A speed impossible with film.

[Billy McCannon]

When I saw “Crossing the Line” I was amazed that it was shot in two days.

I was left wondering how JP had managed to get so much coverage in a two-day shoot – even with two units.

“Working with the RED camera allowed for upward of 100 setups
over the 2 day shoot. A speed that would be impossible with film”

What makes it faster to shoot Red?

[Kjetil Haugen]

You don't have to reload. One film mag: aprox 10 min... red hard drive: 2 hours!

[Alexander Nikishin]

To add; less metering needed, hop into your set tent and what you see is what you get.

[David Mullen ASC]

To add; less metering needed, hop into your set tent and what you see is what you get.

Actually, the opposite happened - the DP mentioned to me that he often didn't have time to visit the tent, just get a quick meter reading and set the lens. He said that if he started walking towards the tent, Jackson would sometimes just started rolling the cameras without him.

Using a light meter is NOT time-consuming so let's not start trying to suggest that it is.

100 set-ups in two days is very impressive considering the complexity of the action staged, but in a situation like that, generally it's not the camera set-up time specifically that is slowing you down, unless it's protecting a camera against explosions and gunfire, which would be an issue regardless of whether it is a film or digital camera.

I've done film shoots where I've gotten 75 set-ups in one day, with lighting to deal with, so it's not impossible.

On digital shoots, you may save about a half-hour or so from not reloading, which adds up to a couple of more set-ups, and sometimes you can avoid cutting the cameras as often, keeping the momentum going, but honestly, there are also things that can slow you down on digital shoots sometimes -- like directors or producers getting nitpicky because they are seeing a big HD image and get fixated on fixing relatively unimportant problems, or doing ten times as many takes because they feel they can afford to, but forgetting that the more time they take doing more takes, the fewer set-ups they are going to get into the day. Plus sometimes you may be dealing with fixing a problem with bright highlights in the frame that film would normally handle OK.

So I have found that my HD shoots go faster than my film shoots, but it's not always a significant difference.

I'm sure Jackson shoots pretty fast in general, even on his film shoots.

[Jannard]

Peter Jackson is a ninja.

Jim

[David Mullen ASC]

After talking to a number of AD's who have mixed feelings about how fast digital shoots go versus film, I've come to the opinion that digital filmmaking can be as simple or as complicated as you wish to make it. Some people feel they need an army of technicians, engineers, scopes in tents, cables going to dozens of people's workstations, etc. -- or you can treat it like an ENG or Super-16 camera, pick it up and run with it.

Like I said, I find some real time-savings with the digital approach, but that's partly because I don't like to overcomplicate things. Yes, there is time saved from not reloading, but if you've ever had a good 1st AC, you know how fast an Arricam or Panaflex can be reloaded, in under 30 seconds. But even if it's a couple of minutes, a single-camera shoot may reload 10 times a day on average, unless using short loads for Steadicam or handheld, so you aren't talking about more than a half-hour of time spent per shooting day on reloads, and generally a half-hour is about two or three set-ups, maybe only one more set-up. But then you also have some time-savings from cutting less often, so you aren't stopping to re-slate, etc. and just have the actors do it again right away, so that's some more time saved.

So it adds up, but it also depends on how everyone treats the camera.

[Jannard]

After talking to a number of AD's who have mixed feelings about how fast digital shoots go versus film, I've come to the opinion that digital filmmaking can be as simple or as complicated as you wish to make it. Some people feel they need an army of technicians, engineers, scopes in tents, cables going to dozens of people's workstations, etc. -- or you can treat it like an ENG or Super-16 camera, pick it up and run with it.

Like I said, I find some real time-savings with the digital approach, but that's partly because I don't like to overcomplicate things. Yes, there is time saved from not reloading, but if you've ever had a good 1st AC, you know how fast an Arricam or Panaflex can be reloaded, in under 30 seconds. But even if it's a couple of minutes, a single-camera shoot may reload 10 times a day on average, unless using short loads for Steadicam or handheld, so you aren't talking about more than a half-hour of time spent per shooting day on reloads, and generally a half-hour is about two or three set-ups, maybe only one more set-up. But then you also have some time-savings from cutting less often, so you aren't stopping to re-slate, etc. and just have the actors do it again right away, so that's some more time saved.

So it adds up, but it also depends on how everyone treats the camera.

David... tell me about working with a helicopter... four minutes and land for a reload.

And I do think there is a big difference working with different digital cameras. I don't think you can lump them all together in one sound-bite. Shooting uncompressed RAW on refrigerator drives is different than shooting 4:4:4 to tape is different than shooting 4K compressed RAW to a small drive... or now to Compact Flash :-).

Jim

[Jannard]

I watched Peter work with RED in the trenches... when you might typically hear "cut, reset"...he kept the camera rolling and would direct the actors realtime. He made a comparison, that I will not repeat, on how much time he could save shooting RED vs. film. I'm not sure what Peter will do in the future, but I will say that I admire him tremendously. He is a ninja.

Jim

[David Mullen ASC]

David... tell me about working with a helicopter... four minutes and land for a reload.
Jim

Sure, or how about underwater photography too... there are a number of scenarios where very long recording times are a major benefit. Even doing simple car work where you don't have to pull over to the side of the road to reload or cut the camera, etc.

On the other hand, there are shooting situations where the time being spent is not by the camera department, and it's the camera crews that are waiting to roll.

Yes, obviously how you plan on recording digital material on the set, your workflow, is going to be a factor, but honestly, recording 50 minutes onto an HDCAM cassette is hardly time-consuming, it's just that recording 3 hours on a hard drive is even better.

I've shot thirty features (and one TV series) so I do have some sense of how long things take to set-up on a shoot and where the time is going, whether it's blocking and rehearsal, lighting time, setting up dollies or overhead silks, shooting time, etc... that's sort of my job! I've already said that I think there is some time savings with digital over film and I'm sure there is even more time to be saved with the RED camera, but there are other factors that can end up being more significant time-wasters on a shoot than what the camera department is up to. How a director likes to work has a major affect on how fast a shoot can move.

Truth is that on most shoots, lighting & grip rigging time is more significant than camera set-up time.

[Poi Boy]

100 set ups in two days sounds pretty hellish to me ! How big was the crew ?
Aloha
-A

[Corrado Silveri]

Not only "how big".
The right question is "who are"...

