Spielberg's latest...

[Keith Alan Morris]

Ok, heres a paraphrasing of his latest quote:

"His argument against digital is the picture doesn’t seem alive. He said you could sit in the front row of a digital film and see the digital artifacts and you can sit in the front row of a movie shot on film and see the chemicals in the film. The image on the screen could be a static shot of a man that never blinks, but when it’s film and it’s been through the chemical process the image is alive. You can see the chemical process after effects and even if nothing else is moving, the film has a life.

So he said he’s still the only filmmaker that cuts on a Movieola, cuts on film, and he’ll be the last person in the world to make a live action movie shot digitally."

--quote from Spielberg to Quint on the set of Indy 4,
from aintitcool.com http://aintitcool.com/node/34376

What do you think? I dont think he's seen RED. :angry02: I know we've talked about it before...but still... :angry02:

[Poi Boy]

Whatever; Steven will do what Steven will do and it is usually pretty darn good. If he wants to be the last one standing using film, fine, he can afford to be. The new Spielbergs won't be shooting film.
Aloha
-A

[Sam Druckerman]

Ahhhh, he has seen Red....

Jim told the story at RED DAY.

Maybe Jim will chime in here...

[Keith Alan Morris]

This was quoted on Oct 9th, I believe, my birthday. Was Red Day after Oct 9th?

[SF Geek]

Who cares? You fanboys are starting to creep me out with your insanity. Film is not dead, contrary to what many have said on this site. Yes Red is great and one of the highest quality digital cameras, but it isn't Jesus. You don't need to praise it and you don't need to fear if everybody doesn't love it. It's a frickin camera! There is much more to movie making.

[Rick Darge]

I heard that the new cameras have bleeding PL mounts that shed their tears every fifth Easter.

[Shawn Nelson]

I heard that the new cameras have bleeding PL mounts that shed their tears every fifth Easter.

Oh yeah?? That's nothin!! My #27 has stigmata...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Red is going to be even worse for spielberg's aesthetic.

He's right. You shoot a static shot with RED and it looks like a still photo if properly exposed. You shoot a static shot with film and the frame is changing and moving and evolving.

I like that look too. But I don't think post grain is a poor substitute for the real thing.

[Keith Alan Morris]

i just dont want to see artifacts if i sit close to the screen.

(and i dont give two shits if he doesnt shoot Red. save your put-downs for other sites.)

[Michael Stanmore]

Hmm... he's got a point. He likes the feel of the processes of film... and Red does feel different to it... though if it's true that in post we can choose to emulate the feel of film if we choose to, that gives us freedom to do either.

[Brian Reisdorf]

Hmm... he's got a point. He likes the feel of the processes of film... and Red does feel different to it... though if it's true that in post we can choose to emulate the feel of film if we choose to, that gives us freedom to do either.

This is really what it comes down too. Shooting Red means starting with one of the cleanest plates I've ever seen a camera output, so adding film grain is easily something we have the option to do if that's the look we want. I have a feeling the high end post folks are going to be the first truly vocal advocates of Red footage in the film world.

[Martin Jäger]

Hmm... he's got a point. He likes the feel of the processes of film... and Red does feel different to it... though if it's true that in post we can choose to emulate the feel of film if we choose to, that gives us freedom to do either.


right - and therefore we should encourage graeme to write a *put through chemicals* plugin for AE and FCP.. :) - i love things like that


martin

[wshultz]

Who cares? You fanboys are starting to creep me out with your insanity. Film is not dead, contrary to what many have said on this site. Yes Red is great and one of the highest quality digital cameras, but it isn't Jesus. You don't need to praise it and you don't need to fear if everybody doesn't love it. It's a frickin camera! There is much more to movie making.

Wow. What's driving that little spurt of condescending pap? This IS Red USER isn't it? We have conversations about who is and might be using Red. Okay, fess up. Anybody here deceived into thinking it's more than a frickin' camera? But hey, thanks for the helpful comments.

[RivaiC]

Spielberg has money to spent, we don't. Film is still good, really. But I hate to go back where we have to wait for daily rushes, screwing around with keycode, get to the lab, do cutting, export DPX out, and wait for mistakes and producers screaming. No no...Red is not replacing Film, it's one of the best alternatives around.

There's a characteristic in Film where it's hard for Digital to mimic. CCD vs Celluloid. Of course there's a post where you can play around. But we're talking strictly when you shoot.

But to be very honest. I don't give a damn about this, such debate will never end. Story !

[CalicoIce]

People just can't accept change. Come on look at technology, and rich people love to save, and make more money. So yes film will die I really don't care if it pissess you off. Film is awesome, but technology is going to kill film, face it buddy. It's ok to accept change it's only natural. But I know it hurts. Just like no one wants to face it that mac will take over, and trust me I don't want it to. I love surfing without worrying about viruses. RED RULES!!!!!

