Thoughts after seeing CHE

[Matt Uhry]

Just saw CHE in Cannes today at the Salle du Soixantieme, I'm going to attempt to sum up what I saw as far as the cinematography and image quality are concerned. I'm probably forgetting some things but I'd be happy to answer specific questions. I'm not going to go into the movie in detail... There are plenty of reviews already floating around.

I am a self confesed Red Uber-Fanboy, co-owner in camera #513, I tell most of the industry people that I meet how much I like shooting with the Red. I also have a feature film at Cannes in Official Selection this year ( I was the DP, shot anamorphic 35mm ). You can see a little of my work at www.mattuhry.com

OK. I hope everyone takes this in the right way. Perhaps it will partly explain what the poster known as film101 seems to be saying.


1st Part: The Argentine 2.35, shot mostly with anamorphic lenses.

I think that this was shot after the 2nd part, and it looked like SS was in much better control of the image and had a better idea of how to expose. The image looks great on the big screen, about like a clean 35mm print as far as noise and resolution. Impressive since with 2:1 and 'Scope lenses he's using a small part of the chip. Much of the film takes place in the Jungled mountains of Cuba and when the Fighters are in the shade and there is a patch of sun or sky in the background it looks very clipped at time, as also some flames and explosions ( during the daytime ) and tail lights of cars look clipped and a bit bad. In some places there motion looks slightly weird on pans, but I did not see much flagging, just kind of synthetic looking. In controlled situations, or at times that the light or lighting is working for SS and not against him it looks amazing. All in all pretty sucessful. A friend sitting next to me who works in audio post said "That was digital ?"


Part 2: Guerilla 1.85, spherical lenses

Perhaps this is what you would end up with if shot using a light meter, ignoring scopes. Exposing the video just like you would color negative and favoring overexposure quite a bit. In this section of the film there are many shots with offensively hard clipped highlights, I'm not nit picking, heavy clipping, over large areas, sky, ground, peoples faces. In a non sequitur cameo with Matt Damon he's wearing a bright white shirt and it's just a blob on the screen. I can't put any of this clipping down to filmmaker intention - it just looks like an unfortunate mistake. There were some scenes shot at golden hour and also interiors which looked magnificent.

There is markedly more resolution and almost unnoticeable noise in this part of the film. ( versus "the Argentine") At many times it seemed there was far too much depth of field and when the fighters are in the forest all the leaves are tack sharp even in the deep background and it's kind of distracting and looks bad HD shooting. A few places where SS takes a different approach look very good, like when the fighters go to a mountain village.

Summary:

I know I can get good results from my camera in similar situations, but it can take a bit of lighting to build up the foreground, which SS did not seem to be using much of at least in the day / forest scenes. There are well known and commonly practiced photographic solutions to most of what I found broken with how the film was shot. More dynamic range and a global shutter seem to be the elusive last pieces of the puzzle that hopefuly build 16 or Epic will adress. I'm sad to say, the "Guerilla" part of the film, being the first high profile project to be shot on the Red serves better to illustrate some of the pitfalls of shooting with the camera, rather than decisively putting it on a par with 35mm.



Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Simon Valderrama]

Well, this seems reasonable.
Sure SS has been very brave to decide to shot such a feature with a prototype camera he never used before. Quite a hero.
Just hope he'll continue on the RED path and improve again and again! :)

[10s]

So what do you think the story is behind this?

I understand he (SS) shot with a small crew, guerilla style. So would you suppose the raw, rough images are an artistic reflection of the "Che" rebel/military atmoshpere?

I know Speilberg wanted the old std. military photographic services "film reel" look in parts of Saving Private Ryan. Maybe there is similair thinking here, or it's just some bad photography here & there.

[David Wilson]

Many thanks for these thoughts Matt. It seems important for the board to have your fair, balanced and thoughtful observations. Thanks again.

[Poi Boy]

Very surprised to hear about the clipping...was it a creative choice ? I can't imagine that SS and crew wouldn't know how to avoid this.
Aloha
-A

[Scott Brown]

At NAB I was stunned by the footage screened by Red that was shot by a wide range of camera owners/users, however the SS footage that was shown last did absolutely nothing for me at all. It looked soft and exposure looked off in places.

Scott

[Alexis Hanawalt]

Thanks for posting, Matt. I think you share the observation that many of us have of the camera's actual abilities, but because you are describing the quality of the Che films not much differently than film101's comments, It leads me to assume that some circumstance between the acquisition and projection of the Che films was not as optimal as it should have been.

I'm guessing a.) poor projection, b.) poor digital workflow, c.) the Red prototypes he used lacking image in latitude, or d.) Soderbergh just deciding to go ahead and let it clip.

As for the last possibility, many people have written that it's impossible to believe he WANTED a look like what he got - but if memory serves, he did INTENTIONALLY shoot and process Full Frontal to look like the color range in a sh*ty color Xerox, making it possibly the ugliest XL-1 footage ever shot (I say this even with due respect as he's my favorite director and I enjoyed Full Frontal.)

So, who knows. There's a whole chunk of Once Upon A Time in Mexico where Rodriquez clearly bumped a switch and started rolling 29.97. Maybe directors shouldn't shoot their own stuff after all... :umm:

[Finner]

I hear your film is doing very well at Cannes Matt, so a big congrats out to you.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

thank you matt....
and all this with such an early build...which build did SS used on his 3rd red film?

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Thank you for not bashing the look, but rather offering an educated review.

[Matt Uhry]

T

I'm guessing a.) poor projection, b.) poor digital workflow, c.) the Red prototypes he used lacking image in latitude, or d.) Soderbergh just deciding to go ahead and let it clip.

Maybe directors shouldn't shoot their own stuff after all... :umm:

I would rule out a.) because the projection here is universally very good. b.) because when it looked good it looked really good, also work was done at Technicolor in London and they are pretty skilled over there.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Nick Wolf]

YES YES YES ITS A F_KING CREATIVE CHOICE!


SS is beyond doing things by the book and painting by numbers. This is a time where there are no excuses for Cinema to not be as bold as music and literature and must reinvent itself as the whole industry and world and technology evolve at break neck speed. He is a Genius...The film is in Spanish that should be the first indication of he is going to toss the rule book out the window altogether.

I am sure the next film will be a 180 stylistic vision not better not worse because thats thinking in black and white terms. He is just matching his approach to the content at hand. Isnt the aspect ratio and lenses shifts within the same experence a clue???

Where is the sensibility when decerning a choice? Ask yourself what is the subject, what is the best treatment? what is he trying to say?

He is not sitting around looking at his own reflection and simply trying to make a pretty picture in this instance he is telling a story that needs to be suited another way.

You guys are so fixated on nonsensical banalities sometimes.

WE all know what the camera can do. He chose to tell this story this way. There is absolutely no reason for alarm or doubt.

The guy if anyone in Hollywood knows exactly what he is doing and why...He is as shrewd as they come.

DogDay


P.S.

Break a leg Matt with your entry!




_

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I'd say it's shooting conditions and choice. My opinion is that RED is like shooting reversal, so when shooting in such harsh conditions as it must have been, you need time to light.... and that's something I think was left behind.

I haven't seen it, but can only guess from my experience. RED is great and it makes beautiful images but it can also be a real cranky b%$&h if not treated right.

I put my money on the next sensor. RED One is a great first timer but please let Epic be the real thing.


Fredrik Callinggard

[Jason Ing]

Well, if it's a small crew, on location, and probably not a large lighting package... you're going to hit a latitude problem that even film has... blown out skies and dark shadows. If you ND for the skies, you have to have the lights to fill in the shadows. If not, you shoot for the middle and hence the clipped highlights and dark shadows.

David?

[Nick Wolf]

If anyone doubts it was all a specific choice on his part then please watch "Full Frontal"

Also here listen to Steven talk about RED;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo32Zn70LIw


DogDay

[David Mullen ASC]

I thought everyone here knows already that color negative film has more dynamic range than any digital cinema camera on the market... so why are people acting surprised that one can spot examples in CHE when this becomes apparent when shooting in extremely harsh conditions?

Now whether it is a mistake or not when it happens, I can't say, though Soderberg is of the school of "happy mistakes" when shooting, i.e. not control every element to the nth degree and let some roughness come into the shot. The grain level in his "Oceans 11" remake for example is not always consistent from shot to shot, by design -- maybe not "design" in the sense that it was exactly how he planned on every shot, but "design" in the sense that it was intentionally not consistent. And it's not because Soderberg doesn't know what he is doing, because he's shown time and time again that he can shoot slick stuff as well as anyone. I think he likes "mistakes", that's all, whether he causes them deliberately or creates conditions where they happen naturally.

But I think some people here just have to wrap their heads around the fact that color negative film currently has more dynamic range than digital.

[Rudi Herbert]

You guys are so fixated on nonsensical banalities sometimes.

WE all know what the camera can do. He chose to tell this story this way. There is absolutely no reason for alarm or doubt.

The guy if anyone in Hollywood knows exactly what he is doing and why...He is as shrewd as they come.



Well, yes, a lot of people on this list who, coming from a technical background, i.e. image and sound technicians, place a priority on the technically quantifiable aspects of this camera, but it is disrespectful to call their concerns nonsensical banalities. Maybe they are more concerned about stops and clipping because that comes with the territory they work in, and they don't neccessarily care for or understand the artistic side of the story. Like when you asked David Mullen to enumerate step by step, in order of need, reason, importance and objective and subjective impact how to stage, light and shoot a scene, I'm sure this may have just flown over many a head, but nobody called your wanderings banalities.

We don't COMPLETELY know what the camera can do yet, we're still learning every day, and if one thing and one thing alone has become clear about it is that it can either produce astonishing images or quite mediocre ones depending on the circumstances AND those operating the camera.

