Features: It’s the workflow, stupid.

[Thom Steinhoff]

I’ve been thinking about film vs. digital thing as a cost of camera, cost of processing vs. quality of capture argument then it hit me: It’s the workflow, stupid.

The thing that “killed” film for still photography, killed tape for studio recording and killed traditional film editing for post was not the cost of the cameras or development--but the cost of time overall workflow--and the speed in which everything can be finished. The same thing will happen here.

The cost of cameras or processing is insignificant next to the reduction of shooting days you will achieve with a dramatically faster workflow. Save a few thousand here or there? Yawn. Save a dozen shooting days while at the same time giving your talent a better work experience? Now you’ve got their attention.

This is why I think people are wrong by saying that Red is for the independents and big features will always stay film--I think big budget features will be very fast to adopt a workflow offered by Red--far faster than most people imagine.

Here’s why:

Look at HD use in features already by the early adopters: they see the inferior quality of HD as a small price to pay for the faster workflow offered by HD, i.e., full quality on-set monitoring, longer loads, instant replay, greater sensitivity and reduced lighting efforts. For those who are already drinking the digital Kool-aid it is already a done deal even with the inferior quality of HD and the existing HD “Monster Raid” workflow.

How much faster will a Red compact flash workflow be? What about with a 3 hour magazine? 1080p WYSIWYG lighting? Totally silent camera operation? Onset laptop playback? Instant turn around on SFX shots? “Hold on let me look at that key in 4K…perfect!--next shot” Onset instant 2K playback showing full impact of FPS, shutter speed, aperture, etc. What impact will RAW have to “lets move on” confidence?

All of this will be huge and offer far greater impact to a production than camera day rates or reductions on processing.

When the directors of big budget HD features talk about why they love HD movie making--they say nothing of rental or processing cost savings--they talk about one thing: onset workflow--instant gratification of onset playback, live camera lighting, longer shoot times etc. Just look at the confidence onset, full quality, playback offers compared to a low-res video tap where “are you sure” becomes “take-twenty-six”.

Re-read Peter Jackson’s interview and listen to how exciting the speed and flexibility of making movies like this is to him--it’s the workflow.

Time will tell, but the Red workflow, though in it’s infancy and relatively unproven, already appears to be light years ahead of any other feature film workflow out there, period.

The biggest reason people give for not using HD cameras in feature films is quality and Red blows that argument out of the water completely.

Does Red have to look better than film before it replaces it? In my opinion--no--it just has to be “good enough” so as to provide a rich platform for artists while not to be distracting. This “good enough” bar met by HD for the directors and producers of Superman Returns, Zodiac, Apocalypto and others. In my opinion, even though all three movies looked great –they would have “looked” better if the same footage had been shot on film--but looks aren’t everything. Maybe the onset workflow HD offered gave them the freedom and speed to capture things that would have never made it on film with its more cumbersome process? Actors love to work faster, stay in the moment and try more things--a workflow that offers this in spades may actually open the door to better features than could be made on film--all because of the workflow.

Yes, Red has raised the bar dramatically on quality to a level far beyond HD and to some above even film itself, but in the end--it doesn’t matter: It’s good enough.

The bar that really matters is the workflow bar and here is where Red has the potential indeed to change the world. Yes, the quality and resolution are amazing but, in the end it is the workflow that will win the hearts and pocketbooks of Hollywood.

Once people like Soderberg and Jackson start saying things like “Red cut 15 days off my shooting schedule, 10 days off my post and a cool million off my special effects budget ” you can bet the studios will be all over it. In my opinion, there will be a tidal wave of adoption very similar to what happened with non-linear editing.

To think that Red will primarily be used just by us indies--I think is naïve. Anything that can do to production what non-linear editing did for post will not be an option in five years--it will be the only way big Hollywood movies get made.

As with editing, Spielberg may end up being one of the few that is still allowed to shoot and edit on film but the onset digital “fast and free” workflow may be too seductive for even him and he too will join the revolution. Time will tell for him, but for the rest of us--I think film’s days truly are numbered.