[jieves]

Enough with the mac fan boy shit. Mac is shit and overpriced. :shiftyph34r:

[Rick Darge]

hahahahaha

[Pol Turrents]

Spielberg is yet cutting with moviola.
Great. Can somebody explain me how they did Artificial Intelligence then?

Option A: Spielberg and Kahn have a powerful imagination
Option B: They transfer every digital effect at work in progress to 35mm.

Option A will be incredible, Option B will be a stupid waste of money.

[Nathan Buxton]

you guys are nuts. who cares. film is film digital is digital. Red has brought digital to a point where it is amazingly high quality. I never have believed or will soon that red will compete directly with film. it is competing with other digital formats. if someone is set on shooting digital they may choose red, if they are set on shooting film they will not. period. two different formats.

personally, i like the clean static look of red footage. it's more modern to me. film feels all nice and warm and fuzzy inside... but the future is now.. its 2007. film was a 20th century thing.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Spielberg is yet cutting with moviola.
Great. Can somebody explain me how they did Artificial Intelligence then?

Option A: Spielberg and Kahn have a powerful imagination
Option B: They transfer every digital effect at work in progress to 35mm.

Option A will be incredible, Option B will be a stupid waste of money.

It's all about organizing your workflow.

[Petr Dvorak]

Whatever, who cares. Result is important.
Red, film, movieola .... just tools

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Can anyone tell me the rumor about Spielberg on RED DAY?
I heard some kind of rumor that he saw Crossing the Line, and said "did Peter Jackson shoot that in 2 days?", but I think that comment more meant about that whole production, shooting a 12 minute WW1 short film in 2 days, not so much about the camera... If he did say something about the camera - IF he has seen it - can someone clarify?

I'm a RED fan AND a Spielberg fan, so I'm pretty curious :)

[Alexander Nikishin]

Film has chemicals, RED has digits.

I like RED cars.

Film smells a little when popped out of the tin.

My beard is growing out.

[Jan Reiff]

spielberg/kahn edit is great. you feel that they edit in the old way. the editing is great, beautiful skilled. the main pont are the dramatic scenes with actors, so some CGI line A.I. are not so important for the charavteristic of the edit itself.
spielebrg is right in all what he says. he is spielberg. he has pushed cinematography and cinema art forward in a dramatic way (storytelling, suspense, editing, looks (ryan!) not every movie is the big hit, but his life achievement is untouchable.
but, you are right, he has the money to shoot with a kaminsky on film.
i can´t imagine a "schindlers list" shot on digital, this has to be film.
so in my case i will choose what format, film or digital, will support the story.
and i am glad that there will be a red on the list.
i like the look of the camera and it gives you all possibilities in the postproduction.

[Petr Dvorak]

... i can´t imagine a "schindlers list" shot on digital, this has to be film....

I can easily imagine a "schindlers list" shot on digital, with final look of film and same thing shot on film with final look of digital :)

[Daniel Reichenbach]

All films, even Spielbergs end someday on a DVD. And to fit on a DVD you need to do a LOT of noice reduction, my feeling is, that a lot of stunning films have a kind of plastic look on DVD what is in my eyes a poor quality. RED will have an advantage on that. You can prozess it with or without grain. Both will look great.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

All films, even Spielbergs end someday on a DVD. And to fit on a DVD you need to do a LOT of noice reduction, my feeling is, that a lot of stunning films have a kind of plastic look on DVD what is in my eyes a poor quality. RED will have an advantage on that. You can prozess it with or without grain. Both will look great.

That's a load of BS need a lot of noise reduction my ass.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Sorry, my english is to bad to understand, what "BS" and "ass" means. Can you explane?

[Miltos Pilalitos]

That's a load of BS need a lot of noise reduction my ass.

Actually they DO need noise reduction because noise kills the encoding and degrades the overall picture quality. The more noise you have the higher bitrates you need to have in order to remain close to your picture's quality. Since in long DVD movies you can't have very high bitrates you must do a lot of noise reduction before the encoding.

[Craig Schober]

i think we also have to take into account where spielberg is coming from. he speaks of viewing the print on a moviola or sitting in the front row and watching the dailies and the chemicals. no one does that unless you're a filmmaker and obsessed with the image. audiences watch dvds and movie screens from a comfortable viewing distance away. they cannot see such things and don't care about them. this is simply an older filmmaker stuck in his ways because it works for him. now imagine soderbergh saying the same thing 25 years from now. it won't happen because soderbergh has always been changing style and workflows to adapt to new technology. that's what works for him. two master storytellers with 2 completely different approaches.