SS may be shrewd and a genius (particularly I'm happy an outsider that started out making surfing films made it big in Hollywood but I never cared one bit for his art) but he has proven that, cinematographically speaking, his craft is nowhere near the level of his directing. He is not a top notch cinematographer, and kudos to him if he can shoot and direct at once, but if there's somebody I expected would make the RED not look its best, it's him. Completely blown out skies are hardly an artistic choice...

Now let''s hope we continue to receive impartial and fundamentally constructive and informative reports like Matt's. Thanks Matt!

[Noah Kadner]

Sounds like we got the SS from Full Frontal more than the SS from Ocean's 11 and Solaris. Oh well...

[Nick Wolf]

Anything on the canvas is an artistic choice yes God forbid even blown out skies.

I am trying to make a point not intentionally defame nor slander anyone...Read between the lines.

Your points are true and I acknowledge them. Good to be honest and direct and to point out where you think my behavior crosses a line. I appreciate it.

My Apologies to Rudi & anyone else who was offended.


DogDay

[10s]

Well, yes, a lot of people on this list who, coming from a technical background, i.e. image and sound technicians, place a priority on the technically quantifiable aspects of this camera, but it is disrespectful to call their concerns nonsensical banalities. Maybe they are more concerned about stops and clipping because that comes with the territory they work in, and they don't neccessarily care for or understand the artistic side of the story. Like when you asked David Mullen to enumerate step by step, in order of need, reason, importance and objective and subjective impact how to stage, light and shoot a scene, I'm sure this may have just flown over many a head, but nobody called your wanderings banalities.

We don't COMPLETELY know what the camera can do yet, we're still learning every day, and if one thing and one thing alone has become clear about it is that it can either produce astonishing images or quite mediocre ones depending on the circumstances AND those operating the camera.



Rudy, adding to what you said, we are all wanting to gain access to an inexpensive, but just-as-good-as a film camera, without being held hostage to film prices and processes. It's natural for us to want to see beautiful & technically correct pictures.

If I were Jannard, I'd just shell out a few million and make a low budget film that ends all questions. Buy a great screenplay, hire a good producer & director and get David Mullens to Dp it. If the story is good, marketing also, it'll pay for itself.

[Brandon Fraley]

There's a whole chunk of Once Upon A Time in Mexico where Rodriquez clearly bumped a switch and started rolling 29.97. Maybe directors shouldn't shoot their own stuff after all... :umm:

just to be clear, those shots you speak of were quick things they did with a small miniDV camera, rather that the F900 used for the rest of the film. And yes, those shots are ugly as hell and completely take me out of the movie :)

[Alexis Hanawalt]

just to be clear, those shots you speak of were quick things they did with a small miniDV camera, rather that the F900 used for the rest of the film. And yes, those shots are ugly as hell and completely take me out of the movie :)

That makes sense.

[rod bradley]

Most heroes are not 100% heroes 100% of the time-- as much as we might like them to be. Or they might like to be. Some artists are disciplined and consistent, others are catch as catch can. And everything inbetween. The Red is a tool that can use some help. Haphazard nail banging can occasional result in bent nails. And maybe it weakens the house and maybe it doesn't matter.

[Nick Wolf]

Sometimes the house doesnt appear at first to even be a house to the inhabitants...A nightmare is also a type of dream.

This is a short by SS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErwpFH3AHws


DogDay

[David Battistella]

Matt,

Thanks for this considered opinion.

David

[Harrison Diamond]

If I were Jannard, I'd just shell out a few million and make a low budget film that ends all questions. Buy a great screenplay, hire a good producer & director and get David Mullens to Dp it. If the story is good, marketing also, it'll pay for itself.

I'd love to see this just for its own sake. Red should really do this. A project conducive to showing off the very best of the RED.



I put my money on the next sensor. RED One is a great first timer but please let Epic be the real thing.

Most people probably won't appreciate this, but the Faith No More song Epic is on their album The Real Thing. A line from the song: "You want it all but you can't have it"

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Most people probably won't appreciate this, but the Faith No More song Epic is on their album The Real Thing. A line from the song: "You want it all but you can't have it"

HAHAHAHA I hope not

Also understand me correctly. I love RED and how it performs. I've had it for more or less two months+ and it has already done 10 big productions. It performs nicely but not without hick ups etc. This camera is GREAT but there's still things that could be better. This is constantly worked on from the RED team, so give it time and it will truly kick ass. I just hope that certain things that are issues in the long run gets fixed with time and I'm pretty sure that our guys are working on it.

Fredrik Callinggard

[Bing Bailey]

at the end of the day nobody in a theatre is thinking about clipped high lights. does the film tell a story and if it does and if it engages people then it succeeds. I know we are all here because we want the best images possible but those images are meaningless if you get obsessed with them and not the story you are telling. there are circumstances were clipped high lights might be part of that story telling. maybe its to show the harsh glare of the jungle. the strobing effect in private ryan used to be considered an absolute sin image wise but it was used very very effectively to tell a story. we aren't making images in isolation. too many people are too quick to point fingers and tell everyone else how smart they are and how this is wrong and that is wrong. its all about choices. if thats the way you wanted your images to be then its not wrong.

[C.H.Haskell]

Thanks for sharing, and best of luck with your picture!

[Finner]

at the end of the day nobody in a theatre is thinking about clipped high lights. does the film tell a story and if it does and if it engages people then it succeeds. I know we are all here because we want the best images possible but those images are meaningless if you get obsessed with them and not the story you are telling. there are circumstances were clipped high lights might be part of that story telling. maybe its to show the harsh glare of the jungle. the strobing effect in private ryan used to be considered an absolute sin image wise but it was used very very effectively to tell a story. we aren't making images in isolation. too many people are too quick to point fingers and tell everyone else how smart they are and how this is wrong and that is wrong. its all about choices. if thats the way you wanted your images to be then its not wrong.

It was clearly stated by Matt that this review was based strictly on cinematography. It is a review of how the camera performed and how images appeared on screen. Bringing story into the mix on this means nothing. Leaving this to a discussion on pro's/con's of the image and learning from problems is very helpful. The DR of the red is a fair bit weaker then film but learning the limitations and work arounds for getting the best image possible is far more valuable then saying it is all about story. If it was simply all about story then we should all be shooting on mini dv.

[BradWright]

It sure puts the Bleeding part into the Bleeding Edge. Scopes are really essential to proper exposure due to the hard digital clipping on both ends, highs and lows. I've spent the last year trying to convince everyone I know why they need to use them on every shoot, but so far, most people just don't get it. Hopefully, there will be lots of screwed up scenes in big movies to motivate people to read a waveform monitor, an rgb parade, and a vectorscope.

[Uli Plank]

While I second the use of scopes, I have to mention there is no low end clipping. Your image just get's buried in noise eventually. Even the question when it is buried – i.e. unusable – is a matter of taste to some degree.

Regards,

Uli

[Bing Bailey]

It was clearly stated by Matt that this review was based strictly on cinematography. It is a review of how the camera performed and how images appeared on screen. Bringing story into the mix on this means nothing. Leaving this to a discussion on pro's/con's of the image and learning from problems is very helpful. The DR of the red is a fair bit weaker then film but learning the limitations and work arounds for getting the best image possible is far more valuable then saying it is all about story. If it was simply all about story then we should all be shooting on mini dv.

not taking the bait finner. it is all about story and I was refering in general to getting lost in the details and not seeing the bigger picture. never said a good image isn't desirable

[P Andersson]

I thought everyone here knows already that color negative film has more dynamic range than any digital cinema camera on the market... so why are people acting surprised that one can spot examples in CHE when this becomes apparent when shooting in extremely harsh conditions?

Now whether it is a mistake or not when it happens, I can't say, though Soderberg is of the school of "happy mistakes" when shooting, i.e. not control every element to the nth degree and let some roughness come into the shot. The grain level in his "Oceans 11" remake for example is not always consistent from shot to shot, by design -- maybe not "design" in the sense that it was exactly how he planned on every shot, but "design" in the sense that it was intentionally not consistent. And it's not because Soderberg doesn't know what he is doing, because he's shown time and time again that he can shoot slick stuff as well as anyone. I think he likes "mistakes", that's all, whether he causes them deliberately or creates conditions where they happen naturally.

But I think some people here just have to wrap their heads around the fact that color negative film currently has more dynamic range than digital.

very well said, thanks

[Matt Uhry]

at the end of the day nobody in a theatre is thinking about clipped high lights. does the film tell a story and if it does and if it engages people then it succeeds.

Yes, but also No. SS is his own boss so he writes the rule book. If you are a DP and try to shoot like SS did on "Guerilla" the Studio would fire your ass before you make it to set on day 2.

If it's a no rules indie film self-financed world you live in: go wild, do whatever, and if people call you on it say you meant it to look like that !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Bruce Allen]

Thanks so much Matt for that thorough analysis... that really gave us who couldn't see the film a good idea. Until I've seen it I can't really give my 2c, can I? Although it'll probably not be the Cannes version when it comes out, right?

The crazy reactions to your and other peoples' posts by people who haven't seen the film are really funny... as far as I can tell, the 3 people posting here who have *actually seen* the Cannes cut - eg you, film101 and Akube - present a pretty consistent picture.

Congrats on the great reaction to Los Bastardos. Hope it gets snapped up for lots of cash and distributed well. I can't wait to see it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Matt Uhry]

at the end of the day nobody in a theatre is thinking about clipped high lights. does the film tell a story and if it does and if it engages people then it succeeds.

Yes, but also No. SS is his own boss so he writes the rule book. A cool situation to be in, but it does not apply to me, at least most of the time.

If you are hired to be a DP on a film, and try to shoot like SS did on "Guerilla" the Studio would fire your ass before you make it to set on day 2.

If it's a no rules indie film self-financed world you live in go wild, do whatever and if people call you on it say you meant it to look like that ! Great things can come of it... I'm all for it. I actually am interested in being able to do both.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Christopher Nagel]

If I were Jannard, I'd just shell out a few million and make a low budget film that ends all questions. Buy a great screenplay, hire a good producer & director and get David Mullens to Dp it. If the story is good, marketing also, it'll pay for itself.