In 5 years, if you want to shoot on film you’ll likely hear: “I’m sorry, no studio is going to pay for film any more—everyone goes digital. You’ll never meet your delivery window and it just isn’t practical. You still want to shoot on film—your only chance is to do it as an independent.” How ironic will that be?

Maybe by then, Red will offer cans of “essence du’ film” to spray film smell on set and in the editing room to help the old time directors feel at home.

[IAN SUN]

Good one Thom.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Get it while it is hot!

http://cgi.ebay.com/MOVIOLA-35mm-Motion-Picture-Film-Viewer-Editor_W0QQitemZ250160676859QQihZ015QQcategoryZ638 21QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Pat555]

Thom,
I have a few issues with some of your statements regarding HD on set lighting, and workflow in general. You state that HD has "greater sensitivity and reduced lighting efforts." I'm sorry, but in my experience (17 years as Key grip, Gaffer, DP, in commercial world) I can say that HD is harder to light well than film....Its dynamic range is limited... the cameras are bulky and made for eng crews....you are tethered to a DIT with multiple cables and if its starts raining your screwed.....and you need a pro 35mm adapter to work with cinema quality glass or spend big bucks on digi-primes....
I'm also not sure by how Red will cut 15 days off a film shoot? It may cut down on post to be sure, but how does it actually make a differece on set? How exactly does it shave days off a schedule? Whats the difference of a 400 ft 35mm mag being shot out and an 8 gig CF Card being shot out? I get that you will be able to look at the downloaded footage on a set computer, but at what point does a director have the time on a feature to do that? Shouldn't they be on to the next setup? I think dailies will be viewed with Red the same way they are viewed now, at the end of the day when the crew has gone home and the Director and Producer wish they could do the same! Anyway, just my 2 cents...

Patrick Donnelly
Director/DP
www.patdonnelly.com
www.divergencethefilm.com

[Thor Wixom]

"You still want to shoot on film—your only chance is to do it as an independent.” Red will offer cans of “essence du’ film” to spray film smell on set and in the editing room to help the old time directors feel at home.

F#@k YEAH!

[Michael Brennan]

Yes digital photography took off quickly partly because the photographer benifited from the improved workflow and pocketed the $$$.

A still photographer is often also the producer.

With HD the cinematographer doesn't benifit $$$ from the faster workflow, the producer does.

RED has scope for the cinematographer to pocket the $$ benefit because he can afford to shoot and post his own material, but not every client will want him to do this, nor does every cinematographer want to "run the job"

HD does require less lux for the same depth of field as 35mm but it does not use less number of lights.

But RED has same DoF and anecdotally, slightly improved sensitivty of 35mm film so similar lux required for same DoF.




Mike Brennan

[explosive]

Thom,
I have a few issues with some of your statements regarding HD on set lighting, and workflow in general. You state that HD has "greater sensitivity and reduced lighting efforts." I'm sorry, but in my experience (17 years as Key grip, Gaffer, DP, in commercial world) I can say that HD is harder to light well than film....


I agree with you completely.

Film is generally far more generous to lighting fuck ups than digital is. That is why so much extra care must be put into lighting any digital set.

[mezmo]

Hi Thom,
Can't agree with your theory here on Red Workflow.
Yes money can be saved on buying film ,processing it,
telecine,neg cutting,scanning it back to data for film out.
But if directors have the opportunity to shoot more, cause they
can and its cheap. They will. This will eat up more time on set,
not less. Managing this data, consider the two million plus frames/files
on an average Red feature film. Misplacing one of those frames is not
an option. Reshoots are not an option.
Also handling 4/2K files in post production is a very expensive and
complicated procedure at the moment. Not for the faint hearted but
OK if you have hefty DI post solution. Untill a cheap post solution arrives
Red is at the moment still an expensive proposition if your going to use it
for mainstream feature drama projects, and is pretty much untested.
This will change when the big guys like Stephen S. release their projects
shot on Red, but the post budgets will be much the same as a film shoot,
if not more, because of the amount of data that has to be dealt with.
So in a whole feature film production & post budget you may save money in some
areas using Red but in other areas because of the setup costs of Red Digital
Cinema production, it's costing big time. And given the redundancy problems involved with electronic acquisition equipment, you also have to take this into consideration too. Try to look at the big picture (pardon the pun) and not just
at a cheap camera body price. Red is part of a Digital Cinema System.
(not being rude here, just trying to be helpfull)
Cheers Mezmo

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Mezmo,

if shot in the REDCODE RAW codec, the datarate is pretty acceptable, no?
Most people shoot in REDCODE RAW anyway, even the 'big boys' because quality is so good. I don't think the data management is THAT expensive, if you think about the datarates of REDCODE RAW.

