Open Letter to Variety - Warning: this is not a short 3 line posting

[TedRed]

Open letter to Variety from RED Digital Cinema.

Hopefully this will spark some spirited and interested commentary from those that frequent this forum. Please feel free to forward this to those you work with in the production and post biz that do not spend a lot of time on the forum, as it is a constant point of discussion from what I gather.

+ Ted

---

There was a recent article in Variety regarding the confusion on if it's really cheaper to shoot in Digital as compared to film.

here is the web link to the original article from a few weeks ago:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118008522.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

While the article was interesting to read, I think it just added to the confusion and did not offer any data or assistance on how to make the best choice regarding shooting Digital or Film as it relates to the financials.

I believe that we do a service to the entertainment community by making our best efforts to be logical and factual about the process and associated costs of shooting digital vs. shooting film.* Mentioning in the article that it is confusing and difficult to figure out I believe does not accomplish anything positive.

In our specialized RED education classes that we have been teaching in Los Angeles, we cover this in depth, and I wanted to share our findings.

attached are two PDF cost matrix charts based on 3 perf 35mm film shooting, vs. HD tape shooting on F23 vs. Digital Data shooting on RED.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive budgeting exercise, just an overview of costs based on conservative numbers from local labs and rental companies in LA, and current film stock, digital stock, processing, data copying and prep, camera rental costs and post production costs.* There are no doubt variances in these figures based on special deals that savvy producers can cut with rental houses, labs and post facilities. *This is a starting point, based on factual data.* It clearly shows the general cost matrix of the different formats, and is a good starting point for creating a comparison of film vs. digital budget in a logical, comprehensive manner.

Note that our budget reflects using 3 perf 35mm for shooting, as this appears to be the most popular choice currently for TV and a fair amount of feature film work.* If you prefer to budget for 2 perf 35mm, then subtract 25% to the film stock and processing costs in the chart.* If you prefer to budget for 4 perf 35mm, then add 25% to those costs. *

Note that we used an average rental rate for an F23 camera package in our cost matrix as well as an average rate for both 35mm and RED camera packages.* For F35, you would budget higher for the rental, as that camera typically rents for more than the F23. The Genesis Rental rates and F23 rental rates I've been told are comparable based on current rental numbers. You can of course check with your preferred rental house for proper budgeting on 35mm film cameras, HD video cameras and RED cameras for a true comparison based on your project parameters. You will find rental rates all over the map for cameras, usually based on how the gear is maintained, the level of rental expertise, and the level of customer service provided.

Note that the charge for shooting stock of the RED camera is included in the camera rental cost in one chart, and as a line item for production to own their own media assets in the other chart. Since RED the media is re-usable, the cost of renting the appropriate amount of RED media for a one week shoot is typically very low and usually included in the rental cost of the camera equipment.

We find, and you can get many Producers, Directors and DPs that shoot RED on a regular basis to attest to the fact that it takes no longer to prep for a RED shoot than a 35mm or high end HD video shoot, and shooting style of RED is cable free if desired, just like shooting film. The RED does not require a video village tent or traditional DIT role, just like shooting film. *The RED stock and the film stock live directly on the camera body, *and RED can be shot just as quick or quicker than a film shoot. * We do recommend the modern version of a 2nd AC on RED shoots, the First AC job of focus pulling remains the same as film. * If the project is large enough, we recommend on set Data Manager, since you have the ability to take portions of the lab processing and file prep for editorial steps onto the set, or into offline editorial, as they are all data functions, requiring off the shelf computer gear.

In addition, you can take the same post pathways with RED that you do for 35mm with the exception that you replace the expensive telecine to HD tape step with a more cost effective data prep step. You can also use a modern approach to tapeless post production, end to end, for both TV delivery and theatrical delivery, *and find extraordinary cost savings over traditional methods.

We at RED believe that all these shooting mediums are all viable and good choices for high end production.* This is not meant to be a value judgement on what camera to shoot for your production, just cost matrix data and some workflow logic for budgeting.

If there are any questions, comments, thoughts regarding this.* please direct them to my email: ted@red.com. We are always happy to assist, discuss and debate for the purpose of allowing Producers and Productions to make well educated decisions.


Ted Schilowitz
RED Digital Cinema
ted@red.com

[TedRed]

The additional footnotes were apparently too long to all go into one single posting (it's a lot of info) So here is that info for those that are interested in even more data on the subject:

---

Some notes on the included charts for reference for those that want more information:

- Camera rental rates are based on book rates for Los Angeles based Camera rental houses. These rates are typically negotiated based on the length of the shoot, the amount of cameras, the amount of lenses and other peripheral gear included.

- Lenses are not included in this budget, as those costs can vary drastically depending on the lenses choices of the DP's and are generally a relatively similar cost between shooting any of these cameras. In many cases the lens rental budget for a feature is a significant cost, so check with your rental resource on lensing options.

- Post Production rates are based on better than book rates for services from well established Post Production houses with high end post services gear and staff for prepping dallies, doing conforms, film- outs, TeleCine and DataCine etc. These rates are highly negotiable, and rates can move drastically based on the the market the work is being done in, the type of gear and staff doing the work and other factors.

- Film Stock, Tape Stock and Film Processing Rates are based on book rates from local Los Angeles based film and tape resellers, these rates are also typically negotiated to some degree based on the amount of stock purchased.

- Hours budgeted for DI for a feature film are based on 80 hours, at $600 per hour in a high end grading theater, a good negotiated rate from book rate. DI capabilities, rates per hour and hours budgeted for a feature can vary widely. You will see quotes from 30 hours to well over 100 hours based on the style and complexity of the project, and can be preformed on DI graded gear of vastly different capabilities and price points.

- The included charge for RED media as a separate line item is an option, most rental packages at the price point we have in the cost matrix chart will include the appropriate amount of RED shooting media as part of the rental.

- NLE rental costs are a general budget number for renting a middle of the road HD capable FCP or AVID system for one month. These rates can vary quite a bit of course, and many editors own their own editing equipment and strike a package deal.

- Conforming a feature shot on 35mm film, F23 or RED demonstrates a big cost savings area between shooting film and digital. Since the film has to be re-scanned and dust busted, for the final conform. These costs do not exist when shooting digitally.

-The conform process itself can vary in cost depending on the equipment used, and many other factors. You can find conform rates for a feature film for anywhere between $7,000 and $15,000 depending on the complexity of the project and gear used.

- projects originated on 35mm film, F23 or RED can all be shot out to a 35mm film print for exhibition, this charge will usually include a negative to make the prints from, negative optical sound track, and one check print - costs are typically the same for this step, regardless of the shooting medium.

- For digital delivery for projects that do not need to go back to film for exhibition. 35mm film, F23 or RED can all be finished as an HD project and delivered on HD tape at 1080p resolution or as a Digital file for playback at either 1080p, 2k or 4k resolution. In the case of the f23, f35 or Genesis, since the recorded image is HD resolution, you would be scaling the image up to either 2k or 4k for those deliverables.

- In the case of the 35mm and RED you can deliver 4k, 2k and 1080p from the original source files, depending on how the post process was handled. Most 35mm and RED shot feature films choose a working resolution of 2k and a finishing resolution of 2k, since that is most cost effective today, and most Digital Delivery and Projection worldwide is 2k resolution. Regardless of if the theaters have 4k or 2k Digital projection installed, most DCP players are playing 2k today, although we are seeing some movement towards true 4k delivery for theaters.

As I continued to do more research on rates - here is another viewing point to compare rental rates.
(note that in this comparison, the Genesis and F35 are at a comparable rental price point, whereas I have different information on Genesis and F23 being at a comparable rental price point from another source - proving what I've been mentioning all along, that rates are highly negotiable, and there will be variances - but overall the numbers are clearly proving the price points of the various systems.