As it happens, I have just about a hundred pages of GOLD sitting right here, ready to shoot! :-)

Chris

[Antoine MARTEAU]

I am glad I came at NAB, I saw the footage by myself from Argentine and Guerilla and it was fantastic... I came to the NAB show to confirm my feeling about RED... I was not desapointed... And I ordered my camera when I came back...
#4022 seems so far to me right now. But time will come...
Keep the good work RED!

Antoine MARTEAU From France

[Rudi Herbert]

www.mattuhry.com[/url]

Matt, So RIGHT you are, so much so in fact that I don't mind this statement being posted twice!

And yes, this started STRICTLY as a review of the merits of the films based on their IMAGE QUALITY, nobody ever talked about script, characters, plot, storyline, and the like. Story is king, but that ain't quite what we're talking about right now.

[Nick Wolf]

He saw something and judged it but it has a context and serves a purpose and one very important question is to deduce whether or not it is intentional or the cause of some technical limitation of the instrument on which it was captured.

Some people who were actually "There" said they noticed the same footage being used in the seperate sections and couldnt for the life of them understand why it looked different. Is that not a clue written in glaring neon and blinking "Its intentional"

The "News" sends shock waves through the community and people get alarmed as if it was a catastrophy thats why I offer another point of view, whether it is closer to the truth or not time will tell, but that is my right and I exersize it. I do not see it as off topic. The subject is one thing and the impact another. I am adressing the latter.

We have all seen footage from other productions for example "Cold Storage" and that clearly demonstrates the capabilities of the camera in a proffesional situation.

Che was a "RADICAL" and by many considered a "HERITIC". To treat the subject ( No matter what the tool ) like a slick Hollywood Production would perhaps not have conveyed the "RAW-VITALITY" of this Historical Character and his Legacy.


DogDay

[jpp]

If I were Jannard, I'd just shell out a few million and make a low budget film that ends all questions. Buy a great screenplay, hire a good producer & director and get David Mullens to Dp it. If the story is good, marketing also, it'll pay for itself.

It's a nice idea, but no producer in America, including Steven Soderbergh, knows how to break even, much less make money, on 7 figure features. If Jim Jannard could figure out how to do it, or was inclined to look beyond the usual suspects of indie film, that would be a bigger and rarer achievement than the camera.

For starters, a "great screenplay" is the absolute worst place to begin, because if you've found a script that the funders, the producers and everyone in the production office loves, then it's a movie that the public has already seen dozens of times before. Best run for cover.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Obviously SS likes sometime "a dirty" shot in his movies.

Almost each movie has something that "the schooler" DP would always complain.

Remind TRAFFIC and the shots done over the border in Mexico.

It is about his artistic decision and style but not about "a bad" RED camera or him as an operator/DP.

In 4 and 1/2 movie about Cuban revolution, a lot of fights and jungle guerrilla you cannot expect all

the time a nice ol' school cinematograpy.

I am totally sure that SS did not want to make a Hollywood type of cinematography at all.

It's not there any Offhollywood aesthetic it's more about anti-Hollywood aesthetic.

Look at a movie duration, it's almost 5 hours with an intermission.

This decision is not made in any Hollywood manner.

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/23382/20080522084254/www.variety.com/articles/blog/1390000339/20080522/DSCN3569.jpg
Even logo of the film has a dirty design aesthetic.

It's just my reading SS signs before I will see the film.

BTW also I do have all Soderbergh's films in my DVD collection.

http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/23382/20080522084254/www.variety.com/articles/blog/1390000339/20080522/DSCN3583.jpg
CHE press in recycled paper bag.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/52008/cheticket.jpg
Invitation for Che party in Villa Murano.

[Alex G. Cohn]

For starters, a "great screenplay" is the absolute worst place to begin, because if you've found a script that the funders, the producers and everyone in the production office loves, then it's a movie that the public has already seen dozens of times before. Best run for cover.
What?

[Finner]

Some peoples defensiveness and closed eyes towards the camera on this forum always makes me chuckle. The camera is not the 2nd comming of Christ, it is not as good as film, D21, F23, F35, genesis or dalsa.

What it is, is a kick ass camera for the price. It works well for the price and has the added value of small improvements with new builds. All of this is great and the reason I have paid the money to buy one. Face the limits of the camera and learn to work with them. Your footage will be better if you take off the red blinders.

[Lucas Wilson]

Some peoples defensiveness and closed eyes towards the camera on this forum always makes me chuckle. The camera is not the 2nd comming of Christ, it is not as good as film, D21, F23, F35, genesis or dalsa.

Dude... Come on. Not being a slack-jawed fanboy and trying to look at things on an even keel is a good thing. Playing devil's advocate every once in awhile is a good thing. But global generalizations like this do about as much good as the "defensiveness and closed eyes."

I assume you have personally shot critical tests with all of the cameras you list above compared to RED? So you can give us your test results and how you came to these conclusions?

I have been on the crew of critical tests with RED and several of the cameras you list above. And the opinions of the DPs on those stages vary pretty dramatically from your broad generalization.

Keepin' it real.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Hrvoje Simic]

aaand here we go again...

[Finner]

I assume you have personally shot critical tests with all of the cameras you list above compared to RED? So you can give us your test results and how you came to these conclusions?

Not the dalsa or F35 but all the others yes. I know the image of the dalsa has all others beat but is a beast to use and the F35 is pretty much a genesis. So all in all I feel comfortable with the statement. The dynamic range of all the cameras I mentioned have easily 2 stops or more dynamic range then the red. When your already in the 1080 zone DR has a much bigger effect on image quality then resolution.

So that is how I came to that conclusion. If you rate image alone those cameras have red beat. Factor in price, ease of use and many other things then red becomes a clear winner. Unless of course if you are talking post where red becomes a whole mess but hopefully with red opening the door soon that will change.

[Lucas Wilson]

Not the dalsa or F35 but all the others yes. I know the image of the dalsa has all others beat ... Unless of course if you are talking post where red becomes a whole mess but hopefully with red opening the door soon that will change.

(sigh) never mind.

[Nick Wolf]

Lukas snap out of it ... The level of late night pithy banter has been enhanced as of late. I feel out done with that Slack-Jawed Fan-Boy crack, Now if you can out do yourself and say it in Latin...Wow, that would really make my day...

DogDay

[jpp]

yes, this is correct. Everyone knows the smartest thing is to get the worst screenplay you can find and throw a hundred million dollars at it. Also, the Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts of this world are attracted to poorly drawn characters and weak stories.

You could make that argument, but it's not what I had in mind.

Agcohn: my point was that when a screenplay is readily accessible to and liked by large of numbers of people, particularly producers and funders, it's a good indication that the material is full of cliches, that the movie has been made a million times before and that its commercial prospects are dismal if it's made on a low budget because people have already seen it more grandly produced elsewhere, many times.

Genuinely original material tends not to be instantly comprehensible in script form, which is one reason there are so few originally conceived American movies around.

[Brook Willard]

This is that critical point where a thread can either go downhill into a shit-throwing competition or uphill into a thoughtful discussion. I know Daren and Lukas would take the proper route... but everybody else be careful how you reply! :)

[Alex G. Cohn]

You could make that argument, but it's not what I had in mind.

Agcohn: my point was that when a screenplay is readily accessible to and liked by large of numbers of people, particularly producers and funders, it's a good indication that the material is full of cliches, that the movie been made a million times before and that its commercial prospects are dismal if it's made on a low budget because people have already seen it more grandly produced elsewhere.

Genuinely original material tends not to be instantly comprehensible in script form, which is one reason there are so few originally conceived American movies around.
What about the term "great screenplay" do you not understand? By default, great screenplays are not full of cliches, nor are are they incomprehensible in script form.

Anyways, why does a script have to be original to be great? A great screenplay can take a well traveled path, yet make you forget that it is unoriginal.

[Lucas Wilson]

Now if you can out do yourself and say it in Latin...Wow, that would really make my day...

shaking the now quite dense cobwebs off the Latin I learned a loooong time ago... the closest I think I can come is...

cultor os patefacio.

Lucas
-----
VP of Dead Languages
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

[jpp]

What about the term "great screenplay" do you not understand? By default, great screenplays are not full of cliches, nor are are they incomprehensible in script form.

Okay, I'll spell it out. By "great screenplay" I mean what people in this business consider a "great screenplay", which is a script full of cliches.

It's called "irony", and that irony is firmly grounded in the realities of the business. There's a reason the same movies get made over and over again, and why so many low budget films offer nothing which can't be found, better produced, in Hollywood or on network TV.

[reality]

So that is how I came to that conclusion. If you rate image alone those cameras have red beat.

That's a subjective opinion. I prefer the look of red to dalsa, genesis, f23, and d21 because it has a more pleasing quality. f23, dalsa, and d21 are in my subjective opinion, harsh and not very pleasing.

[Brook Willard]

The "irony" of this thread is that one of the broad responses to "the film looked less than perfect" was "yeah? Well... SCREENPLAY!!!"

Just saying. It's funny.

Congratulations on your film, Matt. Thanks for posting grounded Che feedback here.

[jpp]

The "irony" of this thread is that one of the broad responses to "the film looked less than perfect" was "yeah? Well... SCREENPLAY!!!"

Just saying. It's funny.

And the deeper irony is, CHE is getting panned for its screenplay!

[10s]

jpp, my idea is simply to get a RED movie out there that is artistically, technically and financially correct/successful. Hollywood is a business that is nervous, they respect repeated $uccess. RED still needs to prove itself. With all due respect, the SS film doesn't really help RED out the way a more traditional film could have. We already saw Dalsa with the Mel Gibson Apocalytco (sp?) show it's abilities. I'm sure there are plenty of RED productions occuring currently, I'm just not up on them. Let's hope a blockbuster is on the way. This will help indies with nervous distributors...