[Lucas Wilson]

Also handling 4/2K files in post production is a very expensive and complicated procedure at the moment. Not for the faint hearted but OK if you have hefty DI post solution. Untill a cheap post solution arrives Red is at the moment still an expensive proposition if your going to use it for mainstream feature drama projects,

Cheap solutions.... like a processing lab and a telecine bay, and the engineers necessary to run and maintain all that? : )

Just pointing out - you're not going to convince me that setting up post production for RED is more expensive than setting up for film. The only difference is that the labs and telecine bays already exist and it is such an established part of our world that we don't really think about it. But, setting up a film operation from scratch is insanely expensive.

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

[number6]

Very insightful thread by the threadstarter. Thanks for the clarity.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Thom may be a tad optimistic but his premise is sound. Posters who challenged his assertions showed a lack of understanding of the RED system in suggesting the need for lens adapters and citing the limited DR of HD as proof of how the RedOne will respond.

RED vs Film breakdown:

Good lighting will still take time, talent, grips, etc. RED advantages - less total wattage required might allow you to go Edison instead of genny in a few cases, mixed color temps should be easier to manage in a RAW grading pass, high quality video tap will speed up some gaffers & DPs, low noise in shadows will allow selective pushing in post.

Dailies and last take checks will be easier, faster and better quality. This capability has to be well managed or it will burn as much time as it saves but the extension of this argument is that an assistant editor can be rough cutting sequences on or near set. This can be done with the video tap off a film camera but with digital its promise can be exploited more efficiently.

The cost savings of taking film out of the equation will be somewhat offset by costs unique to the RED system but I firmly believe that as the RED pipeline becomes more mature we will see substantial bottom line improvement. I agree with Lucas on this one.

Thom got a lot of this right, it just may take a while for people to make the paradigm shift.

[M Most]

Thom may be a tad optimistic but his premise is sound. Posters who challenged his assertions showed a lack of understanding of the RED system in suggesting the need for lens adapters and citing the limited DR of HD as proof of how the RedOne will respond.



Nothing you've cited indicates any savings of production time, which was the original assertion that has been challenged. Overall cost is another issue, but the savings you're talking about - as some others have - are primarily in post. Going with line drops rather than gennys is not going to save you days of production. And I would argue about the "less total wattage" assertion, as I just don't see that being the case, not if you want to achieve the same quality look. Rental costs, perhaps, but not production days. Any grading issues are post issues and have nothing to do with production time. As for editors being on set, well, in my opinion (and the opinion of any production I've ever been associated with), editors don't belong on sets. They belong in cutting rooms. Attempting to do "instant editorial" very directly limits what you are likely to shoot, and not in a good way, because you only try to get what's in your head in the heat of the moment in production. "Happy accidents" - one of the great things about production - disappear in favor of more adherence to original concepts. The magic that editing can bring to the piece, and the spontaneity of live performance can be discarded when its reviewed to death at the time of creation. Not to mention the time involved in doing so.

The bottom line is that I don't think anyone is arguing that there is likely a cost savings to be had overall. What's in question is whether changing cameras/recording systems can cut a production schedule. I just don't see that as being the case.

[Evin Grant]

With a trained eye (I mean one trained to light from a monitor) lighting time is dramatically decreased. At least in the more indie style shoting I think prevails here. Red's exposure tools make it much less of a mytery what's going on in the frame. Huge movies are huge because that's the way the studios and fans want those films. But still there are significant speed advantages to the Red workflow and they are not just in post. Focusing is another area that has become much faster, an AC can now set marks by eye more accurately than by tape and get immediate confirmation that he has hit those marks. Also having a generally lighter camera means more movement, smaller cranes, rigs, steadicams, car mounts and faster company moves and set wraps.