[Dale Launer]

I rarely disagree with David on anything and I'm not going to this time. The speed of a professional set (and the amount of setups) depends largely on the dynamics between the DP and the director and the material being shot. Shooting action (like Crossing the Line) is easier than shooting actors doing dialogue. There's just much less chance for screw ups (actor flubbing their lines, not getting the right performance, unwilling to do pick up lines, etc, etc - can add to extra takes and that means less setup time. Though, going in for close ups is easier than doing a fresh setup - action films require the subject (which could be a car, a stuffed doll) to hit a mark or two and then you're on to the next take. Running from A to B, shooting your gun, running to C and ducking - takes ten seconds. If you're shooting a scene with dialogue, it can easily take a few minutes. When you're shooting actors talking, hitting marks, pulling focus - you add complexity, compounding it and you open yourself up (exponentionally) to possibility of failed shot.

Also - I'd have see this movie again, but were their any complex tracking shots that involved complex focus pulling machinations? I don't think so - I remember a lot of shots and cutting. Complex shots not only take a lot of time to set up but again, you introduce more opportunity to screw up a take. (can be a LOT of time with a shot like this where you're looking for performance).

No dialogue, no sound issues. No waiting for an airplane to go by, no retakes because you lost sound, or the mixer has to change batteries, or he gets buzz that he has to track down, etc. Ah, the virtues of an MOS shot! I don't think any movie shoot escapes at least one flubbed shot because someone forget to put their cellphone on vibrate.

Crossing the Line was all exterior - which can be easier to light (if the director and the DP are in harmony on this) than interiors. And you've got LOTS of light, a wider DOF and fewer lost shots for focus issues.

Since this story (as think as it was) involved lots of cutting around (like a music video) - you can mask continuity issues. Nothing like being on a shoot, running late, losing your light, yelling cut, and dying to go again immediately while your make up people buzz in and making (what appears to be useless) adjustments, hair people doing the same, same with wardrbe. If the actor's hair is a little different, or their smudge doesn't match, or their rolled up shirt sleeve rolled down - you can cut away to a tank, or an airplane, or an explosion and when you cut back? Well, you don't notice the difference.

Also - I think it may have been mention here with digital, because it's all on one big real, you can shoot without using a slate and sort it out later. So you're not stopping, not waiting for your AC to get out of the shot, waiting for speed, etc. All that adds up at the end of the day.

While reloading a magazine is a fairly neglible time loss with a well oiled crew, but all delays, even minor ones, have an insidious way of compounding. It introcues another opportunity for someone to change something or get a coffee, or an assitant comes in with a document that needs to be signed, etc, etc. etc.

I can go on and on. (A movie set can be absolute torture for an impatient person - which I am. I hate to wait!

[David Mullen ASC]

I certainly can't disagree with Jackson on his estimates of time savings -- I guess I'm only pointing out that not types of shoots lose time to camera set-ups versus other time-taking elements. Not all shoots are day exterior, run & gun, action set-ups.

On one project I did, a good proportion of the day was spent rehearsing actors on set, lighting the scene, and then shooting the scene pretty simply, so switching from one type of camera to another would not have made a significant difference.

If you have to set-up fifty lights, light a couple of city blocks at night, or fly a 60'x60' silk from a crane, or lay 200' of dolly track, etc. it's not going to make much of a time difference whether you are using a 35mm camera or a RED camera. The camera crew is going to be ready and waiting for everyone else to be ready.

The camera and recording system is one factor in a production, not always the most important factor.

And I still feel that some people are going to want to use the RED camera in a more elaborate set-up than others, use tents and scopes and waveforms, big and little monitors, technicians in white lab coats for all I know...treat it like they were launching the space shuttle... while others are just going to slap on an onboard monitor and run with the thing, tiny crew, etc. I've seen this with other digital technology -- some people just don't feel comfortable without a lot of technical support, others are OK with keeping the crew small.

You also want to give Jackson's crew some credit in pulling off all those set-ups in two days.

[dalemccready]

I've found on digital shoots that if you intend to have a cine style work methodology, and set up the camera in much the same way as a film camera, have ACs pulling focus, that you pretty much get exactly what you set up. A cine style of shoot with a cine style speed. Reloading made a little difference, but not hugely.

Take the same camera, set up a lighweight zoom lens and pull off the barrel and go shoot action continuously and the same camera style can give you more speed, and the look associated with that.

I don't think the camera per se is the big thing here, it's the choice of how you shoot that saves the time.

[dalemccready]

...Also I'm not entirely sure that patting someone on the back for getting a huge number of set-ups in a short time is such a good thing.

No doubt (not having seen it) the finished film is worth watching, but that is testament to the skills of the people involved. Personally I'd much rather see what the same people could do with the Red shooting 5-10 set-ups a day.

[David Mullen ASC]

The truth is that you could shoot a 35mm movie in a manner similar to a tiny DV shoot, though it won't be as light and you will have to deal with reloading. But I've gone out into the mountains and deserts with just one assistant to shoot nature shots in 35mm, and I've shot some 2nd Unit type stuff that way with just an actor along for the ride, real low-key and tiny shoot, no lights or grip equipment. You ride around a car with the 35mm camera on your lap, you pull over and thrown down some sticks, and shoot something with the actor, MOS.

And of course there have been huge HD shows like "Revenge of the Sith" with big soundstages to light, big sets, video engineers, tape deck operators, lots of big plasma screen monitors for the director and producers to look at, etc.

So a lot of this is the attitude you want to take with the technology, and the complexity of what you are trying to shoot.

[Michael Brennan]

With the director doing some of the operating the pace can be akin to a documentry where taking a few steps and reframing equals another setup.

Lucas found he was shooting more setups a day when he went digital.

However everyone from indies to Lucas will find that to get same depth of field they are used to on 2/3 inch cameras they will need more light when using RED, which for smaller crews has an impact on speed.


Mike Brennan

[Gunleik Groven]

However everyone from indies to Lucas will find that to get same depth of field they are used to on 2/3 inch cameras they will need more light when using RED, which for smaller crews has an impact on speed.

Mike Brennan

Hm...

Wasn't the point of a full-frame sensor to have different DOF characteristics from the smaller sensor/format cams...
i.e. shallower DOF.

OK

You'll need to put more light up to get a higher f/t-stop and deeper DOF, but as far as I've noticed, most people here have an urge for the opposite. Or am I wrong?