Arri 435 body only - rate $1,300.00 per day
(435 accessories, Viewfinder, Film Mags, etc. $460.00 per day)

RED ONE body only - rate $575.00 per day
(RED ONE accessories, shooting media, EVF and On Board LCD monitor, etc. $630.00 per day)

F23 Camera body only - rate $1,250 per day
(we anticipate a comparable accessory package for the F23 would price out about the same as the RED accessory package)

Panavision Genesis camera body - rate $2,300 per day
(we anticipate a comparable accessory package for the Panavision Genesis would price out about the same as the RED accessory package)

F35 Camera body only - rate $2,000.00 per day
(we anticipate a comparable accessory package for the F35 would price out about the same as the RED accessory package)

D21 Camera body only - rate $1,500.00 per day
(we anticipate a comparable accessory package for the D21 would price out about the same as the RED accessory package)


note that the F23, Panavision Genesis, F35 and D21 all require an HD recording device that is not included in their camera package rental rate. The options are either the SRW-1 deck at between $1,250 and $1,500 per day, the Solid State recorder is $400 per day including 2 digimags, and the OB1 Flash Module for F23 & F35 is $900 per day plus $100 per day for each DigiMag - so these devices increase the cost of the rental budget of these HD cameras drastically.

[Alex Wengert]

One flaw here Ted, The Arri 435 is an MOS camera. Not conducive to shooting sound. Better example for Arri would be an Arricam ST which is $1650.00 per day in 3 perf mode.

[TedRed]

Good catch Alex, (and thanks for the fast response) - I thought of going with Arricam instead of the 435. Kind of a balance between lots of commercial work using the 435 or RED I guess, so that's what I went with for reference. For those that do not know Alex works at one of the most respected, major rental houses in LA, so very cool that he weighed in here. For episodic and feature sync work Arricam would be the more logical choice.

+ Ted

[Noah Kadner]

[edit] My bad- saw you had already done what I was suggesting. Good comparison. :)

Noah

[Curtis Abbott]

Ted, This says there is no need for a DIT. If you are shooting a feature film wouldn't it be a very key role maintaining data and image integrity? A 2nd AC is running lenses, slating and taking camera notes. I think it would be a huge mistake only having a part time data manager, such as a 2nd.

In the feature/episode world there should be a person who's only job is to backup data. Also, having a DIT allows the DP to maintain control over the image by discussing what look he is trying to achieve.

This is just my thought, but in my mind it is a key role in having a smooth Red shoot. If you tell producers they don't need it, then they won't get it.

Since most features are union data manager = DIT, right?

Brook goes into more detail about this issue on another thread.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=443603

[Mark Allen]

I think the one line version is just pointing out that film stock and processing is a very, very expensive line item and when you remove that you'll save $60k to $200k or more depending on your shoot.

One workflow note on your 2nd pdf. With the RED, why would someone film out and then DI at 2k on film vs. do the DI at 4k digitally (and probably much less expensively) and then film out and do a one light?

[TedRed]

Hi Curtis,

I'm glad you brought up the DIT role - as it requires some clarity. Since the RED shoots RAW, you have the ability to work and shoot very similar to shooting film (DP sets exposure and framing, and since any color and on set monitoring is just meta-data that lives on top of the file, totally non-destructive - the traditional DIT role used on HD cameras is only relevant if the production wants that slower, bulkier shooting style with a DIT cart, a tent to watch a calibrated monitor, etc.

In my opinion, the RED works at it most effective and efficient, when you treat it like a film camera, and use the on board and off board monitoring like the video assist of a film camera. So the DIT role changes to what I call a DT role (we take the "imaging" part out as that's the role of the DP with film and RED) The DT, Digital Tech, is also commonly known as a Data Manager, or Data Wrangler. Their responsibilities vary based on the size and complexity of the shoot, and in some cases on really big jobs, you want to have more than one of this crew position. The basic DT role is to manage the camera itself, and make the data backups of the RED media, and in some cases to do some simple on set color grading to show the DP and Director how their files will look when they get into post production.

+ Ted

[Luca Immesi]

Really useful comparison. Great post.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I have never had the budget to shoot 10 hours of film in a week, however I shoot many days on film, tomorrow looks like it will be a record in economy, I am going to load 110' short end but don't expect to use it all!

Stephen

[I Bloom]

If I understand this correctly Ted, in your 4 week shoot we are shooting around 4 hours of footage per shooting day with one camera. And the shooting ratio is above 60:1.

If possible, just to see the other extreme, and how the numbers scale, I'd be interested to see the same spreadsheet run on a 10:1 ratio, which would be, I think, 15 hours of dailies.

Cheers,
Ian

[Chris Pickle]

On big budget, the savings don't seem high enough. A producer won't get excited to save a couple hundred grand on 25 million. They like to save money, but they hate risk just as much. The decision would need to be driven by the director for some creative reason.

On low budget indie, these numbers are no where close. You could rent a film camera cheaper then any HD camera-easy! You would never shoot 60:1, and you'd cut a deal on telecine, conform, etc. I personally would still shoot Red, but as a black & white argument, the numbers would end up being somewhat grey.

CHris

[Mark L. Pederson]

Ted - your new avatar is the freekin BEST!!!

[Liam Hall]

If I understand this correctly Ted, in your 4 week shoot we are shooting around 4 hours of footage per shooting day with one camera
I'm guessing this wasn't a Woody Allen movie:D

[Brook Willard]

Love the avatar, Ted. Glad to see you back around these parts.

You can probably guess my feelings with regards to the lack of DIT and appropriate equipment rentals on the sheet, so I wont' go into much detail. I'm obviously a very pro-DIT individual... since it's what pays my mortgage. :)

I also generally insist on a significantly higher quantity of CF cards as the studios I've worked with have all insisted on maintaining the original negative for two days after exposure [in addition to a RAID 6 backup on at least 2 locations and an LTO-4 backup].

Since most larger shows seem to approach their post from the same perspective that they approach it with film, most of the saved post costs are eliminated. Somebody still has to sync and generate dailies, color correct the footage and provide coffee for those that need it.

In my experience [granted, more TV than features with the RED], the average cost savings appears to be about $50,000 per 8-day episode. All of those shows picked up an additional RED ONE camera body [a 2-camera film show becomes a 3-camera RED show], a DIT, DIT equipment rental and a lightly modified post workflow. Most of the savings came from film stock with only a little from processing [since a post house is still processing the footage into an Avid- or FCP-acceptable format].

Your statements are 110% true when it comes to building a post workflow from the ground up based around the RED. But when studios are already comfortable with a particular workflow and want to bend the RED to fit their post process... that's where the cost comes from. So when people make the statement that digital [RED] costs just as much as film, that's where all the dollar signs come from.

But the truth is that producers and studios love cost savings, no matter where they come from. The RED has proven itself as a viable option for large-budget commercials, television and feature films at this point. Most producers will do anything to save a buck, whether their budget is $1,000,000 or $50,000,000. I just gave a $30,000,000 feature a healthy discount on my equipment package. One of the TV shows I've worked on [per the contract] paid below scale. It is the nature of the beast. We will be forever doomed to quote high just to get paid our minimum.

Is digital cheaper? Yep. Is digital more expensive? Yep. Choose your own adventure.

[M Most]

In my experience [granted, more TV than features with the RED], the average cost savings appears to be about $50,000 per 8-day episode. All of those shows picked up an additional RED ONE camera body [a 2-camera film show becomes a 3-camera RED show], a DIT, DIT equipment rental and a lightly modified post workflow. Most of the savings came from film stock with only a little from processing [since a post house is still processing the footage into an Avid- or FCP-acceptable format].

That sounds about right to me, about $6000 per day. If you look at that as being represented by film and lab, that's about 10,000 feet per day (very rough number), not out of the ordinary.


Your statements are 110% true when it comes to building a post workflow from the ground up based around the RED. But when studios are already comfortable with a particular workflow and want to bend the RED to fit their post process... that's where the cost comes from. So when people make the statement that digital [RED] costs just as much as film, that's where all the dollar signs come from.