[Pat555]

Blair,
You need to read my post....I was talking about Thom's assertions on HD. I brought up HD's limitations and need for lens adapters....I was not equating this with the RedOne or how it will respond. I wanted to show that some of the foundations of his premise were based on false assumptions and myths regarding HD....not Red.
I have to agree with mmost statements.
Can't agree with your "high quality video tap will speed up some gaffers & DPs". How exactly will this make them faster? There are some pretty good HD monitors on sets right now....Doesn't seem to made any differece in crew ability as to when the tap was B & W.....At least from my perspective.

Patrick Donnelly
www.patdonnelly.com

[Finner]

With a trained eye (I mean one trained to light from a monitor) lighting time is dramatically decreased. At least in the more indie style shoting I think prevails here. Red's exposure tools make it much less of a mytery what's going on in the frame. Huge movies are huge because that's the way the studios and fans want those films. But still there are significant speed advantages to the Red workflow and they are not just in post. Focusing is another area that has become much faster, an AC can now set marks by eye more accurately than by tape and get immediate confirmation that he has hit those marks. Also having a generally lighter camera means more movement, smaller cranes, rigs, steadicams, car mounts and faster company moves and set wraps.

This is a huge benifit for a red over other cameras in many ways. Though having worked before as a focus puller for quite a while before I began shooting I have to say there are a lot more reasons for using a tape then finding the focus for one particular mark. When I pulled out my tape I was not just taking distances to the marks that the actor planned to hit (note the word planned as many actors consistantly miss their marks). When an experienced AC pulls out their tape they will note quick other marks like reference distances to table corners or cracks on the ground or what ever natural distance markers there are in the scene. That way when the actor misses their mark or ab-libes moves in a scene and the director yells brilliant print it lets move on the focus puller does not have to sheepishly walk up to the director and explain how things changed and the shot was soft.

Evan I can totally see how for quick reference on most non moving focus points or farther then 30 feet focus marks the red focus zoom in feature would be great. The thing is for distances within the 30feet to 3 foot range there is nothing better then the tape, and if some people were to read your post and start to ride their AC when he pulls out the tape then I can see there being a lot more soft focus shots.

[Jason Murphy]

Nothing you've cited indicates any savings of production time, which was the original assertion that has been challenged. Overall cost is another issue, but the savings you're talking about - as some others have - are primarily in post. Going with line drops rather than gennys is not going to save you days of production. And I would argue about the "less total wattage" assertion, as I just don't see that being the case, not if you want to achieve the same quality look. Rental costs, perhaps, but not production days. Any grading issues are post issues and have nothing to do with production time. As for editors being on set, well, in my opinion (and the opinion of any production I've ever been associated with), editors don't belong on sets. They belong in cutting rooms. Attempting to do "instant editorial" very directly limits what you are likely to shoot, and not in a good way, because you only try to get what's in your head in the heat of the moment in production. "Happy accidents" - one of the great things about production - disappear in favor of more adherence to original concepts. The magic that editing can bring to the piece, and the spontaneity of live performance can be discarded when its reviewed to death at the time of creation. Not to mention the time involved in doing so.

The bottom line is that I don't think anyone is arguing that there is likely a cost savings to be had overall. What's in question is whether changing cameras/recording systems can cut a production schedule. I just don't see that as being the case.

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoedsys/revfeat/video_going_tapeless/

According to this article, shooting tapeless on David Fincher's Zodiac did actually speed things up somewhat. That said, much of it was that Fincher implemented digital slating into his workflow with the Viper, and that he was recording to hard drives or S2's, not compact flash cards that had to be changed every 4 minutes.


“We saved about 30 minutes a day by not having [physical] slates; plus, you almost never have to stop and reload. We probably reloaded about 30 times over the course of 120 days, at the most. [Actor] Robert Downey, Jr., said to me that he had never been on his feet so long on a set, because we rarely had to stop cameras.”

Also, since Fincher was already shooting upwards of 70 takes on some setups, the savings due to digital slating may not be that significant for someone shooting in a different style, with more setups per day and fewer takes.