[planet e]

RED is revolutionary for 3 reasons:

1. image quality
2. price point
3. business model

2 out of 3 of these mean nothing to him. all three of these are meaningful to me and are significant reasons for my RED purchases. his opinion is relevant to his situation only and has little bearing on my situation. or the situation of most potential RED users, presumably, most of whom do care about #2 and #3....

#1 will take care of itself, and is largely going to be in the hands of the operator. the potential awaits the user.

[PaulClements]

I think it's quite endeering that someone who carved his place in history for thinking outside of the box and ahead of the game, should now look to hold onto previous techniques in place of new ones.

I've got absolutely no problem with it at all, if I could afford to go out and shoot reel after reel of film and never have it dent my bank account I probably wouldn't care less for digital cameras. Film has given us some beautiful movies over the years and I can completely understand the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Digital is for a different breed. It's liberating because of it's ease of shooting for those without extensive budgets. If something like Red had come about just as Speilberg started out he probably would've adopted it back then. Chances are many of us will be scoffing at some sort of holographic theatres in 50 years time as we hark back for the days of 2D cinemas and shooting with our antique RedOne's! :)

Paul

[Fix]

All films, even Spielbergs end someday on a DVD. And to fit on a DVD you need to do a LOT of noice reduction, my feeling is, that a lot of stunning films have a kind of plastic look on DVD what is in my eyes a poor quality. RED will have an advantage on that. You can prozess it with or without grain. Both will look great.

Yes, some dvd’s can look real horrible. But have you seen some of those new Blu-ray/Hd-dvd’s? I don’t think they need that much noise reduction before encoding (some got a lot of filmgrain)? If someone has insight into this issue than please explain. I guess the codec’s makes a great deal as to bit rate.

[Kevin Lang]

Ahhhh, he has seen Red....

Jim told the story at RED DAY.

Maybe Jim will chime in here...

dont tease sam

[David Battistella]

Oh yeah?? That's nothin!! My #27 has stigmata...
Oh gawd!

LOL

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Yes, some dvd’s can look real horrible. But have you seen some of those new Blu-ray/Hd-dvd’s? I don’t think they need that much noise reduction before encoding (some got a lot of filmgrain)? If someone has insight into this issue than please explain. I guess the codec’s makes a great deal as to bit rate.

Look people some DVDs look awful because they have JANK encoding it has NOTHING to do with a grainy source, I've seen Minority report a thousand god damn times and that thing does not have severe noise reduction on it.

Just the act of taking the resolution down from the HD transfer down to NTSC or PAL eliminates some of the grain but you still have the feel of it.

Not only that some films have more or less grain I assume due to the cinematographic process Tony Scott's Deja Vu.

Or another Tony Scott film which I remember to be fairly grainy which turned out fine on DVD is Man on Fire.

I myself have encoded some fairly noisy footage in the past with no real problems.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Film is a tool and so is digital.

Different tools give you different options...

Tools don't make masterpieces by themselves.

People do.

Using tools...

Owning a brush won't make you a Picasso.

The essence of filmmaking is something else.

It's a mystery... it's alchemy... it's magic...

Story is paramount.

Inspiration... Imagination...

Where do good stories come from?... Life...

And what is life?... A mystery.. an alchemy ... magic ... nightmare ... triumph...

Good stories are a mirror of this mystery called life.

Tools are important but not paramount.

Magic is paramount...

Life is paramount...

-------

My 2 cents.

[dvpixl]

and yet here we are... knowing full well that RED will be the most important tool ever and so none of us can't help but to be all giddy about it.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

RED is a revolution...

[Mark Phelan]

I grew up in the printing industry. Years ago, I was an early adopter and advocate of the Mac and saw how it was going to change everything in the industry. I was laughed at, called all sorts of names by folks who are now out of a job because they thought they were the only "true" keepers of the printing press. I'll never forget one designer saying how the type that came from a Mac didn't look as crisp as what he was getting from a Compugraphic (cold type) machine. The Compugraphic used lenses to expose type from film onto the stock. The Mac used something weird called Postscript. I haven't seen a Compugraphic machine in decades. Yeah, this RED thing is probably just gonna blow over. It's like my father said years ago, "I'm waiting for linotype to make a come back". I can't wait to get the RED I've ordered and begin learning all over again. Old dog, new tricks.

[zak forrest]

Not only that some films have more or less grain I assume due to the cinematographic process Tony Scott's Deja Vu.


shot on genesis

[garageman]

Who cares? You fanboys are starting to creep me out with your insanity. Film is not dead, contrary to what many have said on this site. Yes Red is great and one of the highest quality digital cameras, but it isn't Jesus. You don't need to praise it and you don't need to fear if everybody doesn't love it. It's a frickin camera! There is much more to movie making.


