greatwareagle 4 years ago
Can anyone address this?
greatwareagle 3 years ago
its the issue with youtube...i've just watched the HD version and it looks SO much better...
the camera's perfect in fact as far as i can tell watching many of the video's made by it. Though thats my opinion i guess...
blad3z 3 years ago
Is the HD version available online?
greatwareagle 3 years ago
right at 1:48 - that is an amazing shot. love the camera, love your work
pfranks44 4 years ago
Said it before...I'll say it again...Love your work. You make ANY camera produce quality images. I truely believe it is your talent that is showcased here & not the Red Camera. What is that 4,000p? It is beautiful, but the credit goes to you B.
thechristinamarie 4 years ago
what kind of movie software did you use for cutting?
DepartmentUser 4 years ago
FCP
brianhammster 4 years ago
i love the word cutting.
patto2k 3 years ago
so what exactly different do you notice between a camera like this and say... an HVX200 when it' final render is done in 1080?
The youtube codec doesn't help?
fourthwall1 4 years ago
it has a much larger image processor making the depth of field much more shallow and filmlike. the color is also a little better (a lot better if its not on youtube) and you have more flexibility with fps than with the hvx.
pfranks44 4 years ago
Are you kidding me. go to Red(dot)com and browse HD videos, PLEASE!
WhiteWoodEnt 4 years ago
Really really good! How much did you pay for that Kamera? I mean, how much di you pay for rent?
DepartmentUser 4 years ago
i was in partnership with Silverado Systems in Folsom CA.
brianhammster 4 years ago
Awesome test! Great work. Its really amazing how this looks too.
ketils 4 years ago
can you tell us what codec you used to upload to youtube?
doubledoppelganger 4 years ago
I went from Pro RES to H264 and then uploaded to You Tube.
brianhammster 4 years ago
it looks pretty good...not amazing but good.
g3nov3s3 4 years ago
IT LOOKS AMAZING, I'M FUCKING SOLD
rabell06 4 years ago
Actually what matters is the quality of the movie. It looks like a real film! The lens DOF and the way the RED ONE captures the footage! That's what I care about when I see these videos... not necessarily the resolution.
PhilKickDea 4 years ago
Looks good and all... although I never really thought that it would happen... I mean... somebody buying a 4k-cam (4k standing for the noumber of pixels horisontally, I might add... 1080p has 1920;)) for 10 000 dollares, and then output the tests to youtube... Just makes me snicker... Nothing personal... I just thought it was funny in someway.
As I said at first... looks really neat... I want one too:P
jmalmsten 4 years ago
Wow that looked great, Sara looks fabulous in film.
7838tru 4 years ago
it's not film lol.
blinkdude182 4 years ago
Looks awesome.
Mariachi94 4 years ago
I love it!:)
SaraJMarlow 4 years ago
rocks, man! I want that camera... :( ah, well you enjoy it!
PhilKickDea 4 years ago
wow awesome!!!
mikehedge 4 years ago
Can we get some 2k stills or some video? Great work, I'm really impressed. Excellent "test." ;)
FatBird19 4 years ago
Ya we're working on it now.
brianhammster 4 years ago