PDA

View Full Version : I, for one...



dillont
04-15-2008, 12:03 PM
Greetings fellow filmmakers,

I'm one of many of you; dreaming big dreams, and watching the dream approach closer to reality as technology continues to progress and grant me access to tools that were previously unavailable.

I am astonished for two reasons:
1. RED has introduced technology which enables many of us to join the ranks of the elite, a barrier which has been very difficult to break through. RED is in the process of demolishing that celluloid ceiling which has kept many of us from realizing our dreams of producing quality visuals which are on par with Hollywood.

2. The reaction of many about Scarlet has me baffled. While RED works to revolutionize and democratize the filmmaking process, people are complaining that it doesn't do this, that, or the other. Jim Jannard and RED are doing what they can do based on a business model that will sustain the business and enable them to keep going at it. They have their reasons for selecting price points and features to enable getting Scarlet to the hands of many.

While I for one am slightly disappointed that it won't give me 35mm DOF out of the box, I can rest assured that the camera will be able to hook up with any one of those quality 35mm DOF adapters and give it to me. Everything else that scarlet is, is simply phenomenal. I haven't done recent research regarding 3k resolution, 2/3" sensor size, but I'm thinking that the price point of 2/3" sensor cameras with fixed lenses well exceeds $10k, no?

So Jim Jannard and RED have introduced a camera which is mind blowing, and demolishes, for many, a barrier to producing quality visuals in filmmaking.

I, for one, am ecstatic, and I'm getting one. I'm not going to complain about RED's decision to develop and pursue a business model which enables them to continue demolishing those barriers for me into the future.

For those of you who are complaining, you don't own the RED company, nor do you know their business model. If you're unhappy about the Scarlet features and "limitations" (lol!), then go out and build a camera for yourself which will make you happy. It is my humble opinion that no one has the right to complain to a company which is in the process of democratizing the filmmaking process, and demolishing ceilings for many of us.

I am grateful for what I have, and for what will soon be coming my way.

Dillon N. Thomas

Gunleik Groven
04-15-2008, 12:06 PM
Anyone remember that 2/3" Varicam?

That was... what rez? And what FPS?

beckspace
04-15-2008, 01:42 PM
1. RED has introduced technology which enables many of us to join the ranks of the elite, a barrier which has been very difficult to break through. RED is in the process of demolishing that celluloid ceiling which has kept many of us from realizing our dreams of producing quality visuals which are on par with Hollywood.


Hello, is my first post here, and I want it to be a critical one.

The Red company is no Robin hood or Guy Fawkes in the art of stealing the Hollywood power and giving it to the common people. The barrier you refer never was in the gear you use, but in distribution contracts. Second, any technology ahead of its curve is, and always will be, out of reach for us indies. You can't compare Panavision Genesis, or Kodak sensors (in photo market) to what we can buy now.

I am romantic and idealist, but the other half of me is cynic and realistic. A Red shooting just can't change a thing in our chance to 'break' into the movies marketplace. as Howard Aiken said "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."

The Red stated from beginning that Red One was the definitive cam, now it isn't anymore. And you ll say, 'now I have to buy a Epic to be par with Hollywood quality'.

I think that the time when people created their own 35mm adapters for mini-DVs in a guerrilla style was closer to the zeitgeist than buying gear more expensive than a low budget shooting. Good actors are a great deal more important for the aspiring filmmaker than 4K raw; actors can save a picture, a Zeiss prime with 3k, 4k, 5k can't.

I preferred that Scarlet, or any RED cam, had more latitude than resolution, more sensibility in low light than resolution. But resolution is something easy to sell. As RAW. I think that natural low light images should be the sell point to us, not RAW resolution. It would open doors to shoot more practical light, to shoot in large places hard to fill with artificial light, to really shoot in guerrilla style. The Red doesn't let us do that; its camera sensibility makes us to go for the Spec style, where the quality of artificial lights is fundamental and very expensive for us, besides needing a great deal of expertise to look natural

Im still waiting for the miracle, until then I miss those old panasonics VHS-C with 0,3 lux sensibility.

here is the future (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32473/113/)
Hope that upgradeable sensors of the Scarlet and Epic one day let us use this technology

dillont
04-15-2008, 02:06 PM
I agree ... RED won't help us make better actors or better stories and scripts.