[Brian Ferguson]

We already saw Dalsa with the Mel Gibson Apocalytco (sp?) show it's abilities.

I thought they used Genesis from Panavision

[Brook Willard]

Anybody who turns a camera system away based on seeing one film without doing any research... that's their decision. Every other DP out there will do it the way it's always been done: test it and see.

And Brian is correct, they used the Genesis.

[David M]

It's a nice idea, but no producer in America, including Steven Soderbergh, knows how to break even, much less make money, on 7 figure features. If Jim Jannard could figure out how to do it, or was inclined to look beyond the usual suspects of indie film, that would be a bigger and rarer achievement than the camera.

For starters, a "great screenplay" is the absolute worst place to begin, because if you've found a script that the funders, the producers and everyone in the production office loves, then it's a movie that the public has already seen dozens of times before. Best run for cover.
I've actually been thinking about that. Can there be no finer example of "F*ck the "experts" than Iron Man?

After a couple of decades of seeing successful comic book franchise characters routinely murdered by "creative" directors who "knew what they were doing", the old farts at Marvel finally wrested back control of the Marvel Universe characters, set up their own Studio, made a movie the way they thought would appeal to their print audience (based on only close to six decades of successful comic publication), and didn't spend any outrageous amount of money on it, and guess what happened?

The problem as I see it, is that too many screenplays get written by people who are not real human beings, in the sense that they have no real experience of everyday human existence. They tend to be single, have chemical dependence problems and (to my experience anyway) are generally f*cked in the head.

The Marvel guys thought they knew what appeals to the wide audience of paying customers, and they were 97% right, at least according to RottenTomatoes.com:)

So actually, I think if Jim Jannard decided to make a feature film, he probably would make quite a good job of it. As would just about anybody else who DOES NOT truly, desperately, WANT to make a film.

It would be fantastic if after producing a revolutionary cinematography camera like the RED, they went on to produce a blockbuster movie using it, again, using a fresh sheet of paper.

As they say, people who seek power are often the last ones you'd want to give it to!

[10s]

Hopefully Jim wouldn't consult us on it! :)

Sorry, ... Genesis... was for Mel.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Finner's assessment of DR coming out the side of the camera on the fly might be accurate. Every camera in this discussion other than the RedOne has far more processing applied (Panalog and the like excluded) before you see it.

The RedOne approach to making a great image depends on a paradigm shift where acquisition and post integrate in a different manner. While the RedOne may have 2 stops less DR than the F23 (the greatest DR of any D-cinema camera I have ever seen) IMHO with proper post processing the DR of the RedOne is very close to the other cameras in this discussion.

Each tool has different characteristics. A tool wielded with intention and understanding can achieve great things. I have seen visually compelling material shot on mediocre cameras (notice I said visually, I do not want to wander back into the story is king eddy, its stipulated).

The digression I do think counts here is craft. A top notch crew with a nice lighting package and the skill to use it can get great images out of any camera in the class we are discussing.

IMHO if you combine good lighting with the natural strengths of the RedOne - RAW color space, lots of genuine resolution (not Sony style sharpening) and the most filmic "look" of any D-cinema camera on the block you can make evocative images of the highest art.

[laguun]

I thought they used Genesis from Panavision

apocalypto was panavision genesis.

[laguun]

not Sony style sharpening
Sharpening (aka detail), AGC, detail and blur are fully switchable on the sony 750/900/950/1500/F23.
From completly off to very strong.

Several sharpening levels can be recorded paralell, as *fully* unsharpened to uncompressed via HD-SDI for the cinema master and sharpened to the realtime PAL master downconverted SDI simultanesly. The different outputs can have individual settings. Processing of sharpening and blur is completly realtime and user adjustable.

I prefer the unsharpened look with sony as with red for hd/1080p and 2K most of the time, for SD slight sharpening is recomendable often.

[laguun]

Unless of course if you are talking post where red becomes a whole mess but hopefully with red opening the door soon that will change.
I agree. The locked out marketleading postproduction tools are the main shortcoming of redcode. Cant wait for adobe, discreet, iridas, cineform etc finally let in.

Back to che:
Soderbergh likes the red very much and is extremly happy with it. He says "usually, people asked if it does look as good as In some years, people will probably ask if it looks as good as the red.".

Therefore i suppose his artistic choices dictated the look of his movies. Blownout whites are used intentionally not only by him - Battlestar Galacticas DoP Steve McNutt uses those all the time (for my taste, in a most pleasant way). I personally also prefer looks without blown out whites, but use them here and there - for lamborghini on the murcielago commercials as example i overexposed the grey skies to white one for DP jacques steyn quite a bit on several aerials.

[mezmo]

Hi Matt,
Thanks for your post, I think we will see many more films with the
'no time for lighting' look from RED users like S. Soderbergh.
And the short DR with clipped whites look could be the stamp that sets RED apart from many of the other cameras you mentioned.
This is the RED ONE digital look, plain and simple and it's limited. It does not make RED (at the moment) the camera for all seasons with the ability to shoot anything thrown at it. But thats fine.
RED is finding it's niche and probably the breakout film shot on RED will have a look very similar to Mr Soderberg's as a new generation of Director/ DP's start stuffing about with Cinematography.
I know about six in my area who have purchased RED and are test shooting
as we speak, cause I get the odd phone call, 'how the #%#$@#@ do you
do this???'
Our days as DP's are numbered Matt, sorry. At least on RED shoots.
Cheers Mezmo

[Nick Wolf]

Thats a true statement.

Maybe it all leads to directors becoming DPs and DPs becoming directors and everyone doing a bit of their own DI on a desk top.

Not too far fetched and actually can be the catalyst for the emergence of a New Breed of Renaissance Men.

Thrilling times await and the whole relationship between audience and creator and creator and medium will evolve into a hybrid of content & Form.

DogDay

[James T Mather]

Thats a true statement.


... and the whole relationship between audience and creator and creator and medium will evolve into a hybrid of content & Form.

DogDay

and tons of crap films too. I shudder at the dreck that will flood the festival market.

[Nick Wolf]

The strong will survive. Its called natural selection. You have jurys of qualified experts whos job is to sort the wheat from the chaff thus sparing you that ordeal.



DogDay

[Steven-Marc C.]

I was at the same screening as Matt and can second everything he has written.

I can't see any reason why the highlights would be blown out intentionally. It does not seem to be used as an artistic choice, as in a film like Lucia Y El Sexo for example. If it is there to serve any artistic purpose, that message is lost to this audience.

To put it all in perspective, I would say 99% of the audience, doesn't notice things like blown highlights. From talking to several "non-technical" people after the screening, what they do notice are other strong artistic choices, like the fact that there are very few close-ups of the main characters, and that it is hard to identify them / with them. The result is that you watch the film with a very external POV like a documentary about guerilla warfare. Personally, I appreciate the fact that Soderbergh is trying to do things that are not mainstream or what you would normally expect. In that sense, Che, and the way Soderbergh has used different formats in the movie, remain interesting and demonstrate that the RED One can be used to achieve very different visual styles. To me, the blown highlights are just something of a "faux pas" which will not deter Che from getting praised for its visual qualities and audacity.

I believe that the best Red One footage will probably not come from seasoned professionals with tons of film experience, but from DPs used to shooting video and dealing with things like limited dynamic range. It's great that Red can get attention with the likes of Soderbergh and other big names, but I'm guessing the most interesting material will come from smaller indie projects.

The clipped highlights problem should not overshadow (!) the fact that the Red One can deliver one of the most stunning images when used in the right conditions. Even though, as a Red owner and user, I was slightly disappointed in some of the aspects of the image seen in Che, I also marvelled at the versatility demonstrated by the camera and the very different looks it can help to achieve (there are 4 very different looks used in Che). The definition in the wide shots of part 2 of Che is simply amazing.

On a side note, the best digital footage I have seen this year in Cannes came from the stunning film Johnny Mad Dog, shot on Sony F900R, and Nuri Bilge Ceylan's beautiful Three Monkeys, also shot on HD though I'm not 100% sure which camera was used. It's a bit of a shame that the first high-profile movie entirely shot on Red does not always show the camera in its best light. But it reminds us (if necessary) that the camera is just a tool. What really matters is how you use it.

Che will probably never be seen by general audiences the way it was presented in Cannes. AFAIK it hadn't yet found a US distrib when I left Cannes yesterday. It had however already been presold in France, Italy, Japan, Scandinavia and the UK.

[jpp]

and tons of crap films too. I shudder at the dreck that will flood the festival market.

Since you can already get perfectly acceptable image quality from a $700 HV20, and since mini-DV features have been a festival staple for years now, it's not likely that Red or any other technology is going to increase the flood much. If anything, a migration to more expensive equipment should reduce the volume somewhat. Or am I missing something? You hear this argument a lot, but to date nobody has been deterred by sub-35mm or sub-16mm quality.


The strong will survive. Its called natural selection. You have jurys of qualified experts whos job is to sort the wheat from the chaff thus sparing you that ordeal.

Oh really? What experts did you have in mind? Typical festival programming staff includes unpaid interns, film school undergrads who think Stars Wars is the highest achievement of Western civilization, programmers with no obvious qualifications beyond previous programming positions, and festival directors whose chief attraction to management is a willingness and ability to work for nothing for a few months a year.

The fantasies which persist on this board....

[Nick Wolf]

Some people open their mouth to say something while others do it because they have something to say ... Which one are you?


DogDay

[jpp]

Some people open their mouth to say something while others do it because they have something to say ... Which one are you?


DogDay

You're out of your depth. Goodbye.

[Nick Wolf]

Says who?

Don`t tell me you are also one of those disgruntled Oscar Winners too? What gives you the jurisdiction?