I agree totally with you, I like both digital and film and love to work wth both, nothing to do with being a different breed or whatever, it's a camera, another tool and a good one. In an ideal world both film and digital exist together. Some of the fan-wankery around here gets sickening.

[Ezana Tekeste]

Sorry, my english is to bad to understand, what "BS" and "ass" means. Can you explane?

Daniel,

That's Craig's way of saying he can't discuss this topic with civility and a minimum level of respect.

Mike

[Fix]

I myself have encoded some fairly noisy footage in the past with no real problems.

So have I, and when trying to encoding "fine grain, noise mosquito/compression artifacts etc” than it makes a difference if I grain remove the footage (to an extend). I guess there is many different ways to encode so no need to elaborate any further on that issue.

Anyways, It feels like some of the HD stuff out there have some other issues regards to grain. I for one would love to see that fine grain in a HD movie. Almost there... but not yet IMO (from what I have seen). Only seen something between grain and mosquito noise. I Guess thats better than anything though. Yup, I'm a grain lover.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Daniel,

That's Craig's way of saying he can't discuss this topic with civility and a minimum level of respect.

Mike

Guess you're right... Thanks.

[Paul Wizikowski]

I was at RED Day (on Friday) and here is the story from Jim. If I screw it up too much I'm sure he'll chime in and straighten it out.

Anyway.

Spielberg called RED saying he needed to see "Crossing the Line". So, Jim and co. took the short to Steven in LA and they screened it with him there on his own screen. Steven prefaced the viewing by saying "I will be the last person in the world to switch away from film, I am only watching this today because Peter won't shut up about it." And then they watched "Crossing the Line". Afterwards Steven said "I will still be the last person in the world to switch away from film, but when I do, it will be towards something like RED."

[Paul Wizikowski]

I don't think its too much to add:

Jim was then invited to watch a 4K transfer of one of the old Indiana Jones films there with Steven and Jim said that the entire time Steven was screaming at the projectionist "Focus!! Focus!!" Poor guy had it focused but compared to the RED 4K footage they had just watched the old film shots seemed very soft.

After that story we promptly turned into 8 year olds on Christmas morning and had ourselves the biggest tree-crashing-rip-through-the-wrapping-paper-like-a-tasmanian-devil moment I can remember. Or perhaps that was just me.

[Rick Darge]

hahaha great story.. the master-embracer of celluloid has spoken

[Andrew Benz]

I don't think its too much to add:

Jim was then invited to watch a 4K transfer of one of the old Indiana Jones films there with Steven and Jim said that the entire time Steven was screaming at the projectionist "Focus!! Focus!!" Poor guy had it focused but compared to the RED 4K footage they had just watched the old film shots seemed very soft.

After that story we promptly turned into 8 year olds on Christmas morning and had ourselves the biggest tree-crashing-rip-through-the-wrapping-paper-like-a-tasmanian-devil moment I can remember. Or perhaps that was just me.

Great story Paul and Congratulations on your new Red Rig... :-)

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Spielberg called RED saying he needed to see "Crossing the Line". So, Jim and co. took the short to Steven in LA and they screened it with him there on his own screen. Steven prefaced the viewing by saying "I will be the last person in the world to switch away from film, I am only watching this today because Peter won't shut up about it." And then they watched "Crossing the Line". Afterwards Steven said "I will still be the last person in the world to switch away from film, but when I do, it will be towards something like RED."

Is this for real? :shiftyph34r:

[Thomas Mathai]

Look people some DVDs look awful because they have JANK encoding it has NOTHING to do with a grainy source, I've seen Minority report a thousand god damn times and that thing does not have severe noise reduction on it.

Just the act of taking the resolution down from the HD transfer down to NTSC or PAL eliminates some of the grain but you still have the feel of it.

Not only that some films have more or less grain I assume due to the cinematographic process Tony Scott's Deja Vu.

Or another Tony Scott film which I remember to be fairly grainy which turned out fine on DVD is Man on Fire.

I myself have encoded some fairly noisy footage in the past with no real problems.

Well I'm sure your years of experience as a compressionist comes into play so that you get such clean encodes.

The only thing I know about encoding, is the advice I been given to run the source through a Teranex box or equivalent for noise reduction or/and other image cleanup. It can help speeed up encoding and it does seem that compression algorithms can choke on severely noisey shots.

[Thomas Mathai]

Spielberg is yet cutting with moviola.
Great. Can somebody explain me how they did Artificial Intelligence then?

Option A: Spielberg and Kahn have a powerful imagination
Option B: They transfer every digital effect at work in progress to 35mm.

Option A will be incredible, Option B will be a stupid waste of money.