I completely agree with you, though, Mike, that changes in lighting/addition of onset editorial, etc. aren't going to save you much time, if any.

So, here's a question: has digital slating been implemented with RED? Or is it just rolled into footage metadata, etc?

[Thom Steinhoff]

As for my optimistic 15 days, I guess I should have added an asterisk: “* 15 shooting days quotation was only meant as an extreme example of potential savings on a large scale,100 day + shooting schedule. Your results may vary…”

My entire post had nothing to do with HD, really. It was really meant to say that the early adopters claimed workflow improvements in HD so wait until they really get a handle on the new Red workflow which I perceive to be at least 10x improvement.

My statements on the HD workflow being faster than film, were not based on experience but based on David Fincher’s experience as Jason pointed out above.

This was with a Viper, heavy compared to Red, workflow. Imagine what he can do with a Red workflow?

As for the lighting savings, again I am not a DP nor do I play one on TV. My comments are based on reading of the experiences of the first 50 and from previous statements by Soderberg and Rodreguez and others with their HD experiences.

As for 8 gig compact flash cards vs. a film load—compact flash is already at 16, soon 32, then 64 and so on. You cannot base a five-year prediction on today’s technology you have to base it on where technology will be in five years.

As a 25 year technologist (where my real experience lies) I know that technology, speed and quality is on a continuous path to innovation. You cannot base tomorrow’s predictions on today’s technologies alone, but you must base your predictions on where you think technology will be. Gigabyte today--terabyte tomorrow. 4K today--8K tomorrow.

Red got us to where we are today in a year and a half where are they going to take us a year and a half from now? Five years? Ten years?

Will we truely move faster, or simply do more in the allotted time? It remains to be seen. But I think we can all agree that these are exciting times.

[M Most]

But still there are significant speed advantages to the Red workflow and they are not just in post.

Sorry, Evin, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, at least until someone shoots something that either proves or disproves it. But in my experience, a production day is taken up by steps that are quite independent of any camera or recording technology. I just don't see where having a slightly smaller camera means less rigging time. Or where having visual confirmation of focus means that the AC shouldn't measure any more (unless you want to accept soft focus as a result). Or even where, for an experienced cameraman, having a monitor really makes any significant difference in the number of units used, the amount of grip equipment required, or how many tweaks are done - at least not if the cameraman is going to be meticulous. And there will certainly not be any less time taken waiting for first team to come in, or waiting for touch ups. Your experience is obviously showing you a different picture, at least for the productions you've worked on. Like I said, time will tell, but I really don't believe there will be any dramatic change in the amount of time taken for basic production at the same quality level.

[M Most]

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoedsys/revfeat/video_going_tapeless/
Also, since Fincher was already shooting upwards of 70 takes on some setups, the savings due to digital slating may not be that significant for someone shooting in a different style, with more setups per day and fewer takes.


It's also a bit disingenuous to claim you saved time vs. shooting on film when you take 120 days to shoot a movie, don't you think?

[Russ McDonald]

I have as a Director shot film, and HD. I shot Eddies in HD for budget reasons. I would shot on film only if it was a deal breaker for an actor, or a Producer. Looking at the footage posted, the latitude you have in a red is amazing. Any number of looks can be achieved, with the push of a non destructive computer key.

As far as money, I do allot of budget consulting for independent films. I've done the math. Red production workflow is 60% of a conventional film workflow. If you add a first unit B camera it even more. Apples to apples.

Thom contention of saving shooting days, 15 days was an extreme example, but finding yourself 3-5 days ahead over a hundred day schedule. I can see that happen.

As far as onset offline edits, I for one would of loved to have had it on Eddies. The shorter to schedule the more value I see in the practice.

[Jason Murphy]

It's also a bit disingenuous to claim you saved time vs. shooting on film when you take 120 days to shoot a movie, don't you think?

Fincher's notorious for his long shoots. Not quite Kubrickian, but pretty close. Fight Club, shot on film, had a 138-day shooting schedule and seemed to be of similar scope to Zodiac, but your point is well taken. By that point, you're not saving anyone much time, no matter what format you're shooting in.