Or are you self appointed? ... Having an opinion about the value of your own opinions?

So whats the deal?

Had a bad day today? Don`t take it out on me pal.

It certainly didn`t take much huffing or puffing for your house of cards to crumble.


DogDay

[Jan Reiff]

ähem, don´t forget -

CHE was shot with beta-cameras, i don´t really get in the strong discussion, this was the first big public film shot with a totally new camera without any huge experiences about it..., and all the footage i have seen the last weeks from the latest cams and from operators knowing to handle red better and better is really good to awesome.

[louiesalto]

I saw Che in the "salle des lumières" on the evening projection.

I was also anticipating the RED format and wondering what wonders and disapointments it might bring, especially knowing the quality of the digital projection they have there. (I had seen Zodiac last year)

For my part I was blown away by "the Argentine" part and much less enthusiastic about the "Guerilla" part. Partly due to the clipped highlights, and partly to a certain "video feel" in the movement on camera pans.

I was simply amazed by 99% on "the Argentine", thinking to myself that RED will definately change the industry. The colors are fresh, luscious, and yet subtle in very different situations.

Thanks Matt for the info on the anamporphic lenses, but I also suspect a different shooting format/ different post workflow. Anyone know anything about that?

Cheers,

Louie

[Tom Lowe]

No offense to Soderberg, but if you are shooting in jungles during daylight, use 35mm, otherwise the white "patches" are going to blow out, guaran-fucking-teed. Sounds like a poor choice of camera for the film. That's just IMO.

Until DR can be increased with new sensors, builds, processors, software, etc, you are going to have to be extremely careful about clipping with Red One. Probably lots of filters during daylight hours, and very careful lighting. That's why I only shoot during magic hours and at night with digital. You will never, ever catch me shooting during the middle the day if there is any way I can avoid it. Digital looks like crap and blows out too easily.

That dude who posted the greek music video a couple weeks ago did it right - shoot in "good" light and you won't have any of these problems. :)

[Uli Plank]

Right! I've been shooting in the Brazilian jungle last year (no Red) and without additional light you don't have a chance. Remember, even biology is telling us how the plants on "first floor" are struggling for those few photons left with all the tricks evolution developed for survival.
Definitely one of the most difficult environments for shooting e-camera.

Regards,

Uli

[laguun]

No offense to Soderberg, but if you are shooting in jungles during daylight, use 35mm, otherwise the white "patches" are going to blow out, guaran-fucking-teed. Sounds like a poor choice of camera for the film. That's just IMO.
gibson shot digital for his jungle, soderbergh shot digital for his jungle - and *cough* we are shooting our (much smaller) jungles since 2003 digitally...

wouldnt want to go back to 35mm negative. sony hdcams / panavision genesis excellent low-light, reds pristine resolution.... both styles are pretty hard to do with film and fit jungles well.

[laguun]

Right! I've been shooting in the Brazilian jungle last year (no Red) and without additional light you don't have a chance. Remember, even biology is telling us how the plants on "first floor" are struggling for those few photons left with all the tricks evolution developed for survival.
Definitely one of the most difficult environments for shooting e-camera.

Regards,

Uli

apocalypto used the panasony genesis for looong sequences at 3200ASA 360shutter iirc.

[reality]

I heard from the spanish crew members that the cameras were early early prototypes with very little functionality. No histograms or meters of any kind. Just the monitor with framing guides.

The jungle shots I saw at NAB looked fine to me.

[Lucas Wilson]

I agree. The locked out marketleading postproduction tools are the main shortcoming of redcode. Cant wait for adobe, discreet, iridas, cineform etc finally let in.

Seems to work pretty well for some people... The CHE movies were conformed and graded entirely on SCRATCH from the original R3D files.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Brook Willard]

Seems to work pretty well for some people... The CHE movies were conformed and graded entirely on SCRATCH from the original R3D files.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

True, but I'd imagine his point is that many production houses have already invested tens of thousands of dollars on other systems that they don't want to replace for one camera... or they're simply individuals who cannot drop a significant chunk of change on a conform/DI solution [particularly when seamless FCP XML-based conform tools were originally promised in REDCINE for free]. Anybody who argues that SCRATCH isn't the best current solution for the RED is nuts. It's just not the right solution for everybody.

[Bruce Allen]

True, but I'd imagine his point is that many production houses have already invested tens of thousands of dollars on other systems that they don't want to replace for one camera...

Brook, totally agree - except make that _millions_ of dollars in the case of the high-end places. Oh yes, and add on all of the trained staff, etc.

EDIT:
I guess you can use Scratch as a conform machine and then pass everything into a Lustre / Quantel / DaVinci where the colorist is more comfortable, but it's still a pain.

Sorry, this is going OT. But since a lot of people (including Jim) are suggesting that the clipping seen in Che is not the camera's fault - it was something done deliberately or accidentally in the grade - then I must say that the decision to lock down the image chain to tools that the post people were perhaps unfamiliar with and couldn't get the most out of is part and of the RED experience right now since if you shoot with that camera, you are pushed down this route.

Just as I'd be tempted to say the edit of Che was weird since they had to use FCP and didn't have decent trim tools ;) - but that's not an image quality thing. Anyway, I will try to shut up until I see the film.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sanjin Jukic]

It's true and I already showed that SCRATCH can run comfortably from a laptop (MacBook Pro 17") to conform your FCP edit in 4k or 2K even in jungles like a Soderbetgh shot CHE.

No any other system than SCRATCH can do with R3D files similar workflow even in a near future when Redcode SDK will be widely available.

For example Speedgrade DI is not working on a laptop...

[Lucas Wilson]

True, but I'd imagine his point is that many production houses have already invested tens of thousands of dollars on other systems that they don't want to replace for one camera... or they're simply individuals who cannot drop a significant chunk of change on a conform/DI solution [particularly when seamless FCP XML-based conform tools were originally promised in REDCINE for free]. Anybody who argues that SCRATCH isn't the best current solution for the RED is nuts. It's just not the right solution for everybody.

Brook,

I get that...

And the solution you want may not be here, but that doesn't mean a good and solid end-to-end workflow doesn't exist.

Lucas

[Lucas Wilson]

EDIT: I guess you can use Scratch as a conform machine and then pass everything into a Lustre / Quantel / DaVinci where the colorist is more comfortable, but it's still a pain.

...the decision to lock down the image chain to tools that the post people were perhaps unfamiliar with and couldn't get the most out of is part and of the RED experience right now since if you shoot with that camera, you are pushed down this route.

Hey Bruce,

Once the movie is released, there will be a fuller workflow description of how things were done.

But the post people in this case were very familiar with the tools. The unfamiliarity primarily came from the fact that this was the *first* major RED feature completed on this level.

The unfamiliarity didn't come from the tools - it came from designing a very new workflow and a very new way of finishing a high-end theatrical feature.

Best,

Lucas

[Bruce Allen]

Thanks Lucas for clearing that up. Look forward to seeing the movie, reading about what they did, and learning (good and bad) from it... I know Soderbergh was talking about making the looks in RedCine in order to indicate how he wanted things graded (because that was in the interview) and I know they used Scratch (because you told us) but that's the sum of publicly-released info so far AFAIK.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[laguun]

No any other system than SCRATCH can do with R3D files similar workflow even in a near future when Redcode SDK will be widely available.

i think you are a) speculating and b) wrong on this.
full finishing systems (as smoke) add
- audio mixing and mastering (surround and fx plugis) including AAF/OMF etc.
- full 3D with geometry (FXB etc) and light
- morphing and warping
- full networked bin browsing in the background, remote location client access
- network rendering to not block the workstation when computing
- full compositing with nodal system etc.

its all there - only thing missing is the redcode documentation.



For example Speedgrade DI is not working on a laptop...
speedgrade runs perfectly and nicely on laptops. under linux, osx and windows. you should have a quadro in the notebook however.
also its supporting many raw formats (as arri, phantom, cineform, si/ps etc).

[Brook Willard]

Brook,

I get that...

And the solution you want may not be here, but that doesn't mean a good and solid end-to-end workflow doesn't exist.

Lucas

Oh, of course. You know I know that a robust workflow exists. Anybody that thinks that RED has "no" workflow needs to get their facts checked.

[Tom Lowe]

gibson shot digital for his jungle, soderbergh shot digital for his jungle - and *cough* we are shooting our (much smaller) jungles since 2003 digitally...

wouldnt want to go back to 35mm negative. sony hdcams / panavision genesis excellent low-light, reds pristine resolution.... both styles are pretty hard to do with film and fit jungles well.

Genesis has more dynamic range than Red, as far as I know. I did not care for the look of Apocalypto anyway, other than a couple of spiffy cable cam shots over the river and waterfall. Compare the photography in Apocalypto to The New World and The New World blows it out of the water, IMO.

If you want to see good natural-light photography in jungles and forests, go with The Thin Red Line, Last of the Mohicans, etc. Pretty much all shot anamorphic 35.

Like any tool, Red will be good for some jobs, not so good for others. If I was shooting a mostly daylight jungle picture right now I would want to shoot anamorphic 35. A forest or jungle is just really tough to expose for with digital, unless you're sort of aiming down most of the time.

[Rudi Herbert]

Genesis has more dynamic range than Red, as far as I know. I did not care for the look of Apocalypto anyway, other than a couple of spiffy cable cam shots over the river and waterfall. Compare the photography in Apocalypto to The New World and The New World blows it out of the water, IMO.

Tom, we all know you're a self confessed Malick addict :-), so no surprise there, mostly because you're right. Having admitted that, I LOVED Apocalypto, thought it was one awesome thrill ride and a bare-bones, honest action flick. The look didn't detract me from enjoying the story, save for a couple of shots where a smaller (maybe DV?) is used to give us the hero's POV running through the jungle, but other than that, I'd say that digital cinema past the test of shooting in a jungle with flying colors. Although yes, 35mm would be better for such task.