I would add to that some of the realities of high end television production. First, the notion that the monitors can be treated like film video taps is not realistic. When producers and crews know they are shooting with an electronic camera, the look of the monitor takes on greater importance, whether justified or not. Not to mention that a number of cameramen happen to like using the monitor to aid in last minute lighting tweaks. So by virtue of the fact that Red is an electronic camera, it carries a bit of baggage, intentional and necessary or not. I would also add that at this level of production, dailies are rather critical to the director of photography's well being, so some degree of control is necessary. Some shows do that by sending the material through a "traditional" facility based dailies process, and some do it by having the DIT supply post production with LUTs to either supplant or aid that process. You are also right on the money with your comments about double system sound. No matter how much Red and a lot of the posters here think it's "simple" to record sound on the camera, that is not the "standard" way of doing things in our (yours and mine) world, and is not easily accepted. It is simply faster for production to record strictly double system and have post production do the synching, and as you mentioned, this usually leads back to having a facility prep the dailies.

I would add one comment of my own. The statement that it doesn't take any longer to shoot with Red than film is optimistic at best, and wrong in many cases. It all depends on the specific production conditions, the cameraman's choices, and the desired results. Under controlled, stage conditions, film is usually shot at 500ASA or thereabouts, with Genesis and F35 achieving similar speeds. Red is not quite at that level, and this in turn, depending once again on lighting style, can lead to a need for more filling of shadows, and that in turn can become a time issue. On a day exterior, I would agree that they are relatively equal. But in controlled conditions, that is a questionable assumption.

[Doylemark]

Ted

Good work. You did forget dustbusting and scanning which adds another $30K to it. Not to mention the time and headache of dustbusting.

Doyle

[Mark L. Pederson]

I would also add that at this level of production, dailies are rather critical to the director of photography's well being, so some degree of control is necessary. Some shows do that by sending the material through a "traditional" facility based dailies process, and some do it by having the DIT supply post production with LUTs to either supplant or aid that process. You are also right on the money with your comments about double system sound. No matter how much Red and a lot of the posters here think it's "simple" to record sound on the camera, that is not the "standard" way of doing things in our (yours and mine) world, and is not easily accepted. It is simply faster for production to record strictly double system and have post production do the synching, and as you mentioned, this usually leads back to having a facility prep the dailies.

The "traditional" facility based dailies process is going bye-bye FAST.



I would add one comment of my own. The statement that it doesn't take any longer to shoot with Red than film is optimistic at best, and wrong in many cases. It all depends on the specific production conditions, the cameraman's choices, and the desired results. Under controlled, stage conditions, film is usually shot at 500ASA or thereabouts, with Genesis and F35 achieving similar speeds. Red is not quite at that level, and this in turn, depending once again on lighting style, can lead to a need for more filling of shadows, and that in turn can become a time issue. On a day exterior, I would agree that they are relatively equal. But in controlled conditions, that is a questionable assumption.

I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I was a production manager and line producer for over a decade before I started Offhollywood. Every single film I worked on was shot on film - 35mm with a couple Super-16mm films as well. So, I know very well how fast you move on a "day to day" basis with film. I've also been on more sets shooting RED than I could count - and we've done films with DPs that shoot very different styles on RED including some ASC members and I don't think any of them would agree with your statement "it doesn't take any longer to shoot with Red than film is optimistic at best, and wrong in many cases". These films all shot the same page count in the same hours I've seen for years on film shoots - and most shot a significantly higher shooting ratio of the same or better than average page count in the same hours.

With respect to Genesis ... ANY DAY OF THE WEEK ... you can move and shoot faster with RED. That's a no brainer.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Good to see you back around and pumping :) absolutely LOVE the Avatar at some point I tough of exactly something like it, but with an electrical shock wave going across in symbol of when I was brought back to life by Defillibration.


Totally agreed with you Ted, I have been around quite a bit this days in wide talks about the current Sony conversion deals with Regal and AMC to convert over 11,000 Screens to 4K and the play that Digital cameras such RED and EPIC will make to this new evolution to Digital Cinemas and more then once the fact of cost came up, and I was argued the fact of the considerable savings when shooting RED, the fact of the workflow was off course also argued, but I do believe that many are truly understanding its potential and are in the road of full adaptation as Digital is the feature of Cinema and the multi Billion dollar agreements taking place among the Largest players shows surely full support to this unstoppable change, of which RED is and will continue to be a Valuable partner.


Thanks for posting it.

[M Most]

The "traditional" facility based dailies process is going bye-bye FAST.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. In the independent feature world, I'm sure you're right. In the L.A. based studio world - especially in television - that's just not the case. And even in the case of producers that attempt to change that, the studio will often nix it, or the circumstances of production will force the issue. Part of that is because the infrastructure here is so built up, so well known, and so efficient that changing it is considered more trouble than its worth for what amounts to a rather minor financial gain. If you don't believe me, talk to Brook.



...we've done films with DPs that shoot very different styles on RED including some ASC members and I don't think any of them would agree with your statement "it doesn't take any longer to shoot with Red than film is optimistic at best, and wrong in many cases". These films all shot the same page count in the same hours I've seen for years on film shoots - and most shot a significantly higher shooting ratio of the same or better than average page count in the same hours. With respect to Genesis ... ANY DAY OF THE WEEK ... you can move and shoot faster with RED. That's a no brainer.

Once again, all of these things are opinions. I can tell you that a number of cameramen I've talked to feel differently, and their issues are exactly what I said they were. In fact, the slower speed of Red is one of the primary factors that stopped a few shows that were considering using it from going in that direction - although I will confess that there are more than a few shows using the D21, which most shooters consider even slower than Red, so go figure. Which brings me back to my first statement....

[Julian Banos]

Ted,

Those are great charts, and although everybody has different ways to deal with the details, the fact is that I am providing my clients with a robust solution in terms of imagery.

Also, I still have to face a situation where I cannot place the camera where the shot requires it. From Nascar stock cars to Blackhawk rigs, underwater, low oxygen altitudes, freezing points, melting points... Still I want to rig an Epic on a jet wing...

I frankly stop caring about articles such as this, because my experience is quite the opposite. So what if we need to change a thing or two about "traditional" workflows, I think in almost every sense we have achieved better solutions (HD Videoassist systems on set, RAW imaging on laptops, Multiple copies of "digital negative") than what was established before.

And we keep on improving the details and laying out this new frontier. Getting back to business the juice is worth the squeeze.

[Curtis Abbott]

How is shooting on the Red slower than film specifically?

The only reason I can think of that would make it slower is not having Red experienced personnel on set. I have been on many jobs and it's my goal to never have anyone waiting on the camera. I could see that it may take a little longer with lighting based on the rating of the camera, but once the crew is comfortable with the camera I can't see it being slower than film.

[TedRed]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm pleased to see the different points of view and thinking on the subject, as I was hoping all of the data I presented didn't just live in a vacuum on it's own, since production and post don't live in a vacuum, there are many variables that make it so interesting to watch evolve and change along with technology.

So let me try and address as many points you have all made here.

First off, Mark, Ketch and Brook, glad you like the new Avatar, seemed somewhat appropriate for those that know what's going on with me recently. I'm not sure why it shows up so big like that, I don't think I did anything different to make it so large (and trust me, while having a big heart might seem like a good thing… in actuality it's not :-)

Ok moving on.

Ian, if you look at the 2 charts I provided, one is for a one week camera rental package and 10 hours of dailies and 10 hours of shooting over the course of one week. Which shows the RED budget coming in at under $8k and the Film budget coming in at over $40k. You or I can certainly run these numbers on other scales, I just need to know the changes in the parameters you would like. I think regardless of the scale and scope, the provability will be the same, and the larger the scope and the more you apply modern techniques to the file prep and post steps the more $ you can save with the RED.