However, I stated that RED *is* giving us the opportunity to create visuals that are on par with Hollywood productions. Scarlet, w/ 180fps, 3K and assumably the same lattitude and versatility as the images being spit out of RED ONE, in my humble opinion, come damn close to what Hollywood pro's are getting from much higher end cameras. Mix in a little bit of DP / cinematography talent and a good story/script with good acting, and you have films that are visually on par with Hollywood productions.

Radoslav Karapetkov
04-15-2008, 02:38 PM
Hello, is my first post here, and I want it to be a critical one.

The Red company is no Robin hood or Guy Fawkes in the art of stealing the Hollywood power and giving it to the common people. The barrier you refer never was in the gear you use, but in distribution contracts. Second, any technology ahead of its curve is, and always will be, out of reach for us indies. You can't compare Panavision Genesis, or Kodak sensors (in photo market) to what we can buy now.

I am romantic and idealist, but the other half of me is cynic and realistic. A Red shooting just can't change a thing in our chance to 'break' into the movies marketplace. as Howard Aiken said "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."

The Red stated from beginning that Red One was the definitive cam, now it isn't anymore. And you ll say, 'now I have to buy a Epic to be par with Hollywood quality'.

I think that the time when people created their own 35mm adapters for mini-DVs in a guerrilla style was closer to the zeitgeist than buying gear more expensive than a low budget shooting. Good actors are a great deal more important for the aspiring filmmaker than 4K raw; actors can save a picture, a Zeiss prime with 3k, 4k, 5k can't.

I preferred that Scarlet, or any RED cam, had more latitude than resolution, more sensibility in low light than resolution. But resolution is something easy to sell. As RAW. I think that natural low light images should be the sell point to us, not RAW resolution. It would open doors to shoot more practical light, to shoot in large places hard to fill with artificial light, to really shoot in guerrilla style. The Red doesn't let us do that; its camera sensibility makes us to go for the Spec style, where the quality of artificial lights is fundamental and very expensive for us, besides needing a great deal of expertise to look natural

Im still waiting for the miracle, until then I miss those old panasonics VHS-C with 0,3 lux sensibility.

here is the future (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32473/113/)
Hope that upgradeable sensors of the Scarlet and Epic one day let us use this technology


It allows you to try and reach a certain level that was financially unreachable before, even for the greatest talent. From there on, it's only talent, no doubt. And of course, determination, hard work, a bit of luck... we all know the mantra.

I don't think EPIC would be so groundbreakingly superior to the RED One. It's just the next step in the process [and actually, I see it mainly as the answer for the pleas of high-$ pro-s - the so-desired RED Pro].

As I see it, RED One makes a certain technical level possible and attainable for a larger number of people - pro-s or not.

Resolution equal [or superior] to film, DR similar to film, workflow - much easier, available and CHEAPER than the film alternative. No workarounds [35mm adapters and such]. Etc., etc.

All of that didn't exist before RED1. Not really. And the regular viewer does care about the technical level [consciously or unconsciously]. They're used to high-profile Hollywood-crafted vision and recognize it.

The others might be cool but they instantly recognize them as "the others", i.e. struggling dreamers.

With the RED One, you might make them to not notice that you're from "the others".

Of course, you can make that also with a good HD camera + 35mm adapter [and a competent crew + decent lighting setup, etc.], but I see RED One as the first tool that really does that, with no compromises and no workarounds. It does exactly that.

It's the Voyager One of digital cinema, which really is an alternative to 35mm film.

That situation didn't exist before.

And it can't be bad.

My 2c.

Aiden Cornwell
04-15-2008, 03:29 PM
Hello, is my first post here, and I want it to be a critical one.