[Sanjin Jukic]

i think you are a) speculating and b) wrong on this.
full finishing systems (as smoke) add
- audio mixing and mastering (surround and fx plugis) including AAF/OMF etc.
- full 3D with geometry (FXB etc) and light
- morphing and warping
- full networked bin browsing in the background, remote location client access
- network rendering to not block the workstation when computing
- full compositing with nodal system etc.

its all there - only thing missing is the redcode documentation.




I can get all those from other apps:

- sound - sountrack 2, logic pro 8, nuendo, pro tools, etc...
- morphing wrapping - modo, maya,etc...
- full compositing, shake, nuke , etc...
- networking i do not need when "working" in a real jungle environment... :) :)



speedgrade runs perfectly and nicely on laptops. under linux, osx and windows. you should have a quadro in the notebook however.
also its supporting many raw formats (as arri, phantom, cineform, si/ps etc).

Speedgrade Di doesn't work on my MacBook Pro 17".

Unfortunately no NVIDIA Quadro FX - Mobile Solutions for Mac.

But Speedgrade DI on MacPro 8 core with 8800 GT works pretty good.

[Tom Lowe]

Tom, we all know you're a self confessed Malick addict :-), so no surprise there, mostly because you're right. Having admitted that, I LOVED Apocalypto, thought it was one awesome thrill ride and a bare-bones, honest action flick. The look didn't detract me from enjoying the story, save for a couple of shots where a smaller (maybe DV?) is used to give us the hero's POV running through the jungle, but other than that, I'd say that digital cinema past the test of shooting in a jungle with flying colors. Although yes, 35mm would be better for such task.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Apocalypto was a good action picture. I was strictly talking about the cinematography, which was a little bit of a letdown for me. I thought Semler did a lackluster job with the photography overall, especially given what a tremendous opportunity he had. I guess my hopes were too high going in. I was looking for another Dances with Wolves, Last of the Mohicans, The New World, Braveheart, etc.

[Joe G.]

Amazing thread, and it highlights a real concern I have about "blown out highlights." These are 100% unacceptable to me, and I don't want a single frame of it.

"at the end of the day nobody in a theatre is thinking about clipped high lights."

Disagree entirely. They don't look natural and they reveal the presence of computers, including computer errors, which instantly takes people out of the story.


"Until DR can be increased with new sensors, builds, processors, software, etc, you are going to have to be extremely careful about clipping with Red One."

Question for the company: Was the range increased at all in subsequent builds since SS shot his film?

"Probably lots of filters during daylight hours, and very careful lighting."

I'm getting the impression that shooting with just sunlight is discouraged and that reflectors and/or lighting will be required during all daylight shooting?

"That's why I only shoot during magic hours and at night with digital. You will never, ever catch me shooting during the middle the day if there is any way I can avoid it. Digital looks like crap and blows out too easily."

I thought the ND filters would take care of this problem? You seem to reject digital altogether during the day (50% of the time?) The camera must be better than THAT!?


"I would want to shoot anamorphic 35. A forest or jungle is just really tough to expose for with digital, unless you're sort of aiming down most of the time."

That's an important workaround to consider. Keep the sky out of the shot. What about shooting lakes? Would the reflections in the water be beyond the abilities of the camera? That's where my decision is going to come down to. I need extensive lakes, and some light forest at the shore. It's not jungle, and I don't mind using reflectors and possibly lighting to get it right. I just want to know that the camera is up to the job of simply filming daylight hours at a lake.........?

[Adrian T.]

I can get all those from other apps:

- sound - sountrack 2, logic pro 8, nintendo, pro tools, etc...

nintendo? :tongue:
I suppose you mean Nuendo... :wink:

[Sanjin Jukic]

nintendo? :tongue:
I suppose you mean Nuendo... :wink:

Thanks Big, that's correct, Nuendo.

[laguun]

I can get all those from other apps:

- sound - sountrack 2, logic pro 8, nuendo, pro tools, etc...
- morphing wrapping - modo, maya,etc...
- full compositing, shake, nuke , etc...
- networking i do not need when "working" in a real jungle environment... :) :)


sure :) and be it Apple fcs, or more expensive Adobe CS, these are all fine products with killer price/performance.

However a finishing system, not a software bundle, as smoke or quantels q-series offers all of this in one place. Prices of systems as smoke start at full scratch level.




Speedgrade Di doesn't work on my MacBook Pro 17".
Unfortunately no NVIDIA Quadro FX - Mobile Solutions for Mac.
But Speedgrade DI on MacPro 8 core with 8800 GT works pretty good.

yeah, sadly no QuadroFX from apple - but speedgrade however works fine on notebooks.

p.s.
surprised to hear that speedgrade uns on mac pro with 8800gt - never saw that before!

[BradWright]

While I second the use of scopes, I have to mention there is no low end clipping. Your image just get's buried in noise eventually. Even the question when it is buried – i.e. unusable – is a matter of taste to some degree.

Regards,

Uli

If you have a range of 12 bits from the sensor and 18 bits of lights in a scene, 6 bits will not get recorded. The iris, shutter, etc. allow you to select which part of the 18 bits to record. Protecting highlights will clip shaddows. Protecting shaddows will clip highlights. Because the sensor records light linearly, highs and lows do get clipped off at the point they fall outside the 12 bit range.

[Roberto B]

nintendo? :tongue:
I suppose you mean Nuendo... :wink:ehehehehe..

[Tom Lowe]

I'm getting the impression that shooting with just sunlight is discouraged and that reflectors and/or lighting will be required during all daylight shooting?

Well I think that yes, you would want to use silks, reflectors, etc - anything to tame the natural light.



"That's why I only shoot during magic hours and at night with digital. You will never, ever catch me shooting during the middle the day if there is any way I can avoid it. Digital looks like crap and blows out too easily."

I thought the ND filters would take care of this problem? You seem to reject digital altogether during the day (50% of the time?) The camera must be better than THAT!?

Don't listen to me! I reject daylight shooting out of personal, aesthetic reasons, but there are plenty of shots you can get during the day. Shots in a forest can be very nice if the light is dappled gently, and like I said earlier, if you sort of aim down rather than up.



Would the reflections in the water be beyond the abilities of the camera? That's where my decision is going to come down to. I need extensive lakes, and some light forest at the shore. It's not jungle, and I don't mind using reflectors and possibly lighting to get it right. I just want to know that the camera is up to the job of simply filming daylight hours at a lake.........?

Just use pola filters and shoot carefully. Probably with RED you will want to budget a bit more time, so you can be picky about the light you are using? I would not be afraid to use Red, I would just try to work hard to expose your shots properly and to take advantage of the best light you can get.

[Matt Uhry]

I was at the same screening as Matt and can second everything he has written.

....It's a bit of a shame that the first high-profile movie entirely shot on Red does not always show the camera in its best light.



This is my point. Whether it was SS's artistic genius, early cameras, or a misunderstanding of how to expose digital - it does not matter to me or this discussion.

What worries me is the impending tidal wave dynamic range FUD Red Users are going to suffer through when "Guerilla" comes out.

Thanks very much for those that congratulated me on my work on "Los Bastardos". I'm now safely back in LA after a run in with the notorious Jose Cuervo at the Moriela Film Festival party last night.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[I Bloom]

This is my point. Whether it was SS's artistic genius, early cameras, or a misunderstanding of how to expose digital - it does not matter to me or this discussion.

What worries me is the impending tidal wave dynamic range FUD Red Users are going to suffer through when "Guerilla" comes out.

Thanks very much for those that congratulated me on my work on "Los Bastardos". I'm now safely back in LA after a run in with the notorious Jose Cuervo at the Moriela Film Festival party last night.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Hey Matt,

Where can I see your movie stateside? East coast?

Cheers,

Ian Bloom

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If you have a range of 12 bits from the sensor and 18 bits of lights in a scene, 6 bits will not get recorded. The iris, shutter, etc. allow you to select which part of the 18 bits to record. Protecting highlights will clip shaddows. Protecting shaddows will clip highlights. Because the sensor records light linearly, highs and lows do get clipped off at the point they fall outside the 12 bit range.

Sort of true. After it's gone through an ADC it's clipped. Before it hits the ADC there is theoretically more dynamic range. The determination that a sensor is "12 bit" is somewhat a black art. The first bit determination is always the hardest. While a 48th of a second sampling might not create a statistical variation from a 48th of a second one stop darker if you were to roll for a full second you might find the average is slightly different. Then again you might have a difficult time deciding if that deviation of average was chance or actual minute sensitivity difference.

The parent post seemed to be making this observation that the noisefloor isn't a flat line.

[Jason Sinclair]

"Time is a great storyteller" -Swedish proverb

[Sanjin Jukic]

The funniest thing is that no any critic text of CHE (positive or negative)

wrote something about a bad look, clipped highlights or "video-ish" picture in the movie.

Also I've got impression that some the REDuser reviewers from Cannes

even expressed that they could feel bigger or better cinematographers then SS :) :) .

Somebody who likes so much J.M.W Turner's paintings for sure doesn't like so much Pablo Picasso's paintings

because Pablo was to much "clipping" colors and even destroying human faces, animal or natural look :).

And we will see tonight what SS will get in Cannes.

In an interview with French daily Le Monde,

Penn (President of the jury Sean PENN, Director, Actor) said Cannes should do

"the complete opposite to the Oscars",

which reward the

"consummate art of manipulation and good marketing".

LINK>>> (http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN2252964520080524?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Also hope that some members of RED Team are there.

[josh]

And we will see tonight what SS will get in Cannes.



well, after the... let's say numerous "mixed reviews"-- just to be kind -- that Che received, certainly not the Palme d'or, like you were so sure of.




In an interview with French daily Le Monde,

Penn (President of the jury Sean PENN, Director, Actor) said Cannes should do

"the complete opposite to the Oscars",

which reward the

"consummate art of manipulation and good marketing".