To answer Chris Pickle - you are correct. On a big budget job, the savings of RED vs. film are much, much higher, since the biggest cost bullets are Film Stock and Processing. When you factor in multiple cameras, big action scenes where they shoot a ton of film, dialog scenes where they routinely have 2 or 3 cameras rolling - those costs mount very quickly, and stay relatively low with the RED, so the gap spreads even more on the budget. This is why when on the big budget action film, Book of Eli was looking at film vs. RED, they did a test with they heavy hitter producers to let them pick blindly between RED and Film - they knew there would be dramatic cost savings, but it wouldn't matter if the Hughes Bros couldn't get their vision on the big screen. in their tests, the large majority picked the look of the RED over the look of the film, so that in tandem with the cost savings was the big win. (This is documented in more detail in Noah's RED book, if you want to get more info on that particular case.)

And regarding the renting film cams cheaper and cut deals on telcine, conform, etc - well of course. I covered that quite clearly in the first post. Deals can be made across the board, with RED, Film, F23, F35, etc. and with all the stages of post production. We can run these numbers int the "best possible deal in town - regardless of quality" way, and discover that the cost savings can still be as wide, and in some cases much wider with the RED, since you can deliver the same quality dallies from a Mac on set vs. taking them to a high end post house, as long as you have the talent of the operator of that gear. With film, the quality of the telecine, the film processing, etc - makes a very big difference, and any Producer worth his salt would tell you hands down that you get what you pay for.

One of the interesting trends I see with the RED, and HD cameras (not something I necessarily agree with) is shooting much more footage and much more coverage than with film, on smaller budget jobs. I personally recommend shooting on CF cards as the first choice, since it helps with the discipline of shooting film style, that can allow a very efficient and highly skilled production to show their true value. Just "keeping it rolling" is lazy in my opinion, and while it makes perfect sense for some purposes, (comedy movies where they are doing a lot of improv and shooting animals and kids where you need to be rolling to get that magic moment) it's not a cure all for directors and producers that haven't learned how to shoot properly. Use the RED Drives or RED RAM where it makes sense, but not rely on them as a crutch. As the more you shoot, you will discover there is a price to pay in post for that, both in hard costs of processing all that footage and the hardships you are putting on your editorial staff to slog through all that "just keep it rolling" footage to get to the actual, useable takes. I probably should just keep my mouth shut on this topic, as if you do have a gig with multiple cameras and a very loose shooting style, you will see a vast difference in cost between shooting film and RED, but since we are talking opinion here, that's mine.

I'll address Brook and Mike's posts (and the others coming in) when I get a bit more computer time.

Thanks for sticking with me on all of this stuff guys, it's a good, interesting interchange of ideas.

+ Ted

[BradWright]

There's always going to be a group of people out there who believe something is better because it costs more. This is especially true with people who like to talk about how much they've spent on a shoot or a deliverable. It's hard to fight against this type of mindset. The opposite group believes that everything cheaper is by virtue better. This group will suck the life out of you with endless amounts of support.

If I had to pick from the two groups, I'd want the first group that wants to pay as much as possible. From a marketing position, I think it's a mistake to promote the Red as being cheaper than other workflows. You don't want these guys as customers. Pushing the Red camera as a better shooting experience than film is the way to win. Pushing it as a cheaper solution won't attrat the attention of the high end customers. The last thing you want Red to be known for is a poor man's alternative to film.

[Jonathan Smiles]

Something to add, is with a RED shoot you can effectively remove the post house costs during production by doing offline rushes and QC in-house.

I have successfully setup multiple features films this way with the approval of the completion bond company.

[M Most]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm pleased to see the different points of view and thinking on the subject

I'm glad you took it that way, because certainly in my case, that's the way it was intended. No pro, no con. Just some thoughts.


One of the interesting trends I see with the RED, and HD cameras (not something I necessarily agree with) is shooting much more footage and much more coverage than with film, on smaller budget jobs....

I completely agree. This has been an unfortunate trend since HD came into the film style world, and has continued with the advent of newer digital cinema cameras. Unfortunately, to some degree you're seeing the result of early zealotry that professed that one of the "advantages" of HD was that you could shoot and shoot because the cost of the media was, for all practical purposes, a non-issue. And, as you rightly point out, that is true in certain specific situations, but it is not an excuse for a lack of directorial vision and skill. Equally as unfortunate is that the rise of this practice has led to a reverse problem of equal magnitude, and that is that even film shows today print upwards of 2 and 3 hours of dailies a night and run 2 cameras on almost every setup. That was almost unheard of 15 years ago, but is common today.


I'll address Brook and Mike's posts (and the others coming in) when I get a bit more computer time.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Yes totally appropriate in deed ted, now you are also a Surviver, welcome to the club :)!

I agree with you, and your way of putting this points down, but I must say I particularly agree with the your point in case were HD productions, and especially RED productions when using the RED Drive tend to keep rolling, "TOTALLY POINTLESS" I have done that only with "Sirens of TI" cause it was a SHOW, and had to shoot all cameras for the duration, but I have never and will never shoot or suggest to any one to shoot in such a style for any narrative film style shoot.

Not only as I said is pointless,m and lazy, but it creates an absurd and stupid amount of DATA to deal with during DIT and Post, and I find the CF approach, especially with the 16GB, and soon with higher and swappable media, absolutely a must, and keeping the workflow similar to that of loading film but far more simple and faster, is the way to go, goes without saying that transporting tiny cases across the set containing CF cards is far better then carrying Rolls of film :), never mind when you are actually shipping the media.

[Paul Lee]

In my opinion, the RED works at it most effective and efficient, when you treat it like a film camera, and use the on board and off board monitoring like the video assist of a film camera.
+ Ted

That's exactly what we tell our clients and that's the best way to put it! It's like a video tap on a film camera. Don't do the video village BS unless you've got a big show. Trust your eyes and meters.

[Deanan]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. In the independent feature world, I'm sure you're right. In the L.A. based studio world - especially in television - that's just not the case. And even in the case of producers that attempt to change that, the studio will often nix it, or the circumstances of production will force the issue. Part of that is because the infrastructure here is so built up, so well known, and so efficient that changing it is considered more trouble than its worth for what amounts to a rather minor financial gain. If you don't believe me, talk to Brook.

From our experience lately, the studios that are now starting to push this more aggressively. The next year will be interesting for sure.

[Mark L. Pederson]

Something to add, is with a RED shoot you can effectively remove the post house costs during production by doing offline rushes and QC in-house.

I have successfully setup multiple features films this way with the approval of the completion bond company.

THIS is the future.

[M Most]

From our experience lately, the studios that are now starting to push this more aggressively. The next year will be interesting for sure.

There are issues we haven't touched on - security, for one - that also tend to favor the status quo to some degree. I think changes are likely, I also think that one year is too short to see the true impact of them, at least in the world of network television.

[Stephen Strangways]

I don't think shooting on RED can be considered slower because of the camera, it really depends on the crew. I was just on a very run n' gun documentary TV show pilot with a crew that was used to shooting that type of program on the HVX200, and they were moving just as quickly with the RED.

Really, the only differences were:

1) A lens change here or there, but it was going from a standard zoom to a wider zoom, or a longer or faster prime, something that they would not have been able to do on the HVX, or would have required just as much time to attach a converter lens.

2) A couple of battery swaps during shooting (but most during breaks), which added a minute of re-booting time here or there.

3) A heavier camera that left the operator a little more tired and sore at the end of the day.

4) The number of CF cards was limited by the budget, so we usually had an extra person to dump cards. This was no different than the early days of HVX shooting with only a few 4 GB cards, and could easily be remedied with a bit more cash.

The same crew used to shoot TV commercials on 35mm film, and when they shot a recent commercial on the exact same RED camera, sure enough, they shot it like a film camera. A tent was set up with an HD monitor, the camera was built up to the nines on a full-size O'Connor tripod, they had a 2-ton truck full of HMI lighting and grip equipment... and it sure didn't take them any longer to shoot than it would have with a film camera.