Gunleik
The not neccessarily shallow DOF junkie

[Michael Brennan]

Not everyone wants 35mm depth of field all the time.
Don't forget the advantages of small format depth of field for bluescreen and low ambient light level work popular with indie production.

Mike Brennan

[PaulClements]

This reads as a bit of an odd thread to me. The only mainstream director to have used Red to shoot a movie, albeit a short, has stated that it was quicker and that with film he wouldn't have been able to do it. What's there to argue against?

Of course anyone with a bit of foresight can see there will be times when there is no advantage over shooting film, but in the same breath there's probably not a single time where shooting film is actually quicker. Compare that to the multitude of occasions where digital is a more rapid medium to use, not only in the acquistion of the image but the delivery to post, and I don't get the point of attempting to suggest there's no obvious difference.

I don't mean to discredit anyone's posts about when there is no advantage because they all make sense, but it seems like most of the situations being discussed in depth are of course times when there is no advantage rather than a focus towards those occassions when it will make a great deal of difference.

[Stephen Webb]

The argument is in taking the fact that Crossing the Line could not have been shot in two days on film and applying it generally to the filmmaking process.

If Peter Jackson had had Red to shoot Lord of the Rings on it would have made not a jot of difference to the schedule - the complexity of the film dictates the pace more than the camera.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I'll throw in my own 2 cents about metering and tents. I'm a younger DP that grew up around digital cameras (I got started back when DVCPRO, was replacing Beta SP at a lot studios...). I've never shot a scrap of motion picture film, ever. With that said, most would probably think I'm a tent and monitors kind of guy.

Couldn't be farther from the truth!

I didn't have too many options when I was first starting out (the DC area is a HUGE political ENG News town.... full of people that only know how to setup camera mounted lights, need I say more?), so I basically taught myself. The first thing I did was read all of the Ansel Adams books at my local library :) and what I pulled from that was the zone system. Being the geek I am, I kept learning and found out how to apply that system to digital cameras and digital post processing (FYI, the system takes post into account). It's super fast once you know it like the back of your hand. Have I used scopes on set? Once. But that was only because the portable LCD the director was using had it built in. But I never go off only that.

Working with compressed digital formats can be quite tricky. I have yet to see someone tell me what an image will look like from just viewing a scope. I'm very interested in creating subtle lighting gradients on faces, backgrounds, etc... and a spot meter is far more helpful than a scope when shooting something like that to an HD format that isn't terribly forgiving in post.

When working as a gaffer, I don't always have a camera on set when lighting.... more food for thought.

Bottom line, invest in a nice pro level multi meter (I sport a Sekonic L-758 Cine Digital master :w00t: on every set!). Think of it this way, its the ultimate portable box-o-scopes, you just need to know how it works!

And lets not forget, I've never shot motion picture film......ever.

[jamesedwelland]

The pressure of time the DP is under on may shoots makes them extremely aware of how that time is spent. Reloading is an issue with film, especially perhaps with keeping the momentum hence the often heard AD's cry of 'dont break it up', but I'm not sure its such a big deal really (helecopters excepted). If realoding was percieved to be a major issue then on 16mm at least 800' mags would be more popular.

However, the 'just keep rolling style' is becoming an increasing trend, likely to be encouraged by longer recording capacities that RED for example offer. I think that the desire and ability to keep rolling will have a signifigant effect on shooting style which may well influence camera system choice. Shooting part of a scene on a track with a definite start and end is increasingly looking old fashioned (especially to producers on TV stuff) and one which doesnt lend itself to the looser 'just keep it rolling' approach. In this respect, wavelet compression like redcode helps for both on camera storage and edit room capability to deal with all that data. (indeed its that compression that seems to me to be the whole key to the REDOne and visual data as a whole). It might be that filmaking is changing.

Whether its the camera that takes the time or other departments really depends on the nature of the shoot and especially the style of shooting. If its hand held then moving the camera and setting it up is really fast; stedicam cam be very quick, but if you are doing dolly tracks then the camera set up time can be signifigant. The time it takes to set up a camera is pretty camera system agnostic. (as long as there are not to many cables). Its all about the type of shoot, so something like RED may well be quicker in the 'shoot everything keep it rolling style', but probably not in any signifigant way in other situations.

The time it takes to shoot a scene and the number of setups achieved (which have become a sort of 'Badge of Honour' often quoted at your job interview...) is also hugely dependent on the skill and motivation of the whole crew and intelligence of the director, as well as the coperation (and number) of the actors, the scale of the shot and the number of extras for example. Perhaps thats why Peter Jackson's crew achieved a phenomenal 100/day setup rate.

I almost wonder though if its disingenous to portray one camera system as being quicker than the other, as if this is where the time on a shoot is actually spent when it so often isn't?



james w

[Ken Willinger]

The current indie I'm working on now could move much faster, but the director seems never to be satisfied and does take after take. We never meet the projected days schedule. But he's also paying the bill so I guess he can take as much time as he wants. In this case it wouldn't matter what camera system is being used. The director is eating up the time.

[Matt Uhry]

However everyone from indies to Lucas will find that to get same depth of field they are used to on 2/3 inch cameras they will need more light when using RED, which for smaller crews has an impact on speed.

Mike Brennan

Lets not start any of that "With _______ camera you don't have to light..."

Most of the time film lighting is done to achieve a certain quality of look and not a quantity of stop.

Lighting is your friend!

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Out of interest how long were the 2 days? 100 scenes in 16 hours would be very impressive however if there were 2 x 16 hour days, thats about 20 minutes a set up. I don't think that is impossible with any format.

Stephen

[Miltos Pilalitos]

Hi,

Out of interest how long were the 2 days? 100 scenes in 16 hours would be very impressive however if there were 2 x 16 hour days, thats about 20 minutes a set up. I don't think that is impossible with any format.

Stephen

DId you count the launch break? :biggrin:

[donatello b]

" never meet the projected days schedule. But he's also paying the bill"

from my experience i have found that if crew is not being paid or is paid a flat day rate then director/producer take whatever time they want = cost remain same if 8hr day or 16 hr day ...
and from experinece i have seen that if crew is being paid overtime the days tend to be shorter ...