I'll sure all the vfx houses that do film outs of their work, would love to know they are wasting their money.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

shot on genesis

Any scene which happens during the day is shot on film, Tony Scott said something like this in his commentary "Digital is great for night stuff but the dynamic range still isn't good enough for a day shoot"

[Brian Reisdorf]

Is this for real? :shiftyph34r:

I can second this. Though I recall the last line being Spielberg (after seeing the footage) saying "I will be the last person to stop using film, but I will switch", with no specific mention of Red....which is still in itself pretty impressive.

[Chris Swinbanks]

I'll sure all the vfx houses that do film outs of their work, would love to know they are wasting their money.With digital projection & colour calibration very well established in post houses, there's really only the need for occassional film output as confidence check or for delivery items now. Otherwise I do consider it a waste of money, although its still happens occassionaly that you do "need" to see something on film to see how the fx translates and whether the grain of intermediate stock helps....

[CalicoIce]

The reason why red is such a big deal to us is because a starving filmmaker like me that has great story idea's can't afford film, and we get sick of seeing things on some HD 24P consumer camera. We want our story told with film, and red makes this very close and possible. That comment was for those rich fools that can't think outside of the box, and trust me if I could afford it i would shoot on film with a supermodel giving me a massage. Get real people. Like I said before Accept change. It's all about the red.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Nice story about Spielberg!
For me he's still THE man, if it comes down to movie magic!

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

The reason why red is such a big deal to us is because a starving filmmaker like me that has great story idea's can't afford film, and we get sick of seeing things on some HD 24P consumer camera. We want our story told with film, and red makes this very close and possible. That comment was for those rich fools that can't think outside of the box, and trust me if I could afford it i would shoot on film with a supermodel giving me a massage. Get real people. Like I said before Accept change. It's all about the red.

I'm going to have to disagree to some extent, Great story or not Red One won't save you from bad cinematography bad acting and poor sound design.
I don't mind at all seeing a film shot on a 24p consumer camera as long as it's well made quite frankly thats all that matters to me.
Red is part of the future but it certainly isn't the only future.

[Jon Corcuera]

Photography, is taking decitions, i am glad we finally have a good digital suports, RED (wonderfull and cheap), Genesis and F-23, Dalsa, all of them can be great depending on the proyect you have, diferent colorimetri and you will choose one or another. RED is wonderfull because it makes posible a low budget film to have the greatest cuality for an accesible price ( indi proyects wan´t have excuse for not having a great image).
And we still have good old film for another proyects in wich money and a aesthetical decision will aloud ass to get were we want to go, this is a great time for been a DOP,
It is great to leave at this era, and see a new start.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

:ranting2:
BEFOR Red cinema quality Production was only done in Major cities and Only
Big cities Because cine Technology not availabe But there.
Now Anyone Anywhere could have this Technology.and start writting History
With Red..:spidy:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Film is great but its an elitarian and expensive media.

I'm an egalitarian thinker [that doesn't necessarily mean - communist!].

Many talented people didn't have a chance in the past because of the $$$ factor.

You had to starve ot ki$$ a$$ to be given a chance.

Well you always need some $$ to make movies, but obtaining a real cinematic look is not a $$$-utopia anymore.

You can make a perfect little movie with something like RED. Or why not even a 24p HD camera?

Man, you can do something amazing that happens in a single room!

Talent will decide things from now on, and not so much $$$ and connections.

The big fishes will compete with the little ones on the same track.

This is justice.

If you got something good, it won't stay hidden.

RED is freedom.

:innocent:

[Priyesh P.]

spielberg should be the last one to keep to film. he and his comrades turned hollywood into an assembly line industry that produces meaningless or manipulative flicks with a short life...

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

spielberg should be the last one to keep to film. he and his comrades turned hollywood into an assembly line industry that produces meaningless or manipulative flicks with a short life...

This is true, but he has also made a handful of painfully good movies. :clown2:

And Hollywood has always been like that, IMHO.

[Jon Corcuera]

Spielberg started with a realy low budget movie, and what is more important i dont think he is guilty for the price of camera rental and lab prices, as far as i know.
We must be glad from leaving in a time were shooting is a little bit less expensive, an from there on we have to be the ones making better movies,, wich is much more important for me than what are made with

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

spielberg should be the last one to keep to film. he and his comrades turned hollywood into an assembly line industry that produces meaningless or manipulative flicks with a short life...

This is bullshit, sorry.
Spielberg created Jaws, yes it was a huge succes, but it's also a great movie.
Great characters, dialogue, great cinematography, music, suspense,...

George Lucas made Star Wars, I'm personally not really a fan of it.