[Jonathan Smiles]

THIS is the future.

My present since 2008 :smiley: speed has really improved since the early days!

[Jonathan Smiles]

There are issues we haven't touched on - security, for one.

I have found doing more in-house resulted in better security with regard to footage leaking, unauthorised viewing and data security.

[M Most]

I have found doing more in-house resulted in better security with regard to footage leaking, unauthorised viewing and data security.

You probably wouldn't believe the security demands of major studios, and what the post houses do to accommodate them. Any facility working on studio material must get studio approval, not always easily obtained. Regardless of whether there's data on drives, data on data tape, data on cards, data on videotape, audio data on optical disks, or physical film, there are always physical assets to be stored, accounted for, and secured. That's what the studios are concerned with. I've never seen an editorial department with a secure physical vault, complete with surveillance systems - but every post facility has one, or more than one. I'm not talking about opinions as to how to prevent leaks here, I'm talking about the reality of securing physical assets.

[Jonathan Smiles]

You probably wouldn't believe the security demands of major studios

I am fully aware of studio requirements and yes we are increasing physical security in editorial (RFID passes/tags, asset tracking, fireproof safes etc.) as well as encrypted data transport drives and LTOs. Not got as far as video surveillance yet but have had armed guards.

[M Most]

I am fully aware of studio requirements and yes we are increasing physical security in editorial (RFID passes/tags, asset tracking, fireproof safes etc.) as well as encrypted data transport drives and LTOs. Not got as far as video surveillance yet but have had armed guards.

That's not the case on a typical US network television program, in which editorial is usually housed either with production or in an editorial room on a studio lot or elsewhere. In either case, I still think we're talking about two very different situations and two very different mentalities. It's a bit difficult to explain if you haven't worked in Los Angeles on this kind of material. I'm not saying that the way it's done in L.A. is any better or worse, it's just rather unique because of the extensive infrastructure that's already in place.

[Mark L. Pederson]

I'm not saying that the way it's done in L.A. is any better or worse, it's just rather unique because of the extensive infrastructure that's already in place.

And that infrastructure will change, Mike.

Wasn't too long ago it was all editorial was all flatbeds and moviolas - and when non-linear editing appeared everyone said - "we'll cut on film for next ten years" ... you know the rest of that story.

Things change. We are doing a film for SONY right now - and they are getting dailies from us via iPhone.

[Tim Whitcomb]

Man the timing of this is great TED, thanks so much for the detail!

This is a particularly interesting comparison for our market, as our rates are a lot lower than LA (except for film, as we rent all PANNY gear from LA or SF) so the cost differences are even greater...

Like Mark P, I come from a 35mm film background, and I have to say we just shot a 2 Camera shoot this past Sunday (double system sound for speed) and managed to get 25 sets ups in 7 hours of light outside with Silks and even Kino's on the beach...

PLUS add the X factor, we had an untrained golden retriever that needed to fetch a lit stick of fake dynamite and retrieve it...

In my experience, there is no way we would have got that many set ups on film. Especially with the long master shots and takes we employed. The mag changes alone are much faster with a CARD.

I should also mention this was a "challenge" shoot from an investor and he gave us 5 days of prep. No location scouting and on a river with no electricity. Not to mentiona crew of 15 people.

We also shot Build 21 Rec 42 ... and the footage is incredible, coverage was fantastic
and syncing the sound to dailies took only 6 hours.Even though we forgot to record a guide track in camera to aid the syncing.

thanks again, and as much as I agree with Mark P about it changing, Mike is also correct that Hollywood is notoriously a late adopter. That has not changed since the advent of "talkies" or "color" or VHS... or ... or...

[M Most]

And that infrastructure will change, Mike.


Probably, over time. But it's not going to happen in the next year or two.

I think some facts are probably in order here, just because I seem to be getting attacked left and right. The fact is that this season, if you look at network dramas, it's about a 50/50 mix between shows shot on film and shows shot on, well, anything else. Out of the "anything else" shows, the vast majority are on either F35, Genesis, or D21, with only one that I know of on Red ("Southland"). Out of the shows on the three cameras I just mentioned, close to 100% are being recorded on SRW videotape recorders. Whatever one wants to believe about in house file based post, it just does not apply in that world. And I just don't see radical change in that world happening either this season (which is a fait accompli), or this pilot season, or, in all likelihood, next season. After that, it's anybody's guess, and yes, signs point towards more file based acquisition and the choices that would likely accompany that. But if we're talking about the real world as it currently exists, none of that is an issue because it just isn't being done in the specific industry niche I'm talking about. The major post houses in L.A. (and, BTW, I'm including sound houses here) have established themselves over a very long period of time as good, reliable, and trusted custodians of studio materials, and as technically capable organizations capable of delivering reliable product on very tight schedules that meet network delivery requirements. If one wants to talk about 2 years out, one can say just about anything is possible. If we're talking about the here and now, everything I just said is true, regardless of what one might regard as "possible." For every studio based motion picture that's being shot on a digital format, there are probably 7 or more that are being shot on film, just as for every television drama being shot on digital formats - and getting a lot of attention for it - there's an equal number still being shot on film, at least this year. And there is more than one reason for that, but that's not what this thread is about, at least I don't think it is.

All I'm trying to point out is that in a well established system like we have in Los Angeles for network dramas, change is something that comes very slowly. There are issues that go far beyond the technical or even logical. There are long established job descriptions that are tough to break. It's very difficult to get a film educated television drama crew to record sound on the camera. That may not be logical to some here, but it's true none the less. It's very difficult to convince a production to sync their dailies in the cutting room, even though that's probably where it should be done. Not sensible, perhaps - but true. For years, editorial has gotten dailies from the post facility, either in the form of videotape or already digitized files, but always with sync sound and all metadata already in place, with things like DVD's and other duplication (including files) already taken care of as well. Faced with the choice of doing that on their own or continuing to have post facilities do it, well, for that answer, refer to Brook's post. That's just the way it is, today, in October 2009. Will it still be that way in October 2010? In my opinion, probably. October 2011? Now we're into prognostication. And I'm not a prognosticator (almost said prestidigitator - that would be very different).

So, while I actually agree with your conclusion, I'm a lot more conservative about the timetable.

[Shawn Nelson]

Probably, over time. But it's not going to happen in the next year or two.

I think some facts are probably in order here, just because I seem to be getting attacked left and right. The fact is that this season, if you look at network dramas, it's about a 50/50 mix between shows shot on film and shows shot on, well, anything else. Out of the "anything else" shows, the vast majority are on either F35, Genesis, or D21, with only one that I know of on Red ("Southland"). Out of the shows on the three cameras I just mentioned, close to 100% are being recorded on SRW videotape recorders. Whatever one wants to believe about in house file based post, it just does not apply in that world. And I just don't see radical change in that world happening either this season (which is a fait accompli), or this pilot season, or, in all likelihood, next season. After that, it's anybody's guess, and yes, signs point towards more file based acquisition and the choices that would likely accompany that. But if we're talking about the real world as it currently exists, none of that is an issue because it just isn't being done in the specific industry niche I'm talking about. The major post houses in L.A. (and, BTW, I'm including sound houses here) have established themselves over a very long period of time as good, reliable, and trusted custodians of studio materials, and as technically capable organizations capable of delivering reliable product on very tight schedules that meet network delivery requirements. If one wants to talk about 2 years out, one can say just about anything is possible. If we're talking about the here and now, everything I just said is true, regardless of what one might regard as "possible." For every studio based motion picture that's being shot on a digital format, there are probably 7 or more that are being shot on film, just as for every television drama being shot on digital formats - and getting a lot of attention for it - there's an equal number still being shot on film, at least this year. And there is more than one reason for that, but that's not what this thread is about, at least I don't think it is.