[Daniel Reichenbach]

The question, how many takes could be done in one day is not only answered by the talents of a director or DOP: It depends on the question, if it is an indie film or controlled by the unions. As I heard, in Hollywood, for a director like PJ nowbody will allow him ever to take a camera and shoot the szene himself. In Europe, we have unions but as the budgets most of the time are smaller than in Hollywood (perhaps in NZ it's also the case), we learned to deal with it, means one person is responsible for several jobs. I know that DOPs like Ballhaus (Germany) ore Zigmond (Hungary?), Steiger (Swiss) were very wellcomed in the states not only because of there talent, but also because they were much faster to deal with light, camera and crew. They learned it as indie DOPs, they learned to deal with less money, less people, less equipment, less time to prepare a shot. So this may also be a question of working culture. RED will change the culture of shooting, I'm shure. And there are a lot of people out there who don't like that.

[Stephen Williams]

DId you count the launch break? :biggrin:

Hi,

You mean people actually stop working whilst they eat?

Stephen

[PaulClements]

The argument is in taking the fact that Crossing the Line could not have been shot in two days on film and applying it generally to the filmmaking process.

If Peter Jackson had had Red to shoot Lord of the Rings on it would have made not a jot of difference to the schedule - the complexity of the film dictates the pace more than the camera.

I'm not entirely sure Stephen, I remember reading about the time spent and complexities of shooting the Council of Elrond scenes and the problems that occured there. Perhaps with the smaller size, monitoring capabilities and lack of swapping out film etc the use of a digital camera constantly rolling could have significantly impacted on the schedule. I'm not disputing that the complexity of the film dictates the pace more than the camera, but more efficient tools and experts versed in the use of those tools in each department will always make for a more efficient and rapid production, why try to suggest otherwise?

[Tom Lowe]

Interesting thread.

[jamesedwelland]

... I remember reading about the time spent and complexities of shooting the Council of Elrond scenes and the problems that occured there. Perhaps with the smaller size, monitoring capabilities and lack of swapping out film etc the use of a digital camera constantly rolling could have significantly impacted on the schedule. I'm not disputing that the complexity of the film dictates the pace more than the camera, but more efficient tools and experts versed in the use of those tools in each department will always make for a more efficient and rapid production, why try to suggest otherwise?

Sure, having the possibility of not reloading can, if you are shooting in a certain style, save some time, but I can only reiterate that in my experience on features and TV drama reloading the camera is not a significant time cost in most situations. In many cases things need to be reset between takes, actors need to check their lines, hair needs to be attended to, directors need to give notes, focus checked, continuity reset. You need to wait too for the rain to stop, sun to come out, plane to go away, bulb to be replaced, mic to be fixed, battery replaced, smoke to settle, wind to stop and so on. You can decide to ignore all this and just keep shooting, but thats a style of shooting that though becomeing more commonplace, is not I believe the right thing in all situations.

Moreover, you may be wise to swap out the RED drives pretty often anyway as I doubt you want to be shooting more than 10 or 20 mins without checking and backing up! So thats not so different...

In fact to play devils advocate you could say that in some of those situations where exposure may be difficult to control (like with sun in and out) you may be better off on film :-)

james w

[Casey Green]

David... tell me about working with a helicopter... four minutes and land for a reload.

And I do think there is a big difference working with different digital cameras. I don't think you can lump them all together in one sound-bite. Shooting uncompressed RAW on refrigerator drives is different than shooting 4:4:4 to tape is different than shooting 4K compressed RAW to a small drive... or now to Compact Flash :-).

Jim

Great points. All of those aerials would have taken a lot longer. Not to mention being able to take the drive right into the post process. (Was it dropped off to Park Road Post straight from the heli?) :)

BTW, can anyone describe the shoot schedule of Crossing the Line? I would love to see the setups breakdown or one-liner.

[jamesedwelland]

I think the other factor to think about is trying to keep some control over the image. Not to be difficult, but simply to keep the bar raised cinematographically. Im not positive that just keeping rolling always helps this (though in some situations it can) Certainly a thorny issue..

james w

[Antoine Fabi]

I'm a music composer/producer.

It remembers me exactly what happened 10 or 15 years ago with digital acquisition/processing. It didn't sound perfect, it was not "there"...at that time...

"The digital sound will never replace analog for high end recording..." many were saying...

...until audio digital acquisition equipments began to sound really great (good A/D converters/samplers etc...)

I can't imagine working in analog anymore.

It saved me SSOOOOO much time without sacrificing the quality.

PLUS, it is so flexible.

I think RED WILL change things, perceptions, and workflows.

Give it a chance to prove itself...and SEE.

The guys are working, oh man they're working! just remeber what we saw in 4K at NAB, ...and all the improvements that have been done since a year...truly unbelievable.

High end digital filming will coexist with film for quite a long (well more or less) time before it gets generally accepted, but eventually, it is inevitable, film will be replaced by digital.

Keep up the good work guys.

[donatello b]

there are Directors that operate camera and/or also DP ... exactly what the union rules are i don't know ...
i have seen non union DP's shooting commercials while a union DP is on set getting paid ...

i would guess it might be the same with a director operating - union operator is on set getting paid ...

"Zigmond (Hungary?), Steiger (Swiss) were very wellcomed in the states not only because of there talent, but also because they were much faster to deal with light, camera and crew ...

they both came over and started on low budget films ... it was TALENT that got them both going ... i don't think you'll find any production managers, gaffers from the late 70's-80's that will say Zigmond was fast - infact i think you'll hear the opposite.
when i arrived in LA in 82 - he was the DP at top of my list that i wanted to watch light ... i was on a few sets of Zigmond and i would go more to the slow side ( alot of soft lighting to control ) - he's a great DP ..

Ueli Steiger i know and his 1st feature in US i believe was Promised Land. he was 2nd unit DP .. the producer/director thought the 1st unit DP lighting was a bit too dark so they (oh what the word ?? fired , let him go ? ) and temp moved Ueli up to DP while they looked for another - after a few days they liked Uli's images and working with him ... if you look at Ueli's films you will see that he was shooting low-med indie projects ... then he did 2nd unit on Independence day and since then has shot all of Roland Emmerich features (last project 10,000BC was a year of production) ...

[dalemccready]

Why is it perceived to be such a good thing to work faster?

I'm hoping the lower cost of the camera will allow the exact opposite. More money saved in production costs allowing more production time.

Or am I being naive?

Although I suppose a faster to use camera system (reloading and such) could mean that time is better spent making the scene right rather than dealing wth the camera.

[GlennChan]

Perhaps your biggest time savings with Red would be shooting with multiple cameras? Though you can do this with film if you have the budget.