I giggle at the hypocrisy of Sean Penn which embraced in such full force the art of manipulation and good marketing last year, when he plunged into the Oscar race for In To the Wild.

[Jan Reiff]

de toro has won in cannes.

congrats for the team, the first red movie with a big award.

[Sanjin Jukic]

well, after the... let's say numerous "mixed reviews"-- just to be kind -- that Che received, certainly not the Palme d'or, like you were so sure of.





I giggle at the hypocrisy of Sean Penn which embraced in such full force the art of manipulation and good marketing last year, when he plunged into the Oscar race for In To the Wild.

I let more deep analysis about all in Cannes after getting more info through time.

[josh]

Good for Del Toro. (seems a slap to SS though)

I'd be curious to see this movie. Although I don't think I will have a chance, since every studio passed on it. No US distribution yet. Wild Bunch was really surprised, they were expecting to sell it immediately.

On second thought, I don't want to watch it. I'll rather wait for The Informant to see a RED movie well shot.

I heard people were dozing at the screening and some left after the first one.

[Dale Launer]

It's a nice idea, but no producer in America, including Steven Soderbergh, knows how to break even, much less make money, on 7 figure features.

Presales. Some movies are in the black before shooting. I belive Steven's movie FULL FRONTAL was in profits before it was released.

For starters, a "great screenplay" is the absolute worst place to begin, because if you've found a script that the funders, the producers and everyone in the production office loves, then it's a movie that the public has already seen dozens of times before. Best run for cover.

A "great screenplay" is the absolute worse place to begin? You mean you should start with a bad screenplay?

Wow. What lengths some people go to be provocative.

[Jason Sinclair]

(best read with the voice of French artsy farty film critic)
Perhaps Soderbergh was expressing the parallels between, the struggle against Cuban imperialism by Che Guevara, and his own struggles against Hollywood studio imperialism. By using methods that go against well tested studio formulas that have evolved into predictable and plastic plot lines and imaging structures, Soderburgh slaps convention in the face.



he he he... critics and the crap that comes form their mouths but i must admit it was fun getting into character.

[jpp]

A "great screenplay" is the absolute worse place to begin? You mean you should start with a bad screenplay?

Wow. What lengths some people go to be provocative.

I was trying to make the case that "great screenplay" is a meaningless term in this business. "Great" according to whom? The writer? The producers? The financiers? The star? The bond company? Even assuming all these people have the skills to assess screenplays in the light of their own particular interests (which is clearly not the case, given the failure rate), can we really expect them to agree on what a great screenplay is, when those interests and capabilities are so different?

Or try it another way. Is a "great screenplay" a script with firm roots in older narrative traditions, with intelligent material, skillful plotting, good dialog and strong visual realization - the sort of thing a writer would enjoy reading? Or is it material which would be ridiculous in a novel or on stage, and which is executed without much in the way of traditional craftsmanship, but which might have strong mass-market appeal? Or is a "great screenplay" whatever made money last year?

We could argue these questions forever, but that's my point. Script assessment, in an absolute sense, appears to have little or nothing to do with why films get made, and enthusiasm for a script among producers and financiers is a better indicator of the presence of Hollywood formula than quality.

It's a little embarrassing recommending my own posts, but if you go back and read the thread, I don't think the claim was all that preposterous. And since you're a writer, I would guess you've experienced more than a little frustration with suits and stars and directors who think they know what a great screenplay is and how to write one, but that you don't(?)

[Joel Kaye]

We could argue these questions forever

True enough. But for the record, American Beauty was a script that everyone loved, Spielberg approved with no changes (and the original version has Spacey's character actually sleeping with the girl). A lot of directors wanted that one and it ended up being great. A lot of scripts seem to rise above the crowd.

But yes, interpreting a script is very subjective. Studios generally pass on movies that are difficult to market to a wide audience for this exact reason. At least if the movie has a hook and a target it'll make money even if the execution isn't perfect.

One of the promises of RED is we can go make our own scripts on a lower budget, market it alternatively and see if we can teach them a thing or two. Or find out they are smarter than we thought.

Che sounds difficult to market in America to me. Is it really worth throwing 20 million in P&A behind in addition to the asking price? Maybe. Maybe not. Internationally it should be fine and has already sold in many markets. But this is a pretty fine example of the stranglehold a very few companies have on American theatrical distribution.

[jpp]

But for the record, American Beauty was a script that everyone loved, Spielberg approved with no changes (and the original version has Spacey's character actually sleeping with the girl). A lot of directors wanted that one and it ended up being great. A lot of scripts seem to rise above the crowd.

We've already hit a wall! Nobody asked me, or is likely to, but not "everyone" thinks American Beauty was a great screenplay. It may be the Hollywood version of a high-brow movie, or what Hollywood considers an art film, but any script that has a middle-aged man finding fulfillment in a burger joint (working at minimum wage?) could only come out of a poolside culture. And that's hardly the only lounge chair crime of the material. Don't get me started.... By the way, the plastic bag was stolen from either Jem Cohen or Nathaniel Dorsky.



Studios generally pass on movies that are difficult to market to a wide audience for this exact reason.

Could we amend that to read "movies that they think are difficult to market"? The studios are wrong all the time.



One of the promises of RED is we can go make our own scripts on a lower budget, market it alternatively and see if we can teach them a thing or two. .

I've never seen the logic of this claim, but no sense in restarting this debate, for the nth time. This isn't to say that what Red is doing isn't grand, because it is (grand).

[Jason Sinclair]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[James T Mather]

beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/bombsdavid/beergoggles.jpg

[Jason Sinclair]

Those goggles will make a bad script look good. What about the cocaine versions?

[jpp]

With all due respect to the babes, maybe beauty IS the eye of the beholder.

People in this business seem to like scripts which reflect their own fantasies, either about life or (more often) about movies they themselves would like to make. Or judgments of quality are so tied up with marketing assessments (how did everyone get to be an expert on what makes money, when so few films actually do?), that it's useless talking about dramatic, theatrical or visual qualities.

I mean, jeez - there are disagreements in all art forms, classical and popular, but when there's no consensus on whether Jaws or Star Wars are masterpieces or mass-market trash, how and where do you begin determining what a great screenplay is?

Look at American cinema today, and this confusion of standards is played out daily. It gets to the point where nobody knows whether a movie is sublime or ridiculous ("There Will Be Blood", for one?).

But it's the six and seven figure filmmaking in the U.S., where redemption is supposed to reside, which is really infuriating - invariably a dead loss financially, and little else to recommend it, apart from the occasional personal effort which doesn't come out of Sundance Labs or indie culture. And yet every indie producer and investor, and everyone from Robert Redford to Mark Cuban, knows what a great screenplay is.... Or so they tell us.

[josh]

But for the record, American Beauty was a script that everyone loved, Spielberg approved with no changes (and the original version has Spacey's character actually sleeping with the girl). A lot of directors wanted that one and it ended up being great. A lot of scripts seem to rise above the crowd.


ahahahahah, who told you that, the Phoenix Gazzette?

American Beauty is famous for having being turned down by EVERYBODY in Hollywood.

So many readers passed because they thought it was pedestrian.

And BTW, few years ago there was another script that did the rounds and was turned down by everybody.

it was an old one with a new title.

that script was Casablanca.

a "good script" raises above the crowd? yeah, keep thinking that.





a "good script" is like the holy grail: nobody knows how it looks like.

[josh]

Eh sort of, it's a property typically based on an engaging commercial hook that creates and builds dramatic tension over about 120 pages. Some scripts do it much better than others and they're usually the ones that get purchased and sometimes produced.



really?

most of the scripts that win contests, like the Nicholl or Disney, are that way.

do you see them as guaranteed purchases?

do you think that Gigli had an engaging commercial hook that created and built dramatic tension over about 120 pages?

have you actually read any of the screenplays that get bought?

there is not such a thing as a "great script". What there is its the "right script": the script that tickles the fancy of the buyer. period.



one man's trash is another man's treasure.

[jpp]

most of the scripts that win contests, like the Nicholl or Disney, are that way.

Are you sure you want to go even that far? I've read a few Nicholl winners, and don't think that anyone would describe them as "great screenplays". They're free of some Hollywood conventions, like exploitative violence, but they embrace plenty of other conventions. "Normative" is the word which comes to mind.

These are also "the right scripts", the feel-good stuff the judges are looking for and which they can justify to program trustees. To the extent they have literary form which is missing from Hollywood movies, it's the most conventional and unexciting kind. The freedom to bore.

[josh]

jpp, I completely agree with you (I read several winners and they are definitely not my taste) and you're absolutely right: they fulfilled the conventional parameters of good writing according to what's taught in writing classes, hence making them the right scripts.

like i said. the right script. not great script.

[Christoffer Glans]

Wilson's first impression of Los Angeles was blue. He was in
the sky at the time, so it was a curious reversal, looking
down rather than up at the color he had always felt was
nature's finest.

Swimming pools. Hundreds of them. Pockmarking the landscape
like miniature lakes. A flat landscape of straight streets
and square blocks and sparse grass that didn't look quite
green enough.

As far as Wilson could remember, he had only ever seen seven
or eight swimming pools in his entire life and they had been
public ones. Here everyone had their own. Marvellous.

You know, a screenplay should never describe a characters inner thoughts, because that is something you can't tell through images. It's also these kinds of inner thinking that is thrown away during pre-production and especially in rehearsal because actors can't work with someone else's description on how they should feel, that is their work.

I find it odd that many big budget hollywood productions have these "inner thought" descriptions because it's almost the first basic thing you learn to not do. It's also that which makes it something else then litterature.

So, just because you find screenplays with "inner thoughts" and "inner emotions" in the text doesn't mean that screenplays written like that is what defines what a screenplay is.