[Pat555]

I totally agree and could not articulate it any better.....



Sorry, Evin, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, at least until someone shoots something that either proves or disproves it. But in my experience, a production day is taken up by steps that are quite independent of any camera or recording technology. I just don't see where having a slightly smaller camera means less rigging time. Or where having visual confirmation of focus means that the AC shouldn't measure any more (unless you want to accept soft focus as a result). Or even where, for an experienced cameraman, having a monitor really makes any significant difference in the number of units used, the amount of grip equipment required, or how many tweaks are done - at least not if the cameraman is going to be meticulous. And there will certainly not be any less time taken waiting for first team to come in, or waiting for touch ups. Your experience is obviously showing you a different picture, at least for the productions you've worked on. Like I said, time will tell, but I really don't believe there will be any dramatic change in the amount of time taken for basic production at the same quality level.

[mezmo]

Hi Luki,
Not trying to say establishing a film post solution is cheaper
than a Red and Digital cinema solution. I'm saying at the moment there's
not that much difference between film and digital because of the
high cost of the 2/4K post & DI solutions.
On set I'm sure directors will shoot more, like Mr Fincher probably three
times more than a normal 35mm shoot. This may,haven't been there yet,
create a data management bunfight. Untill we have fast, reliable, inexpensive Digital Cinema solutions available, the real cost savings of this
new technology will not come into play.
The way I see it we have three acquisition/production systems for the
production feature drama for theatrical distribution.
Film. The old reliable, expensive solution. But still the only way
90% of theaters can screen our films worldwide.
High Definition. Another reliable and less expensive solution but
limited with various compression and quality issues.
Then Digital Cinema. The new kid on the block. Red and SI have done
a lot to bring the cost of DC down already and if things keep going along
this cost saving path this new system will be a force to be reckoned with.
Scratch is the only system at the moment attached to the Red DI post workflow and the guys who have your system will reap the benefits as
producers come in to DI and finish their Red movies. It won't be cheap
and I don't have a problem with this, good luck to them. But in the long
term the thing that wiil make Red Digital Cinema sucessful will be it's
ease of use and cost saving advantages over film and maybe even HD.
Will it replace film and HD, no way, Film will still be the way most people
on the planet see movies theatricially for many years to come and HD will still be a very large part of the broadcast & TV industry.
When we have Digital Cinema as reliable as the other two systems and
more cost effective it will fly and be a great option for motion picture production.
It's just not there at the moment,early days
and exciting times.
Cheers Mezmo

[Marcus Irvin]

Thom is right. I've been saying the same on this forum since this forum was born.

It happened to scientific recording.
It happened to typesetting.
It happened to photography labs.
It happened to fine art printmaking.
It happened to still photography.
It happened to audio recording.
It happened to satellite broadcasting.
It is happening to broadcast delivery (I'm on FIOS)

It is happening to filmmaking.

When DIGITAL ANYTHING reaches a certain quality level (which RED is surpassing) it creates a perfect storm of speed, convenience, repeatability, flexibility and per unit cost-savings compared to analog materials and methods.

It won't be RED workflow by itself forcing this, but to insist filmmaking is somehow different than all of these other data-delivery pursuits is just being a romantic non-thinker. Data is not necessarily art, but art is always data at some point lately.

Of course there are still people shooting daguerreotype photos for sale and others making buggy whips for easy acceleration. Film won't go away either, but it will become a small niche player sooner than many seem willing to admit.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Maybe the reason that we are at odds in our evaluation of the impact of the RED system on production days and total costs is due to apples vs oranges. For example; larger crews power through issues that impede smaller crews, some DPs ignore the video tap and others check every time, etc. All due respect to mmost I still contend that the RED system will save time and money at every level, but the differential will vary based on the scope of the project and the working style of the DP / Director.

The other key issue I see is that the film based pipeline has been polished for years but a Digital Cinema solution with the underpinnings of the RED system is just beginning - heck, RedCine is not even shipping yet. Like Thom I see a day when proper manipulation of the production process to increase the efficiency of the post process will yield the kind of savings that producers will demand.