Lighting-wise, shooting with multiple cameras can compromise the lighting (or if you setup good lighting, you didn't really save that much time).

[donatello b]

"Why is it perceived to be such a good thing to work faster?"

time = $$

around 1980 "movie of the week"s were shoot in approx 32 days ..
mid 90's movie of week were approx 18 days ..
late 90's - 15 days

IMO the real the difference .. in 80 a average work day was 9-10 hr .. 90's average day 14-15hr ....

[Stephen Webb]

I'm not entirely sure Stephen, I remember reading about the time spent and complexities of shooting the Council of Elrond scenes and the problems that occured there.

I would have thought that the fact you have half-a-dozen major characters in a circle, who you have to light each angle specifically for, would have had the biggest effect on the schedule for that sequence. Not to mention blocking and composition. Having to stop every 11 mins to reload (which takes about a minute) shouldn't be an issue comparatively.

[Fix]

To state that a whole movie/tv project can be done much faster because of a camera is sorta hilarious IMHO. I quote jamesedwelland
In many cases things need to be reset between takes, actors need to check their lines, hair needs to be attended to, directors need to give notes, focus checked, continuity reset. Thats true but not the whole story. What about FX work for instance. Everyone dealing with this know that it will take basically the same time to finish the job regardless dealing with film or digital. Post production. Now you will save some time digitalizing.. but thats basically it.

Stephen webb quote
If Peter Jackson had had Red to shoot Lord of the Rings on it would have made not a jot of difference to the schedule - the complexity of the film dictates the pace more than the camera. Right on! The camera is only a tool, thats it. On stage/set it would probably make difference time wise. Make any difference in time to deliver the final movie in this dimension... not a chance.

David Mullen put it like this,quote:
If you have to set-up fifty lights, light a couple of city blocks at night, or fly a 60'x60' silk from a crane, or lay 200' of dolly track, etc. it's not going to make much of a time difference whether you are using a 35mm camera or a RED camera. The camera crew is going to be ready and waiting for everyone else to be ready. I totally agree to this. Sitting there with that RED 320 gig drive will not save the day for those 100+ extra people running around.

Now Paul Clements got a fine question, quote:
The only mainstream director to have used Red to shoot a movie, albeit a short, has stated that it was quicker and that with film he wouldn't have been able to do it. What's there to argue against?
Im not that familiar shooting with film. But I do know that PJ shoot “Crossing the Line” in about 2 days... Contrary was Reservoir Dogs (1 and half hour movie) shoot in something like 1 week on 16mm (tell me if I'm wrong). Now if you get everything set and down on the paper... I think you can get pretty far/fast with film. Dealing with predictability while making a movie makes up for the unanticipated and tension in a good movie IMO. After reading Jim's post I'll take it like PJ had a dialog with the actors making them act the way he wanted, while at the same time had the camera rolling. Now that is a way to work, not the way to work. I cant see that it will necessarily make things faster in the long run. In my experience you should never tape unnecessary footage but keep to the matter of necessity. If you get 2 hours of diddle-daddle on tape, but only need 2min of chat, you can go in for a long night edit.

My point is. Redone will make the "on set" work flow faster (and better I think) in some areas, but will not effect considerable time to finish a big project spending long time run and involve 100+ people doing their jobs. Stating otherwise is arrogant IMO. Now dealing with a much smaller and (intentional) faster independent project, would make a larger effect I guess. So it comes down to this. If you want to finish a project in 2 weeks you got to have a Redone (I'm skiping/forgetting all other digital cameras for this one). If you want to make a project that is designed to take more than 6months you don't need a Redone. And finally and most important of all.. If you want to make a 4k movie and think it doesn't mater if you take or don't take that extra coffee brake.. you need a Redone regardless (at least I hope so :-) ).

[Jay A. Kelley]

Look this is simple guys.. Jim is the OWNER of a camera company. Do you expect him to say anything OTHER than his camera will change the world?! It's his job to push that damn thing at every turn. More power to him. Now guys like David, and other DOPs on here know what the equipment is for and how to use it. Those of us that make movies understand exactly where the camera fits into the scheme of things, and also where it DOESN'T.

To most people that make movies from end to end (Like me) the pain in the arse is not usually picture, but sound. Make a bad picture and some dweeb will call it "Traffic", but make bad sound, you're screwed.

Hey Jim.. Wanna mess with the sound world next? I'll tell you what they need! Go look at the Aaton Cantar-X and find a way to make that for around $3,500.00 and you will blow the doors off the sound world! I'm not kidding.

Jay

[TimothyD]

Damn, that's nice.

How's the little guy doing Jay? Getting any sleep???

Cheers,

Tim

[David Mullen ASC]

To me, it's sort of obvious that shooting digitally without having camera reloads will speed the process up, and my HD shoots tend to go a little faster than my film shoots because of that... but I also routinely poll camera crews, DP's and (most importantly) AD's who are doing digital features and TV shows about their time savings compared to their film shoots, and the results are not consistently showing that digital shoots go faster than film shoots.

Again, a lot of this is how the particular workflow is set-up on the shoot, and the particular digital technology, but factored against all the things on a shoot that having nothing to do with the camera aspect. Look at "Zodiak", shot on Vipers going to hard drives -- that was a 117-day feature shoot. And I don't blame the Vipers for that long schedule because Fincher's film shoots are equally long. And I'm sure that Fincher likes shooting digitally because it works with his style of directing and image control, so in a sense, for him it was a more efficient way to work, But that didn't translate into a shorter schedule in his case.

As for not cutting the camera, on my last show, the lead actor actually would tell the director to cut rather than keep rolling after a flubbed take, even if it meant just cutting, then rolling and reslating only moments later -- but the actor wanted that brief moment to "reset" himself and wasn't comfortable with the idea of the camera rolling while he did that. He didn't feel that to keep rolling and just start over was going to work for him. And of course, there are many types of shots where there is simply too many elements to reset at the head of the take when people are doing things in the scene like preparing a dinner, loading groceries into a fridge, etc.

So while I have no doubt that directors used to shooting on film are going to notice the time-savings by switching to digital, not all are going to take advantage of that effectively or be able to - it just depends on a lot of factors beyond the camera issues.

[dalemccready]

I think you and Jay have summed that up very well David.