The Red company is no Robin hood or Guy Fawkes in the art of stealing the Hollywood power and giving it to the common people. The barrier you refer never was in the gear you use, but in distribution contracts. Second, any technology ahead of its curve is, and always will be, out of reach for us indies. You can't compare Panavision Genesis, or Kodak sensors (in photo market) to what we can buy now.

I am romantic and idealist, but the other half of me is cynic and realistic. A Red shooting just can't change a thing in our chance to 'break' into the movies marketplace. as Howard Aiken said "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."

The Red stated from beginning that Red One was the definitive cam, now it isn't anymore. And you ll say, 'now I have to buy a Epic to be par with Hollywood quality'.

I think that the time when people created their own 35mm adapters for mini-DVs in a guerrilla style was closer to the zeitgeist than buying gear more expensive than a low budget shooting. Good actors are a great deal more important for the aspiring filmmaker than 4K raw; actors can save a picture, a Zeiss prime with 3k, 4k, 5k can't.

I preferred that Scarlet, or any RED cam, had more latitude than resolution, more sensibility in low light than resolution. But resolution is something easy to sell. As RAW. I think that natural low light images should be the sell point to us, not RAW resolution. It would open doors to shoot more practical light, to shoot in large places hard to fill with artificial light, to really shoot in guerrilla style. The Red doesn't let us do that; its camera sensibility makes us to go for the Spec style, where the quality of artificial lights is fundamental and very expensive for us, besides needing a great deal of expertise to look natural

Im still waiting for the miracle, until then I miss those old panasonics VHS-C with 0,3 lux sensibility.

here is the future (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32473/113/)
Hope that upgradeable sensors of the Scarlet and Epic one day let us use this technology

Try doing green screen on blue or green screen with DV or HDV and then do it with Red and tell me which looks better.

Even the most basic movies use green and blue screen. This now makes it a better option for filmmakers.

Johan Pabon
04-15-2008, 04:03 PM
On certain points I agree with beckspace on others I absolutely don't. I think he's mixing things up. Making a great film is indeed not in the sensors or the resolution, nor is it in RAW or any other "minor" (forgive the term) technical issue.
Of course I would like better performance in some points.
As you said (free translation): making a great film is all about talent, technical skills, technical possibilities, telling a good story and the ability to understand people and the struggle you have with all these qualities.
Making a good film was never about perfect conditions! They simply didn't and don't exist. Like any other art: It was allways about how to overcome disadvantages and find the beauty in there!
At this time I don't consider myself an indie filmmaker, and I'm not considering to conquer Hollywood with the Red. If I would have had that talent I would have done it long before because there allways have been chances and there allways will be, also before the Red. But I do think others may have the opportunity with Red and should try without too much hesitation.
I will be satisfied when I can make films in the best possible way, and I will also be satisfied when I can make a living, making films that people care about. For me the Red is a step up the ladder.
I'm not interested in Scarlet (beautifull but doesn't serve my purpose) and I'm not interested in the Epic (too expensive for me now). So I'll start off with the Red One as planned, and I don't care if there is better Red Camera. As long as I can work with Red One and make great pictures.

I like term Nervous Nellies as Jim put it today. I used the term "henhouse" tonight because of all the speculations and people getting mixed up. It seems the henhouse hasn't fully calmed down....

Luis de la Cerda
04-15-2008, 04:23 PM
I agree ... RED won't help us make better actors or better stories and scripts.

However, I stated that RED *is* giving us the opportunity to create visuals that are on par with Hollywood productions. Scarlet, w/ 180fps, 3K and assumably the same lattitude and versatility as the images being spit out of RED ONE, in my humble opinion, come damn close to what Hollywood pro's are getting from much higher end cameras. Mix in a little bit of DP / cinematography talent and a good story/script with good acting, and you have films that are visually on par with Hollywood productions.