So Hollywood thought they had a winning formula and brought out meaningless copies, but that's Hollywood's fault, not Spielberg's.
If you would have read biographies of Spielberg - and maybe you have - then you would know that Spielberg is a filmmaker is someone who shoots from his heart, and all his movie (except for maybe a few *Lost World* *Terminal*) he was very passionate about, as a filmmaker and artist.
And they are indeed commercial and accesible. What does he have to do?
Make them the way he DOESN'T want, because arthouse lovers would like him more?

Don't get me wrong, I love arthouse films too. Really. But saying that arthouse films are good and commercial films are crap, THAT'S much more elitist then film as a medium will ever be...

And I still think if you are a great filmmaker, you could have made your masterpieces with one of the SD Prosumer camera's on the market for a whole while. Don't get me wrong: RED IS GREAT, and if I could afford it, I would have made a reservation more then a year ago. I've supported this project from the beginning.
But many of the 24p camera's, 35mm adapters, already gave you acces to enough tools to tell your story. If you say you waited for the technology to catch up, I think you're using excuses to not make your movie...
There have been MORE then enough examples of people making their movie with low budget tools, but because they had talent, their movies had a vision, THAT's what made them succeed as a filmmaker...

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

How come people keep bashing The Lost world and The Terminal those movies are brilliant I say! Brilliant!

[Jon Corcuera]

I wouldn´t mind having a terminal created so i could make all the shoots that i want. Janusz kaminski problably wasn´t unhappy at all i could guess.
Having money to do what you want doesn´t seem such a bad thing, unless you realy hate comercial movies in a fanatical way

[Tobias Straka]

But many of the 24p camera's, 35mm adapters, already gave you acces to enough tools to tell your story. If you say you waited for the technology to catch up, I think you're using excuses to not make your movie...
There have been MORE then enough examples of people making their movie with low budget tools, but because they had talent, their movies had a vision, THAT's what made them succeed as a filmmaker...

Well said... So I can soon stop using excuses :)

[sparkhope]

RED is a revolution...

or perhaps...a REDsolution?

[Thomas Mathai]

With digital projection & colour calibration very well established in post houses, there's really only the need for occassional film output as confidence check or for delivery items now. Otherwise I do consider it a waste of money, although its still happens occassionaly that you do "need" to see something on film to see how the fx translates and whether the grain of intermediate stock helps....

Define occasional?

I see it more than occasionally, since at the moment most movies have more film prints than DCPs. I assume there are vfx houses with digital projectors, but probably more with film projectors.

While color calibration may be well established, you're not going to get a true representation of a film print, without viewing a film print. It's always helpful reviewing vfx work projected.

[Keith Alan Morris]

I don't think its too much to add:

Jim was then invited to watch a 4K transfer of one of the old Indiana Jones films there with Steven and Jim said that the entire time Steven was screaming at the projectionist "Focus!! Focus!!" Poor guy had it focused but compared to the RED 4K footage they had just watched the old film shots seemed very soft.

After that story we promptly turned into 8 year olds on Christmas morning and had ourselves the biggest tree-crashing-rip-through-the-wrapping-paper-like-a-tasmanian-devil moment I can remember. Or perhaps that was just me.


I can second this. Though I recall the last line being Spielberg (after seeing the footage) saying "I will be the last person to stop using film, but I will switch", with no specific mention of Red....which is still in itself pretty impressive.

These are the reasons I love RedUser. Damn!

[M Most]

Define occasional?

I see it more than occasionally, since at the moment most movies have more film prints than DCPs. I assume there are vfx houses with digital projectors, but probably more with film projectors.

While color calibration may be well established, you're not going to get a true representation of a film print, without viewing a film print. It's always helpful reviewing vfx work projected.

No, the first post was correct. The vast majority of theatrically released motion pictures - especially studio pictures - are finished via digital intermediate these days. All of the film elements are created from the negative(s) generated by the DI process. Visual effects are integrated directly from files, and color corrected in continuity by the DI colorist.

Color calibration does yield a very, very accurate representation of a film print. If it didn't, DI as a process would not be acceptable and would not have become a rather standard way of working. Of course, such accuracy requires proper calibration, proper equipment, and proper environment. You're not going to get a particularly accurate print preview on a Macbook LCD (no matter what you do), but you are going to get an extremely accurate preview using a 2K DLP Cinema projector that is properly set up in a room that is designed for the purpose, and calibrated with a very tight color calibration pipeline. That environment is something that most of the larger VFX companies have set up, in part because it does indeed minimize the necessity of doing multiple film recordings.

[killfilm]

spielberg this and that, i'm sick of it.

i'm happy that he's got talent, millions of dollars and crew members to pull it off, but we dont hear much about them do we?

he's got good directing skills, well he's not the only one

he still prefers film, well, thats great, i dont know if we should get him a medal or a chest to put it on...............or maybe a red so he can wake up and smell the
year 2007

spielberg shmeelberg yuuk

[Joe Taylor]

This "Digital vs. Film" tomfoolery is about as productive as all the globalwarming horseplay in Washington.