Time for a new render to pop up to give us something else to chat about ;)

[Jonathan Payne]

The truth is that you could shoot a 35mm movie in a manner similar to a tiny DV shoot, though it won't be as light and you will have to deal with reloading. But I've gone out into the mountains and deserts with just one assistant to shoot nature shots in 35mm, and I've shot some 2nd Unit type stuff that way with just an actor along for the ride, real low-key and tiny shoot, no lights or grip equipment. You ride around a car with the 35mm camera on your lap, you pull over and thrown down some sticks, and shoot something with the actor, MOS.


Is this how you shot all of that wonderful B-Roll of the snowy peaks, old wooden fences, the melting ice on the lake around Choteau, MT on "Northfork"?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, it was just me and my 1st AC for that stuff.

[jamesedwelland]

..My point is. Redone will make the "on set" work flow faster (and better I think) in some areas, but will not effect considerable time to finish a big project spending long time run and involve 100+ people doing their jobs. Stating otherwise is arrogant IMO. Now dealing with a much smaller and (intentional) faster independent project, would make a larger effect I guess. ...

Perhaps, but even on smaller projects the effect is minimal. In fact for small projects you can reload a 16mm camera (and some 35mm cameras) in about 3 seconds or less. Tape is far slower, though the nice thing about Hard drives is their simple exchange (as long as there is not a fiddly firewire cable - and do they need to spin down?)

I wonder though whether you can hotswap batteries? Does RED neet to be switched off? Is there a restart time? How long to batteries last?

Seriously though, the arguement that not having to reload so often and this will save you time is I think just hot air. There are other more valid things about RED that make it an interesting camera.

james welland

[Dale Launer]

Re: Keeping the camera running.

A nice possible feature for the RED - and an easy feature to add - would be a way to keep the camera running, but to signify a stop/start so you know this is the end of a take and beginning of another.

[Michael Brennan]

One very experienced director I shot with, new to HD he just loved being able to do an extra take without a cost penalty to try to get improved performance. He said that on film he would be happy to get 80% after two takes, but on digital would go for a extra take or two.
Other than that we could have been using film so we weren't any quicker.

On a different movie, "reset" rather than "cut" was the order of day, not so much to save time but to control the set.
(Fay Dunaway made this point after directing a digital movie, that it gives a director a choice to keep pace and pressure on an actor)

Different director we were shooting long lens of a pretty big scene of extras I noticed 2nd unit camera pop into frame.. being operated by the director! who had decided to pick up the 2nd unit f900 and hit roll as he saw something worth shooting. That movie was shot in 18 days.



Mike Brennan

[Stephen Williams]

Hi All,

I believe Haskell Wexler holds the record for shooting a feature, on film in 4 days, with no pick ups. The days were not that long either, so time spent reloading a film camera can't be such a big issue after all.

Stephen

[laguun]

shooting digital is, as peter jackson mentioned, faster than shooting with mechanical cameras on film.

in several special applications film is even much slower.

the more efficient production method digital offers over film especially become remarkable when one stops looking only at the set and shooting, but rather at the whole productions pipeline. here are some examples a bit more from the productiosn POV instead of the DOP pov:

- film requires lab & development, requiring additional workforce, expenses and time.
- filmnegs have to been brought to the lab and back to the set for viewing. this adds a whole layer of logistics - and risk.
- film has to be scanned in order to use the images inside a modern high-quality postproduction workflow, once more adding cost and time. when shooting digital, postpro is no longer postpro, you can start right on the set, and i have seen becoming this more and more popular, especially for shortform and timecritical productions. or even live.
- recording digital to disc or tape allows for really sycned sound & image on one media, without having to relink sound & image for the editorial process later on, as necessary with film.
- film doesn´t allow critical monitoring while shooting, and one can´t measure what really is recorded - this requires auite a bit more communication ("have we got the shot right? was focus 100%"?) and if one is careful, another take is often recommendable while on digital you can already proceed if the shot has been reviewed and was good.
- taking care of storage & transport of the filmstocks adds another inefficent unnecessary layer of work & time. especially shooting on remote, hot locations (desert etc) with long runtimes (documentary etc) is somewhat slow and more risky when using film.
- if recommendable, you can record basicly without any interruption to disc. this is especially helpful with any non-fictional liveevents, as sports, concerts etc. this is simply impossible with film - one will be slower and miss shots.
- when producing digital, colorcorrection can be done inside the camera. some dops (steve mc nutt and bsg come to mind) made that an artform, reducing another whole step in logistics and workforce.

as has been mentioned before, reload is a issue when shooting with film, especially with any kind of special photography as underwater, aerial, basicly any type of shot where accessing the camera isn´t possible. james cameron summed it up quite precise: "for any kind of special photography, never shoot on film again".

for us, film has had its advantage in higher framerates and shallow dofs, so we use 35mm on special occasions instead of digital 1080p. however, once we get our reds delivered here, i don´t think we will be using 35mm often anymore.

[Jay A. Kelley]

I agree with those that have said this arguement has gotten a little old..

Lucas is doing great! (Thanks for asking guys)

Jay

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

One thing I notice is quality of performance. If the actor & crew know they have only 2 takes possible, they get it right. I have been on Video shoots where we shoot 70 takes, and they are all sloppy. Actor's don't bothered to learn their lines and ask 'can we use a teleprompte?'

I don't understand haw being to make more takes & the ability to look back at what has been done can save time on a shoot.

FWIW I have shot film for television that was processed whilst the live programme was on air. Even todays negative stocks take just 45 minutes to process.

Stephen


shooting digital is, as peter jackson mentioned, faster than shooting with mechanical cameras on film.

in several special applications film is even much slower.
.

[laguun]

Hi,
One thing I notice is quality of performance. If the actor & crew know they have only 2 takes possible, they get it right. I have been on Video shoots where we shoot 70 takes, and they are all sloppy. Actor's don't bothered to learn their lines and ask 'can we use a teleprompte?'

This has nothing to do with film or digital, not even with technology.
This just describes a sloppy crew & cast.

Furthermore, "If the actor & crew know they have only 2 takes possible, they get it right." isn´t valid at all IMHO - shots involving animals and kids just comes to mind as brutal example.

i still remember shooting a commercial for "catsan" involving a fly and a kitten. 2 days shooting for one take (and the second day listening to mozart all the time because the cat-trainer insisted that the kitten needed the music to relax...)

furthermore, i have experienced -many- shots who did take more than 5 takes even with top-notch actors & crew. anything long, anything involving action & tough physical interaction, complex props, cruicial timing involving several depts (dynamic light, pyrotech, on-location outdoor, crowd-scenes) come to mind. its different when shooting a single actor for one line or a product packshot, but especially eager scenes can be quite challenging, even if they finally look if they would have been done without effort.