Yeah, and fender is giving us the opportunity to play like Jimmy Hendrix :)
I've seen people buy into expensive SLR/DSLR setups and they've become no Ansel Adams either. You can do great things with what's available now. It's been like that for quite some time, but these are the days of pro video gear marketing for the masses. Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about all these new tools coming out, who doesn't like new toys? But truth be told, the door's been open for a while now :) After all, 28 Days later was taped with a XL-1.

Luis de la Cerda
04-15-2008, 04:54 PM
Try doing green screen on blue or green screen with DV or HDV and then do it with Red and tell me which looks better.

Even the most basic movies use green and blue screen. This now makes it a better option for filmmakers.

HDV keys better than you think :)

dieseljunkie
04-15-2008, 05:08 PM
Amen.

The focus should be on latitude, workflow and options.

John Caballero
04-15-2008, 07:03 PM
Do not worry about distribution deals, contracts, blah, blah, blah... If you have a dream of filmmaking and Scarlet or any other camera comes along and gives you a chance to try, just do it. Do not even stop to acknowledge people that put even an ounce of doubt in you. Just think of Robert Rodriquez carrying a borrowed 16mm camera loaded with black and white film and a bunch of photofloods and pursuing his dream. Just watch him now write the script, do the cinematography, the DPing, the set design, the editing, the score and at the end of the day probably go home and cook dinner for his family.
People that say it can’t be done will never get it done. You have to go and try it now and see for yourself what happens. There is nothing worse than having a dream and not doing anything about it now and later in life nostalgically say: WHAT IF……

beckspace
04-17-2008, 04:48 PM
I wasn’t talking about talent, but about priorities. And of course, everyone has different priorities. If I were shooting with green screens in a controlled environment, the Red would indeed make sense. If I had a budget of $500k (for a short or doc) and a reasonable photographer, spending $50k in Red equipment would make sense (remembering that makes much more sense to rent it, to pay a Red operator and to use the rest of the money in a post production house)

I’m talking about money after all. The Red is a product and has a public target: the Indies, us. And my feelings are that they are missing what most of us really need. We need a camera that can create beautiful images and they are going for the resolution approach, always.

Is very difficult to work at RAW 4k, even RAW 2k, is hard to have reliable machines to work this amount of data, to store, to compose, to edit online, and for most of my uses (that does not include 35mm printing) is useless. Sure, in the near future all movie theaters will have digital projection, but this is not the present. Most festivals can’t afford 4k digital projections and we can't afford 35mm printings.

In the end, most of our work will be in 1080 resolution, bluray, hdtv, streaming, not only this, but post-production in RAW 1080p at any frame-rate is very affordable, reliable and there are countless solutions.

And Red gave us a 3k machine with a 2/3 ccd. I wanted a 1080p machine with a 35mm sensor size, with the possibility to use cheap Nikon and Canon zoom lens (that never gives full sharpness at 4k after all).

And so much resolution in such a tiny ccd will compromises light sensibility, meaning that the use of zoom lenses will be practically impossible to use in low light conditions.

What bugs me is that would be possible if Red wanted to. This holy grail of resolution is the same with still photography: Who really needs 12 megapixels? No consumer lens can deliver this image. Fuji had this excellent f-30 series, that could shot at 1600 asa with very little noise at 6 megapixels, but they abandoned it for the resolution holy grail flavor in the new generation series, we are back to 400 asa hell.

I thought that Scarlet would be a different approach from Red One, that it would go for the guerrilla style Indies. The ones, like me, who doesn’t care about hyper resolutions, but only cares about colors, natural look (high latitude), to use an entire universe of zoom-superwide-supertele-tilt lenses, the ability to shoot at night, the use of minimal artificial lights. In its place we have an enhanced HVX.



All of that didn't exist before RED1. Not really. And the regular viewer does care about the technical level [consciously or unconsciously]. They're used to high-profile Hollywood-crafted vision and recognize it.

The others might be cool but they instantly recognize them as "the others", i.e. struggling dreamers.

With the RED One, you might make them to not notice that you're from "the others".