I find it rather more interesting to read theatre plays because the text is much more about dialogue and not so much about soulless explainations on what is happening.
It might be more fun reading a screenplay that is written like litterature, but it doesn't mean that it is how a screenplay should be. Such screenplays work good with producers who lack the skill to understand a true screenplay structure, but for a production screenplay it's useless = needs alot of work before shooting.

[James T Mather]

As David Mamet says - great verbiage and all that but a director looking to film that script will be hard pressed to find a clue contained within as to where to put the camera.

In short, it's charming description but unless it happens to be voiceover (in which case I stand corrected) then it's pretty redundant as screenwriting.

EDIT: Glazarus types faster than me.

[jpp]

Hate to come in third, and I'm the fastest typist here, but jtm and glazarus have it right: this stuff is nonsense in a screenplay. It's unnecessary for the actors and it's useless for the director. And it's not literature in its own right. What's being described should have been handled in one sentence. This is a screenplay, not The New Yorker.

And yet for everything being said here, there ARE "great screenplays", it's not an entirely mythical animal. Do we want to go into this or not?

[James T Mather]

What rules? At what stage was courier font mentioned? Nobody suggested conforming. So how does the passage you qouted "prove" anything outside of the fact that it exists and you are fond of it?

Plus why pick on Lem Dobbs specifically? The Limey and Kafka are pretty unusual scripts. How is it battle tested stuff and in what regard has it "succeeded on every level"?

It seems to me that because people picked apart the suitability of a script piece thats been posted, hitting them with the "oh you're all conformists" chant is pretty innaccurate - the only argument laid against it was that it is pretty, yet unfilmable verbiage as part of a script written for the screen - that is if it exists purely as action description - as voiceover there is nothing wrong with it.

[Joel Kaye]

American Beauty is famous for having being turned down by EVERYBODY in Hollywood.


That's a different statement than saying a script isn't great. It was certainly a very hot script for Directors to get a crack at directing once Spielberg decided to give it a shot.

Studios pass on great scripts they don't think will make money all the time. That's not news. And it's their job.

I don't think I'm saying a great script is a perfect predictor of commercial success or even a good movie. I think I'm saying some people can tell a good script (with interesting characters, situations etc.) from a piece of crap. A script is simply a blueprint though. Different filmmakers will turn out very different movies from the same blueprint.

As to the rules of screenwriting I think we'd see the "rules" were largely made up in the last 20 years with the screenwriting "how to" books. Scripts seem to differ between spec scripts (rules), accomplished writers writing for a producer (fewer rules) and a writer/director writing for themselves to shoot (few rules).

[jpp]

There were several arguments laid against the passage including your latest (that it's cherry picking) that it's "Redundant" or "Nonsense", and is more suited for the pages of the New Yorker.

You can argue that literary devices which have nothing to do with making movies sell screenplays. And you may be right. I once saw a screenplay by a big name writer who stopped the action to address the development executives directly in a kidding tone. And maybe that works for him. Or, at least, he can get away with it.

But the presence of extra-filmic material in screenplays isn't the issue here. We're talking about what in a script can be actually realized, and descriptive prose generally doesn't make it to the screen. If Lem Dobbs wrote that passage and it sells scripts, good for him. But its presence in the script says nothing about the ultimate quality of the film, which is the subject under discussion here, after all. Who cares what makes for a good read? We're interested in scripts that make for good films.

BTW, jtm: Dobbs was so infuriated by what Soderbergh did to Kafka that, after a negative review in the NY Times, he wrote to the paper protesting that the inanities of the script were Soderbergh's, not his. And they printed it. So much for great screenplays....

[Joel Kaye]

Dobbs was so infuriated by what Soderbergh did to Kafka that, after a negative review in the NY Times, he wrote to the paper protesting that the inanities of the script were Soderbergh's, not his. And they printed it. So much for great screenplays....

Luckily he didn't write for Michael Bay.

Stories of writers hating the movie are pretty common. They have their perfect version of the movie in their head. It's tough to match that. OTOH - I think Directors probably do really screw up stuff.

I was listening to the commentary on Sum of All Fears with the Director and Tom Clancy and there's a scene where the Russians are tracking Stealth Bombers on radar and Clancy says something "you know why they call 'em Stealth bombers don't you? 'Cause they don't show up on radar."

That movie had bigger problems than that but his comment was emblematic of the script problems.

[10s]

You guys are still on this? -- I said way back Jannard should back a good screenplay and have a movie made using RED at it's best by a Hollywood name so RED is introduced as a legitimate money making tool. Hollywood respects money, especially if it can make money repeatedly, who wouldn't? Good, simply means it appeals to a large number of the targeted demographic. Debating "Good' any other way is a waste of time, though I agree it can be fun to waste time arguing such a matter. Cinema is business and an art, an art you view while eating popcorn, red vines and sucking down a coke. Try that at your local art gallery. ;)

IMO, Screen writing is the most difficult form of writing, hands down. Novels don't come close to the brevity and internal construction required to pull off a largely visual work. Poetry is close but not nearly as intense, and a poem usually doesn't go on for 110 pages.

continue the battle..... :)

[jpp]

You guys are still on this?... Good, simply means it appeals to a large number of the targeted demographic.)

That may be true in a cynical or tautological sense, but if you believe it literally, on what basis do you write screenplays? It's going to very difficult to get through a script (or a movie) if you don't know, or think you know, good from bad, beyond what appeals "to a large number of the targeted demographic". And your definition is good, at best, only after the movie has been released, since nobody knows for sure at the script stage what's going to appeal to the "targeted demographic". So we're running in circles here. It's like saying a good lottery number is one which wins the lottery.

[Edit: Then again, I guess you could say that in the eyes of the industry, a "good" script is one which executives think they can sell to the audience, and it doesn't really matter whether they're right or not, because they determine what gets bought and produced. But still..... Is that all we're really arguing about here? Hope not!]


IMO, Screen writing is the most difficult form of writing, hands down. Novels don't come close to the brevity and internal construction required to pull off a largely visual work. Poetry is close but not nearly as intense, and a poem usually doesn't go on for 110 pages.

No no no no. Try writing a novel sometime. The two forms are difficult in different ways, and there's no point arguing over which form is "better", but far more people can come up with passable screenplays than passable novels or passable stage plays.

[10s]

That may be true in a cynical or tautological sense, but if you believe it literally, on what basis do you write screenplays? It's going to very difficult to get through a script (or a movie) if you don't know, or think you know, good from bad, beyond what appeals "to a large number of the targeted demographic". And your definition is good, at best, only after the movie has been released, since nobody knows for sure at the script stage what's going to appeal to the "targeted demographic". So we're running in circles here. It's like saying a good lottery number is one which wins the lottery.

[Edit: Then again, I guess you could say that in the eyes of the industry, a "good" script is one which executives think they can sell to the audience, and it doesn't really matter whether they're right or not, because they determine what gets bought and produced. But still..... Is that all we're really arguing about here? Hope not!]



No no no no. Try writing a novel sometime. The two forms are difficult in different ways, and there's no point arguing over which form is "better", but far more people can come up with passable screenplays than passable novels or passable stage plays.


1. The determination of Good, is based upon many things to many people. Businesses, governments, churches, ordinary people, etc. do this everyday in determined what they will and will not produce. Markets (people searching for solutions) decide what is good for them and they obtain these items with the belief it is Good for them. This happens for all physical and mental/spirtitual goods. We can argue this for ever or just realize that people do find satisfaction in a cinematic story which causes them no harm, provides entertainment in which they forget about their daily lives as they journey along and in fact it may help them to contemplate deeper issues. Also, story elements are well known, we consume them everyday. Most of us know what a good story is, like we know when we have eaten a good meal. Don't fool yourself into thinking Good = Outstanding, brilliant, fantastic... it could be those things, but it doesn't have to be any of those to be Good.

2. Novels are easier IMO, in comparison to a screenplay. How many pages must a novel be? answer: whatever. Try that with a screenplay. Novels have a far easier time depicting thoughts, motivations, etc... A screenplay must put visuals into a very limited and tight configuration of words. A novel can go on forever. A novel is consumed in bits, a movie is consumed in one physically suitable sitting. Ever hear people complain about a movie being too long vs. a novel?

Screenplays are more difficult because of the number of resrictions placed upon it. Also, screenplay must be producible. They have budgets and time schedules... it's far more complex than a novel could ever dream of being. And to top it off they have all these people going to WEB sites to learn about new tools so they can construct a movie from a screenplay. ;)

[Joe G.]

"They have budgets and time schedules... it's far more complex than a novel could ever dream of being."

I must say I don't agree with that statement. People become very insular about their own fields, elitist and biased. You see it all the time across many industries and enterprises.

I've seen a lot of crap movies, about as "complex" as an extended gag. Many are just rehashed, ripped off, same old uncreative sludge, with a few new "witty" lines or a new twist thrown in that made somebody orgasm somewhere along the lines. They lack.

I've read so many horrible, juvenile, bland, boring screenplays (and stopped before I got to 10 pages) that -- ahh you get the idea.

There's no reason to attack novels as an artform. Why would you?

[Scott Murphy]

Bootlegged (ie., "flickery") spanish-language version of the trailer just went up on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsyGJbuU9Q

[sergio arguello]

thanks matt
if you look at traffic ...the interiors are prestine exteriors are alot of what you have desribed...perhaps thats SS's style choice.

[José L. Martínez]

I've just seen it at local cineplex, and it just confirm RED is the closest to 35mm available, IMHO. I've already seen 4k projection from RED material, but this was the first time to see a filmout.

No videoish image, no strange artifacts, no trails (a la Apocalypto), more latitude you could dream of, and really nice highlights . I surveyed about 10 people, 2 of them work in movies. None of them could 'feel' it wasn't film originated material. And the super16mm segments just give another head to RED.

Once you burn it to film, it looks as film, but perhaps less grainy.

My camera ships this month. I've seen is possible, I'll see if I'm able...

J