I don't understand haw being to make more takes & the ability to look back at what has been done can save time on a shoot.

just one example - complex steadycamshot, lots of pyro to set up, 145 sec runtime. If you need 15 min to re-setup the set per shot, working without review forces you to reshoot if ac/dp aren´t -100%- sure about the take.

if you are in the 1% of dop/ac which -always- get it right and always are sure and never had issues with filmstocks, then you might work without review. i certainly prefer to be able to control what we have shot for various reasons.



FWIW I have shot film for television that was processed whilst the live programme was on air. Even todays negative stocks take just 45 minutes to process.

certainly impossible for live, quite challenging with any multicam-situation, this is still done here and there, i know. but i would guess for live-running TV the marketshare of film has decreased to <5% (guesstimation, i suppose its even less) for good reason - especially on high-budgets as in worldchampionsships, sports etc.

[Stephen Williams]

This has nothing to do with film or digital, not even with technology.
This just describes a sloppy crew & cast.

and always are sure and never had issues with filmstocks, then you might work without review.



Hi,

I often find people become 'sloppy' because they can.

Personally I have never had an issue with film stock, assuming you make the second take on the same roll & process at the same time, all takes will have the same problem! OK on Video you may get drop outs so it's more important to check, but thats not saving time.

Stephen

[laguun]

I often find people become 'sloppy' because they can.

generally speaking i agree. on the set however i disagree. when we get complaints from dp/director (or even lower ranks) about someone being sloppy i know what i have to do.



Personally I have never had an issue with film stock, assuming you make the second take on the same roll & process at the same time, all takes will have the same problem!

i might be traumatised by several experiences we had to make with the use of 35mm in rather unusual climatic conditions. deserts can be a pita for photochemical substances.



OK on Video you may get drop outs so it's more important to check, but thats not saving time.

i am not sure what you refer to with the term video - 1080p to disc doesn´t have dropouts, as digital shooting doesn´t have in general. You can even, if a shot requires paranoia (blowing up something etc), configure the disc to raid 10level so you will even keep on recording if a drive fails.

If you refer to tape, yes, but that reminds me of just another speedup when using digital aqusition: being able to generate several masters at once (recording to camera ctr, attached via hd-sdi to ddr and second vtr) and therefore allowing delvery to several involved companies at once, as tape 1 is for review & edit, ddr goes straight to DI, tape 3 to the vfx dept, without any processing time.

[mezmo]

Hi Jim and the gang,
If Stanley Kubrick was alive today and chose to shoot his next film using
Red he'd probably still take 3 days to light and 3 days to shoot ONE
scene. The guy was very slow but still got the thing done in his own special
way.
Obviously speed ain't everything for some directors, so what's the point of all this Digital's faster stuff?
I look forward to using Red. Fast,slow and on idle.

Have fun all Mezmo

[Stephen Williams]

i am not sure what you refer to with the term video - 1080p to disc doesn´t have dropouts, as digital shooting doesn´t have in general. You can even, if a shot requires paranoia (blowing up something etc), configure the disc to raid 10level so you will even keep on recording if a drive fails.



Hi,

I referred to dropouts on tape as I know you have Sony 750 cameras. You have not to my knowledge mentioned you were recording 1080p to disk. Have you ever had to reboot the system during the day?

FWIW many insurance companies don't allow direct play back from camera original tapes!

Are you using raid10?

I know the S.two recorders used in high end production have no redundancy built in at all, 1 drive fails and goodbye pictures, they also require rebooting from time to time. The first take after a reboot is often lost. HDCAM SR has some advantages for 1080p.

Stephen

[laguun]

Hi,
I referred to dropouts on tape as I know you have Sony 750 cameras. You have not to my knowledge mentioned you were recording 1080p to disk.

we use tape only, disc only, tape/disc mix, all depending on the shots at hand. going to disc however is often done for quality purposes alone, in order to avoid hdcam/hdcam sr datareduction which is recommendable for several situations, greenscreen being one of the most prominent.

so far, we have been extremly lucky with the 750s - not a single drop on any tape, cameras slightly above 1000 hours on the heads.

however, the large master tapes recorded with the hdcam vtr 2020 we have had 4 dropouts iirc in ~3000 hours drum rotate. the "upperclass" hdcam vtrs have condition check, and alert you if anything isn´t recorded perfectly with tc etc. i think the feature is available on all the "upperclass" hdcam vtrs.



Have you ever had to reboot the system during the day?

no, luckily the actual systems never had a glitch, was quite a bit different in the early days ~2002/03. we are using blackmagic decklinks on pci-x meanwhile, in conjunction with the decklink software and have 2 of them. raids are 16 disc sata (in 0) with dual pci-x controllers.

they are very heavy and bulky however and not suited for use in field, pure studio / vehicle systems if you want so. this ibc we will look (once more) for more portable 1080p/2k discrecorders, but besides the quite expensive japaneses from
http://www.keisoku.co.jp/en/
we haven´t found any really tempting offers so far.

with red we are not fully decided as of now, but it seems we might go cf->notebook backup. however that might change any minute once the first experiences in the field indicate big advantages.



FWIW many insurance companies don't allow direct play back from camera original tapes!

Our does, but it did add a slight higher cost IIRC. we are using mainly tella/allianz as insurance.



Are you using raid10?

yes, for metadata always, but rarely for mediadata.
for mediadata in most cases backup instead of raid10, as both our discrecorders allow copy while record - at 1080p, for 2k our discs in the raids aren´t fast enough yet, i suppose we will upgrade them once red is delvered.



I know the S.two recorders used in high end production have no redundancy built in at all, 1 drive fails and goodbye pictures, they also require rebooting from time to time.
The first take after a reboot is often lost. HDCAM SR has some advantages for 1080p.

i don´t have experience with the s.two so far. our raid 10s are able to keep on working when a drive fails, only annoying thing about the pci-x controllers inside of them was that they at once emit a -extremly- loud continous beeping if any disc if harmed, which made us screw the warranty by disabling the small piezospeaker on the board.

btw - both discfailures were caused by human error; cooling was blocked, and they really need ~40 cm distance behind them or the raids will overheat. besides these failures we hadnt any disc failures (seagate barracuda iirc).