[Andrew Benz]

This "Digital vs. Film" tomfoolery is about as productive as all the globalwarming horseplay in Washington.

or global terror... Personally, I plan on shooting more film. Why stop learning when many, many things can still be gleaned from shooting various formats/stocks and applied to your overall craft.

Trust me... I get what makes RED so attractive but it does not mean that we should submarine the rest of the industry or the people who perform at the highest levels on a daily basis... it's bad form-- no matter if some act like pious jerks... let it serve as a great reminder on how not to act.

Some people may give us shit or paint us all with the same brush... just move forward and put that aggression into your work. Life takes all kinds of fuel... use it to move your work and relationships forward. Let the pictures speak for themselves... leave it in the frame and she will speak for you-- no matter if her accent is digital or chemical.

Andrew

(my post was not aimed at anyone here... just a statement on the overall deal)

[Keith Alan Morris]

i love the eff you posts. people are pretty candid here, but nowhere near the sheer basement-dwelling anger of aintitcool.com. i always thought, if i could just harness the power of a sneeze. or the fucker that races his ninja motorcycle down my block at midnight EVERY night. or the collective angst of crew members. damn, that stuff would power a city for a week.

[killfilm]

why do we have to care if spielberg chooses film or not, who cares, if steven wore guess jeans, i suppose we all have to .......otherwise we aint cool. i'll bet you there are hundreds if not thousands of young male and female directors who are better than steven..the only reason we dont hear of them is because they aint got the hollywood connnections, the budget, equipment, crews, studios and distributors like he does..........thats about it

[Chris Swinbanks]

Define occasional?

I see it more than occasionally, since at the moment most movies have more film prints than DCPs. I assume there are vfx houses with digital projectors, but probably more with film projectors.

While color calibration may be well established, you're not going to get a true representation of a film print, without viewing a film print. It's always helpful reviewing vfx work projected.Hi Thomas. Mike Most answered very succinctly, as always. I may have mislead your thought process by not stipulating that its not required very much during the "post-production phase", as opposed to release distribution. Post-production has steadily been moving away from vfx review filmouts (at least in larger post houses) in favour of digital projection for the last few years, once the systems had proven themselves to match film projection pretty precisely. I did my first filmouts for a vfx shot in nearly 8 months this week, everything is normally digital projection until the need to create a film print is an absolute requirement.

[Keith Alan Morris]

why do we have to care if spielberg chooses film or not, who cares, if steven wore guess jeans, i suppose we all have to .......otherwise we aint cool. i'll bet you there are hundreds if not thousands of young male and female directors who are better than steven..the only reason we dont hear of them is because they aint got the hollywood connnections, the budget, equipment, crews, studios and distributors like he does..........thats about it

case in point. i want to harness your "power."

[Andrew Benz]

case in point. i want to harness your "power."

LMAO :)

killfilm is ready to tear it up and wear khakis to prove his point!:gun:

[killfilm]

its really a sad moment for me so i must say..............spielberg can.......................kiss ass

oh there, i said it..........long live RED

fuck spielberg and steinberg too.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Can someone explain to me why RED needs to be universally acknowledged as "better than" anything at all?

*I* think its aesthetics are better than anything out there besides film, to which it's about equal; what makes it better than film *to me* is the price point. Well, okay, and the lack of grain for FX purposes.

I could really not care less what Spielberg shoots with, as long as he keeps shooting and makes the occasional good film (and even a bad Spielberg film is like bad sex or bad pizza -- it's still pretty good).

By the same token, I could not possibly care less if Spielberg or anyone else happened to think the RED was a piece of shit, because *I* don't think so. It's what I want in a camera, and that's all that matters. I don't need Spielberg's validation to know I'm making the best choice for my own career, and so I don't need to dismiss or disrespect a noteworthy and valuable filmmaker just because we have different approaches. Hopefully neither do any of you.

If RED is the best thing out there to help you make your films, then more power to you, and all of us. But I don't see why anyone ELSE has to feel that way, or why it must be accepted as some kind of universal standard, or that any other capture medium is somehow invalid.

A good filmmaker could make a good film with a camera phone, and a shitty filmmaker won't make anything but shitty films with all the REDs in the world.

I mean no offense to RED. I've got the R on my shelf next to my diplomas. I'm proud to be part of the first wave. But we know the RED is great, that the development is in good hands and that they care about our input. RED is real and it's what we hoped it would be. At this point, we should all really be a lot more concerned about what we'll be shooting, than what we're shooting with.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Can someone explain to me why RED needs to be universally acknowledged as "better than" anything at all?