[mezmo]

Hi Marcus,
Film will go digital at some point but not at the moment.
90% of exhibition worldwide is still film.
That's why most sales agents/distributers still require a 35mm
interpos as the main delivery item on sale of rights.
But at the rate film based Theatrical exhibition venues are closing
worldwide, digital may not even get a look in here.
I'm talking about feature drama work for theatrical distribution.
This exhibition industry is slowly dying all over the world, attendances are
down, way down, and the old tech film projection systems we see in most
theatres will probably see most owners out and into retirement.
And your right at that point everything will be digital and the standard
set by film may well drop or may be even better.
New forms of digital delivery and exhibition will eventually replace film
exhibition, but when and how, that's the multi million dollar question.
Film prints will be with us for some time yet, even if the project was acquired digitally.
Hollywood has to be careful that it's doesn't put more people out of
business by forcing them to go the digital exhibition path.
If you only want to release a film digitally at the moment your looking
to be excluded from 90% of cinemas on the planet and only selling
rights to Hollywood majors who are the gatekeepers of the packaging and
encription technology for digital exhibition.
These guys only pick up 1-2% of films made worldwide for exhibition in the
US. The other 98-99% get shown mostly on film in a cinema near you all
over the world,or on TV,DVD,or not at all. You see why film is important to the
Indie filmaker. It's one of the last forms of Independant Distribution.
Food for thought. Mezmo

[Antoine Baumann]

First, yes worflow is a key point. Some may like film workflow, but video (or digital cinema if you prefer) workflow has his advantage. While you are not going to be able to do record much more than on film with CF card in the near future, you are with hard drives, and that's a difference.
Processing is not a expense with video, so director tends to shoot more, which does not sound as time saving, but more artistic advantage.
Most HD cameras are WYSIWYG, shooting RAW will be different. I think it is taking advantage on both workflow.

Totaly agree with you mezmo. I really don't believe that Film distribution will be replaced by digital so soon. BTW DCI is @ 2K res (with option for 4K) for ten years...so 8K tomorrow, yes but that's a far tomorrow. Cinemas are not going to buy new projector every couple of years, because a brand offer a new projector with more resolution, these toys are too expensive.

As for post production, well, if you stay in 4K REDCODE raw all the way, which I think will be very rare, you might be able to do a 4K finish for a quite cheap price in a small facility/studio, but looking to how it is done now, that is using dpx files, a 4K dpx workflow is not going to be manageable in the same way. BTW, I don't believe 3D rendering @ 4K resolution is going to be cheap for quite some year.

While post production workflow can be changed and format as well, don't forget REDCODE is a proprietary format, which EXR or DPX is not.

antoine.

[Jason Murphy]

Thom is right. I've been saying the same on this forum since this forum was born.

It happened to scientific recording.
It happened to typesetting.
It happened to photography labs.
It happened to fine art printmaking.
It happened to still photography.
It happened to audio recording.
It happened to satellite broadcasting.
It is happening to broadcast delivery (I'm on FIOS)

It is happening to filmmaking.

When DIGITAL ANYTHING reaches a certain quality level (which RED is surpassing) it creates a perfect storm of speed, convenience, repeatability, flexibility and per unit cost-savings compared to analog materials and methods.

You're not wrong, but go back and reread Mike Most's post. One of the issues with filmmaking is that the operation of the camera is one of the less significant ways that time gets eaten up on a film set. Lighting and set ups eat up much more time. You'll see some time savings by shooting digital, sure. Just not particularly significant ones.

Now, post production, yeah. Digital speeds things up. For experimental or documentary productions where you have one or two people doing everything, then shooting digital will likely speed things up for them a significant amount. Not so much on a set.

[E.J. Sadler]

I think there are things that will wind up making a big difference that people just haven't experienced yet. For example, if the AC buzzed a shot and the operator missed it because they were too focussed on something else, chances are a couple of sets of eyes watching an HD monitor that's capable of displaying critical focus would have caught it. The non-linear nature nature of the media is going to allow very quick spot reviews without having to scrub through tape. One or two catches like that during a production could save a schedule.

The lighter weight is going to make a big difference to operators wether hand-held or steadi. A lighter rig is going to let you go longer before fatigue starts to affect performance.