Of course, you can make that also with a good HD camera + 35mm adapter [and a competent crew + decent lighting setup, etc.], but I see RED One as the first tool that really does that, with no compromises and no workarounds. It does exactly that.

It's the Voyager One of digital cinema, which really is an alternative to 35mm film.

That situation didn't exist before.

And it can't be bad.

My 2c.

I don't have any problem to be seen as a struggling dreamer because is what I am. I don't have any shame of it, nor shouldn't you. As filmmakers our aim should be the public, not the ones who can say technically if the imaging is above or below their standards (unless you want to be a photographer)

Hollywood only understands audience necessities, if they have a demand for you, they will buy you. For more you show excellency, without a public you don't have any value to them. To be with them you have to get the audience heart first, whatever the means you used for, even youtube crap quality or stereographic virtual reality

My fears for most indies is that they think they have to convince studio heads that they are ‘capable’. A lot of people are ‘capable’, a lot of people are able to shoot a feature (it isn’t by any other chance that A-listing actors are becoming directors). Only an audience can prove that you are unique, that your vision has resonance with them, and you must prove it. and that’s why we are struggling dreamers, it isn’t easy at any level


As you said (free translation): making a great film is all about talent, technical skills, technical possibilities, telling a good story and the ability to understand people and the struggle you have with all these qualities.
Making a good film was never about perfect conditions! They simply didn't and don't exist. Like any other art: It was allways about how to overcome disadvantages and find the beauty in there!
At this time I don't consider myself an indie filmmaker, and I'm not considering to conquer Hollywood with the Red. If I would have had that talent I would have done it long before because there allways have been chances and there allways will be, also before the Red. But I do think others may have the opportunity with Red and should try without too much hesitation.
I will be satisfied when I can make films in the best possible way, and I will also be satisfied when I can make a living, making films that people care about. For me the Red is a step up the ladder.
I'm not interested in Scarlet (beautifull but doesn't serve my purpose) and I'm not interested in the Epic (too expensive for me now). So I'll start off with the Red One as planned, and I don't care if there is better Red Camera. As long as I can work with Red One and make great pictures.

I like term Nervous Nellies as Jim put it today. I used the term "henhouse" tonight because of all the speculations and people getting mixed up. It seems the henhouse hasn't fully calmed down....

It must never calm down, because technology never stops (much the opposite, it grows exponentially) and new questions arise every week. People are in search of a definitive model, and surely as you putted it will never come. You are right about your translation but forgot the Money part.

You must have a bag full of money to make a movie. A friend of mine entered a breakdown in a shooting because of a scratch in someone's car, and all his money has gone with the shooting and gear, and the driver wanted $500 bucks for it. The indie's breakdown is always about the money issue, to have no money to reshoot, no money to rent more lights, no money for... well, it's a long list. And he wants to buy a Red now. He just didn't learn the lesson: money is more precious than gear. Gear you should rent, because technology never stops. It's moore's law.

But yet, there are some things in tech that are untouched by Moore's law, like beautiful images at any res. Think Leica. I would spend 5K on a cam that could deliver what I said above. Not on a cam that demands high technology that will be 1/2 cheaper in 18 months

You must have to stay with your money until the right moment, mostly because you never know when the Right moment will come. (I mean, the first day of shooting). If you spent 50k in gear and take two years to assemble a production, you'll lose a lot of useful money. Gear in the time of Robert Rodriguez was different, its price was established by the equipment mileage; this is not we have nowadays, the price of gear is established by the technological curve (and China), it is very different and there is no way to have your money back in some years


the door's been open for a while now :) After all, 28 Days later was taped with a XL-1.