All I'm trying to point out is that in a well established system like we have in Los Angeles for network dramas, change is something that comes very slowly. There are issues that go far beyond the technical or even logical. There are long established job descriptions that are tough to break. It's very difficult to get a film educated television drama crew to record sound on the camera. That may not be logical to some here, but it's true none the less. It's very difficult to convince a production to sync their dailies in the cutting room, even though that's probably where it should be done. Not sensible, perhaps - but true. For years, editorial has gotten dailies from the post facility, either in the form of videotape or already digitized files, but always with sync sound and all metadata already in place, with things like DVD's and other duplication (including files) already taken care of as well. Faced with the choice of doing that on their own or continuing to have post facilities do it, well, for that answer, refer to Brook's post. That's just the way it is, today, in October 2009. Will it still be that way in October 2010? In my opinion, probably. October 2011? Now we're into prognostication. And I'm not a prognosticator (almost said prestidigitator - that would be very different).

So, while I actually agree with your conclusion, I'm a lot more conservative about the timetable.

Leverage, great show, also completely Red, great in house workflow.

[M Most]

Leverage, great show, also completely Red, great in house workflow.

Not a network show (broadcast network, that is). The Cleaner was shot on Red as well, but that was also a cable production.

BTW, while Leverage may be interesting in terms of writing and performance, I have to say that I think it looks awful. Just my opinion, but to me it looks like a show that has its color correction done by someone who's never really been a colorist. And judging by what I've read about the way post is set up, that's likely the case (when the executive producer insists on doing some of the color correction work himself, all bets are off). Shots don't match, the picture is flat (i.e., no contrast), and the black level changes all the time. Just not a very professional post job. But that's only my opinion, and I'm pretty picky.

[Lucas Wilson]

Probably, over time. But it's not going to happen in the next year or two.

I completely agree - in the *very* limited and rarified world of Major US Network episodic Production and post. Keep in mind that is what Mike is talking about. And taken against the industry as a whole... it's a very very small (but incredibly influential) chunk of production and post-production.

The best analogy I can think of here is the switch to HD. I'm pretty sure that the first big network show to do non-linear HD online was Crossing Jordan in the second half of the 2001 season at the now-defunct Complete Post in Hollywood.

From there to the point where most of the network shows were doing HD was about 5 years. And the switch from SD to HD was - at the post-production level - just software, decks, routers, and switchers. The workflow was essentially the same - tape-based with timecode/reels and BNC cables carrying everything around.

The workflow change really wasn't that dramatic - but if you were in the post world in LA at that time - you would think that Virgil himself was walking the post engineers and editors into the bottom level of The Inferno. The amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth and hairpulling was astounding.

And the switch to datacentric capture and post is a MUCH bigger change. In orders of magnitude. By and large, the Studios still remember the switch to HD and how incredibly painful it was, and they are going to fight with everything they have to avoid that kind of battle again. I have been in meetings with senior Studio Executives and Executive Producers where they look around the room and say something like, "anybody in here even *whispers* data capture and I will ensure you a slow and painful death."

Yes, it will change. But it will be a long, slooooow, painful procedure.

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

[M Most]

Wasn't too long ago it was all editorial was all flatbeds and moviolas - and when non-linear editing appeared everyone said - "we'll cut on film for next ten years" ... you know the rest of that story.

Yes, I do, because I was there (at Lorimar, the first studio to embrace nonlinear editing, all the way back in 1985, almost 8 years prior to the appearance of the first 24 frame Avid Film Composer). And the truth is that film editing for television did not really end until almost 7 years later, at least at Warners and Universal. And even at Fox, which to some degree embraced it prior to that, L.A. Law was still being cut on film as late as 1991 (I worked on it at the time). So the prediction was not as far off as you might think.

As I said, change comes very slowly in the network television world, regardless of the ultimate advantages. One could point out that 24p HD - a generally accepted medium today - has been around since 1998, and yet half of today's network dramas are still being shot on film.

That's just the way it is.

[M Most]

I completely agree - in the *very* limited and rarified world of Major US Network episodic Production and post. Keep in mind that is what Mike is talking about. And taken against the industry as a whole... it's a very very small (but incredibly influential) chunk of production and post-production.

Thank you, Lucas.

And yes, I am the first (well, right now I seem to be the second) to admit that the part of the industry I'm talking about is, indeed, small and limited. But it is also the part that gets most of the press, the most visibility, and the most assumptions about how it's handled - most of which are usually wrong, which is why I post here about them.

If you look at Avid over the years, one could say that far more of their units were sold to commercial houses and broadcast facilities than network television shows and feature films. But probably 95% of their advertising featured, well, network television shows and feature films. That's indicative of the disproportionate amount of attention those markets receive. Even at Apple, they got a lot more attention when Walter Murch endorsed Final Cut than they ever did for the million or so seats that they had already sold up to that point to individuals and smaller editorial houses. So even though what we're talking about may be small in number, it is large in terms of perception.

[TedRed]

To answer Brook from a few pages back now - man this forum stuff can get pretty chock full of info pretty fast :-)

Brook, you know I'm a big fan your your work ethic, and the level you have taken the on set RED ONE tech to. Your on set practices are among the best I've seen in the biz, and you have figured out the data cart, what's needed and how to scale your on set capabilities for various commercial, tv and feature work. I thought I covered the DIT vs. DT role in the earlier post, but perhaps not well enough. I am in no way saying this person should be eliminated from a pro-level job, what I'm saying is the role has changed from the days of HD video cameras shooting 24p, where the "imaging" part of the gig was very critical to the quality of the pictures being recorded.

My best analogy is to use the sports HD video world, where a critical crew position is the camera shader, or CCU control person - they are effectively painting pictures from the RGB video signal coming from the camera, before they go to air. The DIT role on a movie set shooting these HD video cameras (this includes the F900, F950, F23, F35, Varicam and others) was to do essentially the same thing, paint the RGB signal being recorded to the HD deck, before the recording takes place. The key crew members (DP, Director, Producer) and client, typically live inside a black tent on the set, watching an expensive, calibrated monitor, since what they are seeing in that tent is effectively as good as the picture is going to be in post - so they better get it right.

In the RED world, as I have discussed in depth in the previous posts and talked about in presentations world-wide - we see the camera as a Digital Movie camera, not a Digital HD video camera - it is not a video camera at all, as it shoots these RAW progressive, super high resolution frames, most closely linked to 35mm film frames, or high rez digital still images, which are also RAW. Therefore the painting images becomes a less critical, and more flexible part of the gig.

The most important parts of the RED TECH, DT, Data Wrangler, call it what you will, gig, are similar to what a 2nd AC would do - prepping the camera, insuring all is set up correctly for shooting the camera, and managing the media going to and from the camera (pretty much the same gig for a 2nd working with 35mm stock, the RED stock just doesn't need the changing bag) In my opinion the loading of the RED camera is pretty easy, but the "un-loading" is where skill and experience comes into play, as now that is hot media with footage shot on it, just like exposed film. So there has been a term I've seen many in the RED world call a critical crew position the "un-loader" instead of the "clapper loader" on a film gig.

The good news is, Brook and others, if they choose to do so, get to take on the role of the on-set lab. There are some exceptionally good ones I've seen out there that do this, (first names Dino, Steve, Casey, Von, Nate, Jeroen, Jonathan, Ryan, come to mind, and many others as well that I've spent time with) they end up being part camera tech, part on set lab, part loader/ unloader, part on set colorist if the job calls for it, and part advanced playback and video assist tech - it's a lot for one person to take on, and a place were smart producers know they should not skimp. If there are multiple cameras, multiple setups and a complex shoot, sometimes a few of these crew positions are required, no different than a 2nd AC for each film camera on a high end 35mm shoot.

So this is the new gig of the DIT, now turned DT (remember the DOP is quite busy doing the imaging part of his job, and may consult with Brook or these other Techs on exposure, since Brook is keeping tabs on the footage and can open and review the shots very easily on a Mac, and create on set color temp grades for the DOP if he wants to see them, but it is not a "must have" part of the job, especially when time is of the essence, you have perfect lighting or you need to get 6 more setups before you wrap for the day.