[Casey Green]

re: not having to stop to reload... I would agree this really does not take too much time. But, in my experiences on many films, I have witnessed a good amount of takes that were lost due to roll-out.

Sure, in a perfect world, this is planned for and should not happen, but when you are in the moment with an actor, or there is improvisation happening, there are great benefits to being able to extend the take beyond the planned amount of time.

Another very important factor to consider, that I didn't see mentioned here (forgive me if I missed it) is the impact that longer takes or "still rolling" :) has on the sound department. Often the last person that is thought of is the Boom Operator - a vital part in the production - who, with Digital Productions, has to sometimes endure extremely long takes, which can be difficult and painful as he/she must hold their position throughout the take. This might be the standard arms-overhead position, or other acrobatic positions such as cramped under a desk or leaning over the top of a ladder.

As others have said, there are many factors to consider when weighing the benefits and drawbacks when shooting continuously.

[Michael Brennan]

Hi All,

I believe Haskell Wexler holds the record for shooting a feature, on film in 4 days, with no pick ups. The days were not that long either, so time spent reloading a film camera can't be such a big issue after all.

Stephen

The digital equivalant would be the movie shot on steadycam in an single shot, using a f900 and backpack with hard disk recorder.

Even easier to do with RED.:ohmy:

Mike Brennan

[Cail Young]

The digital equivalant would be the movie shot on steadycam in an single shot, using a f900 and backpack with hard disk recorder.

Even easier to do with RED.:ohmy:

Mike Brennan

Russian Ark (http://imdb.com/title/tt0318034/) - it's an odd experience...

[tj williams]

In the end the fast will still be fast the slow will still be slow the hours of work will continue to rise, the wages per hour will continue to erode and the DIT will continue to get wages better than the asst. Probably all movies of the future will be D.Ark Steadicam ops with smaller steadicams and 1.5 hour mags on the RED. Thus there will be no further need for post. (except to fix the sound.)
THis should suffice until immersive replaces us all.

[laguun]

Russian Ark (http://imdb.com/title/tt0318034/) - it's an odd experience...

we had the honor of providing some of the mastering for the russian arc DVDs - especially the "making of" is quite interesting, worth buying the dvd alone IMHO.

Another production company from berlin, "koppfilm", provided most of the 1080p technology.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/

basicly, the feature was recorded in one straight shot to a disc recorder worn by an AC. Over 2000 cast members, one take. So much for the "digital makes casts sloppy" theory.

[Cail Young]

we had the honor of providing some of the mastering for the russian arc DVDs - especially the "making of" is quite interesting, worth buying the dvd alone IMHO.

And I did, distributed here by Madman and The AV Channel. Fascinating stuff - that poor AC's back must have been killing him :D

[laguun]

And I did, distributed here by Madman and The AV Channel. Fascinating stuff - that poor AC's back must have been killing him :D

indeed! even being the first take, Tilmann Büttner (the steady op & dop, quite ununsual combination) started 3 or 4 tries for ~5minutes which had to be aborted (lamp died & reflection iirc, that was years ago, ~2002) until he did the first take which was ~90 minutes, so its was rather 110 minutes steady.

however 110 minutes shooting in one day for a 90 feature is still fast enough, if you ask me.

preparation was cruicial - they had over 20 assistant directors for the huge crowds which prepared the actors before shooting. Büttner had 2.5 acs: ac1 focus, ac2 iris, ac2.5 running behind with the harddiscrecorder :)

russian ark was quite influential for me as it really made me more decided to buy a hdcam camera and so basicly was one of the films who started our departure from 35mm.

[David Mullen ASC]

Having just been to the Hermitage the month before they shot "Russian Ark" there, it was fascinating for me to see that space shown in real-time.

However, the movie reminded me also of what Hitchcock said after his experiments in a nearly single-shot movie like "Rope" (and the long single-shot sequences in "Under Capricorn" after that) -- that one of the essential elements of cinematic storytelling is the compression & expansion of time that editing allows you (I guess you can say that "Russian Ark" does that without using editing). In fact, editing is one aspect that makes cinema very different from other art forms like painting and theater, so to eliminate it as a directorial tool becomes limiting (though it can be a creative limitation, as in this case.) This is not to suggest, of course, that the more edits a piece has, the more artistic it is, only that editing is a powerful device of storytelling.

In other words, I'm not looking forward to a lot of single-shot features. However, single-shot sequences can be very dynamic, as "Children of Men" proved.

[Jay A. Kelley]

There is an organic flow to a well done master shot. I always prefer a camera move, or a new blocking of the actor instead of a simple "cut to insert". The reveal is a lost art in film-making.

One thing I love about Spielberg is his ability to take simple props and assign an emotion to them. In my opinion, he reached the pinnacle of his "Style" when he made a movie called "Always". The opening scenes on the tarmac and later in the firehouse for the birthday dance were so simplistic and yet told the viewer EVERYTHING they needed to know, situation, character, wow... I am reminded of a scene where the heroine takes a spoon before entering into a stressful situation, then at the end of the scene the camera tiltls down and we see the spoon has been bent like a pretzel. That's cool stuff to me.

I could go on forever, but I won't.. :)

Jay

[Nook Kim]

I've shot thirty features (and one TV series) so I do have some sense of how long things take to set-up on a shoot and where the time is going, whether it's blocking and rehearsal, lighting time, setting up dollies or overhead silks, shooting time, etc... that's sort of my job! I've already said that I think there is some time savings with digital over film and I'm sure there is even more time to be saved with the RED camera, but there are other factors that can end up being more significant time-wasters on a shoot than what the camera department is up to. How a director likes to work has a major affect on how fast a shoot can move.

Truth is that on most shoots, lighting & grip rigging time is more significant than camera set-up time.

I truly agree with your words, David. There are so many factors that can expand our shooting schedules without even realizing it. I really appreciate
having a very good 1AD for this reason. All these delays can be organized
if 1AD knows what's happening on each department, instead of just pushing
only lighting department to rush.

We are just discussing on a specific event that happened to be an exterior
daytime shoot, which has less delay on lighting, and this just makes the
camera stand out versus the other medium. Pulling focus shouldn't have been an issue, for instance.

PS. I very much admire your experience, David. I can't even imagine having
done 30 features now. I've only done one feature and a handful shorts.


Nook