The door is always open, Kubrick, Spielberg, Lynch, and many others started with sub-hollywood quality, specially Kubrick. 28 Days was shot with mini-dv but I don't consider it to be indie (come on, it was shot in a deserted London and the last scenes in 35mm). Indie means "I don't have a studio support" in the same way that cloverfield was shot partially with a HVX is not indie


Do not worry about distribution deals, contracts, blah, blah, blah... If you have a dream of filmmaking and Scarlet or any other camera comes along and gives you a chance to try, just do it. Do not even stop to acknowledge people that put even an ounce of doubt in you. Just think of Robert Rodriquez carrying a borrowed 16mm camera loaded with black and white film and a bunch of photofloods and pursuing his dream. Just watch him now write the script, do the cinematography, the DPing, the set design, the editing, the score and at the end of the day probably go home and cook dinner for his family.
People that say it can’t be done will never get it done. You have to go and try it now and see for yourself what happens. There is nothing worse than having a dream and not doing anything about it now and later in life nostalgically say: WHAT IF……

Yes, you must worry, not about distribution, but the blah, blah, blah. To me shooting is a horrifying experience and a formidable one. The more you know about your limitations, limitations of budget, of workflow... more doubts you'll inevitably have; and then you ask yourself if the Dream is a big wall of fire, and yes it is. Is impossible to not have doubts, and I dare to say that Doubts are the most precious thing in pre-production, because once the shooting starts there is no turn back, and everything that can happen, it will

dvazp
04-17-2008, 05:40 PM
Greetings fellow filmmakers,

I'm one of many of you; dreaming big dreams, and watching the dream approach closer to reality as technology continues to progress and grant me access to tools that were previously unavailable.

I am astonished for two reasons:
1. RED has introduced technology which enables many of us to join the ranks of the elite, a barrier which has been very difficult to break through. RED is in the process of demolishing that celluloid ceiling which has kept many of us from realizing our dreams of producing quality visuals which are on par with Hollywood.

2. The reaction of many about Scarlet has me baffled. While RED works to revolutionize and democratize the filmmaking process, people are complaining that it doesn't do this, that, or the other. Jim Jannard and RED are doing what they can do based on a business model that will sustain the business and enable them to keep going at it. They have their reasons for selecting price points and features to enable getting Scarlet to the hands of many.

While I for one am slightly disappointed that it won't give me 35mm DOF out of the box, I can rest assured that the camera will be able to hook up with any one of those quality 35mm DOF adapters and give it to me. Everything else that scarlet is, is simply phenomenal. I haven't done recent research regarding 3k resolution, 2/3" sensor size, but I'm thinking that the price point of 2/3" sensor cameras with fixed lenses well exceeds $10k, no?

So Jim Jannard and RED have introduced a camera which is mind blowing, and demolishes, for many, a barrier to producing quality visuals in filmmaking.

I, for one, am ecstatic, and I'm getting one. I'm not going to complain about RED's decision to develop and pursue a business model which enables them to continue demolishing those barriers for me into the future.

For those of you who are complaining, you don't own the RED company, nor do you know their business model. If you're unhappy about the Scarlet features and "limitations" (lol!), then go out and build a camera for yourself which will make you happy. It is my humble opinion that no one has the right to complain to a company which is in the process of democratizing the filmmaking process, and demolishing ceilings for many of us.

I am grateful for what I have, and for what will soon be coming my way.

Dillon N. Thomas

This is one of the nicest pro-Red mails so far: it's not aggressive or abusive of those who asked for extra features on the Scarlet, and it's well argued.

Thank you. I really appreciate it. :)

John Caballero
04-17-2008, 06:41 PM
When people feel that shooting, (digital video of course), is a horrifying experience, that’s when I really step up and recommend that they don’t do it because it is not worth it to harm yourself in the pursuit of anything. If the experience might cause you to end up in your local hospitals psychiatric ward: JUST SAY NO!
Shooting (digital video of course) is definitely not a simple task but with the new tools available it is infinitely easier than a few years ago. To shoot a professional piece requires team work, and there are many individuals willing to participate in a well put project. If you work together with others it should be a little easier.
I said before and I’ll say it again, if you realize you can’t make it as a filmmaker you can always become a baker. People need to eat their bread everyday.