The big overriding point, is that you can take advantage of on set coloring, setting looks that get passed into post production via meta-data from monitor viewing of the footage while it's shot, or setting the look you want in camera, with the on camera controls, and going with that for the look. Every job is different.

Note, that you don't need to do any of this if you don't want to, since you are shooting RAW images, just like film you can just expose it right, and know you can get the look you want in post later, just like you do in the TeleCine stage with film. I understand in the newest versions of some of the HD cinema style cameras, you can choose to shoot the camera in a "log like" mode, so you can shoot more film style, and do not need to have critical color on set monitoring. I believe this is a step in the right direction, of course it's not the same as shooting RAW images on the RED , or latent images on Film, but it's an advancement. I don't' have enough personal experience to comment on it more than that, perhaps others do.

Now let me make one more point that may be taken as quite radical. The RED is one of the few cameras I've seen that can truly be shot with one person, all alone, no crew, no support, no nothing. Peter Jackson does this to get certain shots he wants, Steven Soderbergh does this, Rodney Charters does this, and Doug Liman does this, and there are many others that do this from time to time.

Not that this in normal recommended practice at all, just like I never recommend people fill up a RED drive all the way to full before downloading shots, and no I don't believe you can shoot an entire movie this way very effectively. But the only other camera I've seen that you can do this with is a film camera. (if you know how to load the film) If not, you have a set up guy get the film cam or the RED ready to go for you, and you go out into the world and shoot.

The RED makes a great tool for 2nd unit in this fashion - small crew, one or two people, go get the shots they need without a big crew or commotion.

I've done many, many shoots just with me, a handheld rig or a small tripod and a single drive, or a handful of CF cards. Including on camera audio, without any issue, in fact it's kind of fun, and the 4k results are amazing - way better than you could get with an HD camera. It just requires a good understanding of the camera, exposure and setting up a project (and focusing by eye, since we are talking 35mm DOF here.)

So that last group of statements may bring some interesting comments - bring em on.

And one more thing, since I just re-read Brooks post about post production dollars - even if you go the traditional routes for making dailies and delivering them on physical media like DVDs or tapes, even if you do telecine style layoffs to HDCAMsr tape from the RED master files, even if you follow the most expensive post routes available today, it still costs significantly less to start with shooting RED than shooting Film - period. Can't debate it, unless you literally do everything completely wrong and get bamboozled by an unethical post house or post producer… RED is cheaper to shoot, post and deliver, no question. And the images, well they speak for themselves over and over again.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, I know it's lengthy.

+ Ted

[PatrickW]

What about the cost of archiving your footage(film vs digital)?

[D Fuller]

Mike (and Others),

I think you are right today. But I think the change will come faster than you expect. And it will come because more people will figure out that there are other ways to do it than "the right way". And that will serve them better.

I just came from a meeting with a NY post house that is talking about building a floor for Scratch-based color correction. They're also in talks with networks about program production. These are no small-time guys, but a commercial post facility with q portfolio of major national clients. A year ago, their owner was totally anti Red. Today he's considering a major expansion to facilitate Red. And the new Arri camera. And whatever other file-based capture systems are out there.

So you're right that Hollywood is going to be slow to adopt. But the Red is disruptive, and disruption always starts at the edges and moves inward. And almost always faster than the entrenched businesses imagine.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What about the cost of archiving your footage(film vs digital)?

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32881&page=11

Onwards.

[Axel Mertes]

Ted,

first of all:

Take care of yourself. A heart is nothing to play games with (not saying you do so, just telling you: stay calm). When I first opened the threat and saw the new avatar - I immediately understood why you didn't go to IBC. Some post later in the thread you commented on it, so I found I was right with my interpretation. Good luck and health, thats what I wish you (and all other, of course). Beside that: Cool avatar!

I want to add some comments from our local experience.

We were actually the first in germany doing RED stuff, as we had the first cam in hands. We went through a lot of workflow hassle in the beginning, some by being just new to this, but most by trying to adopt customer specific workflow requirements that just weren't right for RED based productions at that time. A simple example: If a producer insist to edit on an AVID for offline, because his favourised editor simply can't deal with FCP, then its a major issue. While with FCP we could have started editing with out-of-the-RED-cam-footage, the AVID forced a meticulous bulk conversion step and introduced a lot of EDL hassle for doing the online after that.

Due to the invention of many neat tools, mostly from the forum members, some also inhouse if required (I am the coder of the inhouse tools here, so I know very well what I am talking about) we overcome almost all these issues. Sometimes just the right tool weren't in place before the whole thing started, or tools didn't work as expected, because the material was shot with the wrong (newer) firmware version, the editing app wasn't the right release or the tool used wasn't up to date.

Based on this experience we found and find that many producers are hesitating about RED because of a bad initial workflow experience. Whenever we - as a native post house - were involved from the beginning and forced them to adopt to a proven workflow, the productions went out "just fine". But sometimes producers behave a bit (sorry to be harsh here) "recommendation resistent". You can explain them forever why it is a bad idea to follow a "traditional route" to enable a proven RED workflow, but they end up trying to force the RED camera being their film or HD camera how they know it. So not rarely we ended up bulk converting RED footage to HD tapes, which were used for online production. A big big big waste IMHO. But they pay what they ask for, in the end.

Further, not rarely we got called because our advanced expertise in the field of RED based post production was required. When the first RED cams appeared in german rental houses (who by nature could not care that much about post production workflows in first place), many production and producers went into troubles by just thinking wrong and not understand the REDs principles. They ended up having shot on RED and not really knowing how to proceed, finding them stuck with a "no go" issue in post, often their own inhouse post. We rescued a bunch of productions that were otherwise blown up. But we never intended too.

The main reason that we, as a post house, bought the first german RED camera, where that we knew from the very beginning two facts:

1. The RED camera is the practical and logical answer for future workflow requirements, production and cost efficiency, output quality on a broad basis of productions (from web video to the cinema).

2. We as a post house have to play a magic key role by UNDERSTANDING, PLANNING and PERFORMING the RED workflow. We need to know best how to use the camera settings and how to deal with the data to have successful productions going on. And we were totally right, until today.

Its cool that over the last year most post production tool vendors have adopted RED workflows, RED SDK etc. So it becomes easier with any new release of their products. The hassle is going down, but its not yet "everywhere" and "well trained". So this forum, its members, the combined knowledge have become a key part of the success of the workflow advantage.

Another experience we have is the role of the DT or DIT or loader/unloader, however you call it.

We often find that the DOP or AC (not seldom one person on its own, in fact) have issues with focussing right at 4K. Many of them just have "rental" experience and don't know well the options on how to check for the right sharpness on set (like using 1:1 zoom, focus assist (please add selectable color like red-green-blue for the embossed sharpness outlines finally!!!!) or the peak waveform). We as the post house provide the service to send out our staff members as this DT position for many reasons you have already explained. I just want to add up a bit more on this:

1. The DT knows the camera, its tweaks and tricks, and could assist the DOP/AC to make the best use of the camera and its latest firmware (if the last firmware they - DOP / AC - used is way older than the currently loaded one, you understand were the problem is).

2. The DT takes care of downloading data, preparing fresh media, camera settings, enumeration of clips etc.

3. The DT can check on set that framing, exposure, sharpness of the material are good and as desired. Everyone on set can ask the DT and he should be able to give the right answers. Sharpness and exposure are the main issues that can go wrong here, even with experienced DOP / AC poeple, when the RED camera isn't their regular camera setup. Help IS required. And should be accepted by them. A EVF or LCD isn't by itself good enough to get "sharp".

4. The DT can do basic look tests, on set grading tests. Btw, we do not really recommend on set grading or on set editing, as this usually ends up in more delays than necessary. When the director is on set, he should take care that the team advances as quickly as possible with the shooting. Fiddeling around with DOP, editor, grading, director in front of a monitor while the whole set is waiting is - just nonsense to me, most cases. There are situations where checking is important and required, see below no. 5, but please, not for everything. Just "because you can" you must not, its not always wise...

5. The DT can be a VFX supervisor in on person (we do so, many times, mostly my collegue Mark is a specialist in this area, but others too). As he is theen often the one in charge to do the actual post production work lateron with the material, and especially when VFX come into play, no one can better judge on the required and recorded quality of the on set footage. We talk about things like green screen lighting, placing markers, sharpness range and whatever counts on to it. Simple things, just a few minutes on set, but hours or days in post - if things go wrong. As a founder of post house I can tell you one wise thing: "Fix it in the post" is a bad excuse for bad planning of a shooting or bad on set work. Sometimes its unavoidable. But mostly not.

Here in europe we often have to deal with extremely small budgets on film. We are not Hollywood block buster movies, but we use the same tools :) now, thanks to RED. So we often have to work efficient and in smaller teams. Thats why the DT can be the VFX supervisor in one person. It makes just sense.

In my opinion its a key situation that production and post house get together BEFORE planning the shooting. So a *working* workflow can be designed, proposals can be made, requirements can be discussed. From that starting point the production can be planned. The DT - if in our case coming from the post house processing the data lateron - plays a very important role for the success of a production. Most times no one on set can better judge on "how good or not" the material will work in post.

We have many examples where things went bad because of that missing knowledge on set. And that, very unfortunate, sheds a bad light on RED, RED cameras, RED workflows, and all who recommend it. And its actually never really their fault. Poeple need to adopt open and fairly to new workflows, must be willing to learn - for a change.

If he is a clever guy the DT can even assist in calming down customers on set who are in video village and "want to see if the material is looking right". That must not be, but depending on the work load it can get the head free for others on set to concentrate on their work.

Best wishes,

Axel

[Bill Anderson]

How about doing a budget comparison for digital projection.
Television? Internet, ie. This Is Not a Love Song. ? (:

How about comparing indie scenarios where one
filmmaker has pretty much controlled, in house,
every aspect of production, compared to one that
has gone through the old school working model of
film production, a model where one has to relinquish
every aspect of post as it passed from hand to hand
and hallowed hall to hall. It worked in the past,
but it's no longer the only game in town.
Of course, having said that, we have to remember
that studios are no longer the only significant force out there.

Maybe I digress a bit from Ted's post- and Thanks Ted, and other posters,
for sharing your insights and knowledge:
But what is the real force behind publishing these budget comparisons?
They crop up from time to time, and seem to have more behind them
than just providing a few figures for or against one process.
Particularly when you consider just how well most production
Co's understand budget considerations of each method.
Is it to imply that budget comparisons are THE issue when
comparing each acquisitions worth or (more likely) future?

I suppose budget issues have their place but they are minor
ones when compared to the future of digital anything.
It's not like we're suddenly going to discover something about
film that, had it been discovered earlier, might have prevented
the success of digital cinema. Would it make much difference to
digital acquisition's future if suddenly the cost of using film were
cut in half? Or given away for free? Nope, I think not. It might prolong
the life of film, but it would do nothing to slow Digital's impetus.

Remember Kodak in its heyday? It was the amateur, hobbyist,
holiday snap happy hundreds of millions of disposable cameras
per waterfall weekend that made that Co. what it was. And the
Scorsese's were good at adding a certain luster to the yellow box.
(Scorsese's true worth aside). And that Kodak-like phenomenon
is pretty much happening in today's digital realm, only tenfold-
it's the millions of peripheral digital satellites that are pulling film's
future apart- not the difference between one budget and another.

[Bill Anderson]

Film, for all its history and beauty, is now an island in a digital ocean on a digital planet in a digital galaxy in a digital universe. And the tide is steadily rising.

[Harva Raj]

Chart 2 is wrong and false economy.

Making movies is business. You can't start a business without initial investment. Or without any employees!! And if u serious about making movies you won't stop at just making 1 movie.


So the chart goes like this:-


Initial investment - $160,000
RED package + Lens Package - $80,000
Editing and DI Workstation - $80,000



Production Cost For 1 movie.

Camera Rental - 0
Stock - 0
Processing - $2000 (100 hrs overnight R3D Processing)
Copying - $8000
Data Cine - 0
NLE - 0
Reconfirm - 0
Film Record - 35,000
DI Grade - 0

Total - $45,000
And you need to hire employees who can DIT,Edit,Data Cine, Reconfirm,DI- $ 15,000 Per Month


If i make 10 movies based on your digital chart - $1,665,200
If i make 10 movies based on my chart - $810,000 [($45K x10)+($15K x 24 months)]
If i make 10 movies based on film chart - 5,559,440
So i save - $855,200 Shooting Digital by investing $160,000. And a whopping $4,749,440 by not shooting film!

[Disco Legend Zeke]

There is another aspect of shooting film, because of the $350 per minute cost of running stock through the camera, directors tend to rehearse and rehearse. With digital, there is essentially zero cost to record everything.

How much can this save?... Additionally, you get a fresher performance,

[radfilm]

I did not read every post but what I can tell you from my experience is I would choose RED or any other format based on the project.
The RED has proven itself as a valid tool that delivers in workflow, film-like shooting process and pleasing image quality. The fact that it is somewhat cheaper to rent with the added reduced cost of post is only a plus.
Does the cost drive it ? for producers yes, but as a Cinematographer that has shot his share of RED on high value projects, this has helped those very projects get made.
Will I shoot RED on everything I do? probably not but I can tell you I will be shooting it often and embrace the experience to the fullest as my goal is to make the best image possible...
I look forward to my projects shot with the RED and appreciate that the cost savings help get films made,believe me this is what we all want.

[Casey Green]

Great thread. If it hasn't been covered before, can someone go into the cost comparisons re: lighting with RED vs. other Film and HD Cameras?

I realize this one will probably be a bit more difficult to cover, and it is a moving target since the new sensors are right around the corner, but I'd love to learn more about issues such as amount of light needed and the costs associated.

Thanks for any info...

[Alex Vendler]

Chart 2 is wrong and false economy.

Making movies is business. You can't start a business without initial investment. Or without any employees!! And if u serious about making movies you won't stop at just making 1 movie.


So the chart goes like this:-


Initial investment - $160,000
RED package + Lens Package - $80,000
Editing and DI Workstation - $80,000



Production Cost For 1 movie.

Camera Rental - 0
Stock - 0
Processing - $2000 (100 hrs overnight R3D Processing)
Copying - $8000
Data Cine - 0
NLE - 0
Reconfirm - 0
Film Record - 35,000
DI Grade - 0

Total - $45,000
And you need to hire employees who can DIT,Edit,Data Cine, Reconfirm,DI- $ 15,000 Per Month


If i make 10 movies based on your digital chart - $1,665,200
If i make 10 movies based on my chart - $810,000 [($45K x10)+($15K x 24 months)]
If i make 10 movies based on film chart - 5,559,440
So i save - $855,200 Shooting Digital by investing $160,000. And a whopping $4,749,440 by not shooting film!


How is that D.I. Grading $0??

Also, did anyone think about the cost of shooting a feature on film and NOT doing a D.I.. Just print it at the lab...

[jimhare]

How is that D.I. Grading $0??

Also, did anyone think about the cost of shooting a feature on film and NOT doing a D.I.. Just print it at the lab...


D.I.Y. Baby! :smilewinkgrin:

If a distributor likes it, let them pay for a real grade and film out later.

[Kevin Lang]

Things change. We are doing a film for SONY right now - and they are getting dailies from us via iPhone.

How are you giving dailies via iphone? Maybe a dumb question but I have been trying to figure out how to upload to ones iphone without completely re syncing it! Any insight to this would be greatly appreciated. Again sorry for the rookie iphone question.

[Terry VerHaar]

Things change. We are doing a film for SONY right now - and they are getting dailies from us via iPhone.

Wow - that is very cool. Next time iPad!