*I* think its aesthetics are better than anything out there besides film, to which it's about equal; what makes it better than film *to me* is the price point. Well, okay, and the lack of grain for FX purposes.

I could really not care less what Spielberg shoots with, as long as he keeps shooting and makes the occasional good film (and even a bad Spielberg film is like bad sex or bad pizza -- it's still pretty good).

By the same token, I could not possibly care less if Spielberg or anyone else happened to think the RED was a piece of shit, because *I* don't think so. It's what I want in a camera, and that's all that matters. I don't need Spielberg's validation to know I'm making the best choice for my own career, and so I don't need to dismiss or disrespect a noteworthy and valuable filmmaker just because we have different approaches. Hopefully neither do any of you.

If RED is the best thing out there to help you make your films, then more power to you, and all of us. But I don't see why anyone ELSE has to feel that way, or why it must be accepted as some kind of universal standard, or that any other capture medium is somehow invalid.

A good filmmaker could make a good film with a camera phone, and a shitty filmmaker won't make anything but shitty films with all the REDs in the world.

I mean no offense to RED. I've got the R on my shelf next to my diplomas. I'm proud to be part of the first wave. But we know the RED is great, that the development is in good hands and that they care about our input. RED is real and it's what we hoped it would be. At this point, we should all really be a lot more concerned about what we'll be shooting, than what we're shooting with.

Marvelous post.


i'll bet you there are hundreds if not thousands of young male and female directors who are better than steven..the only reason we dont hear of them is because they aint got the hollywood connnections, the budget, equipment, crews, studios and distributors like he does..........thats about it

Don't forget Spielberg also came from nothing... he wasn't BORN in the industry you know, he also worked his way up...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

why do we have to care if spielberg chooses film or not, who cares, if steven wore guess jeans, i suppose we all have to .......otherwise we aint cool. i'll bet you there are hundreds if not thousands of young male and female directors who are better than steven..the only reason we dont hear of them is because they aint got the hollywood connnections, the budget, equipment, crews, studios and distributors like he does..........thats about it

... uh hu.... yeah... no.

I would be interested to know where all these thousands of better directors are because I'm going to change industries and become a talent agent.

Wherever they are... they obviously aren't actually making movies. But I'm sure they're certain they could make a really badass movie if they ever got around to it.

[James T Mather]

all pretty infantile overall.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

its really a sad moment for me so i must say..............spielberg can.......................kiss ass

oh there, i said it..........long live RED

fuck spielberg and steinberg too.

Man, don't be so harsh... Spielberg perfectly deserves what he's got and he's a brilliant filmmaker.

----

I think the main problem with film is that it's expen$ive.

And what about the prospect of film's prices going down? I mean the entire workflow - shooting, developing, telecine, etc.?

Wouldn't dirty little girls like RED One cause a similar phenomenon in the future?

I know, that silver is silver, but yet? :)

When demand for film declines... maybe prices will go down a certain degree.

Woudn't it be nice to have purely aesthetic choice on this, and not so much a budgetary one.

Say... I'll shoot this sequence RED and that - film, because .... blah-blah, etc.

What do ya think?

:gun:

[oldphart]

And what about the prospect of film's prices going down? I mean the entire workflow - shooting, developing, telecine, etc.?

Wouldn't dirty little girls like RED One cause a similar phenomenon in the future?

I know, that silver is silver, but yet? :)

When demand for film declines... maybe prices will go down a certain degree.

What do ya think?

I remember what happened to 8mm - as demand faltered, prices rose. This is normal for tail-end products and technologies - when demand sinks under a critical value, prices will have to increase or it will not be profitable to sell it any more.

[Thomas Mathai]

No, the first post was correct. The vast majority of theatrically released motion pictures - especially studio pictures - are finished via digital intermediate these days. All of the film elements are created from the negative(s) generated by the DI process. Visual effects are integrated directly from files, and color corrected in continuity by the DI colorist.

Color calibration does yield a very, very accurate representation of a film print. If it didn't, DI as a process would not be acceptable and would not have become a rather standard way of working. Of course, such accuracy requires proper calibration, proper equipment, and proper environment. You're not going to get a particularly accurate print preview on a Macbook LCD (no matter what you do), but you are going to get an extremely accurate preview using a 2K DLP Cinema projector that is properly set up in a room that is designed for the purpose, and calibrated with a very tight color calibration pipeline. That environment is something that most of the larger VFX companies have set up, in part because it does indeed minimize the necessity of doing multiple film recordings.

I can't see a vfx supervisor wanting the director or dp noticing flaws in the DI room, though I'm sure it's a common occurance.

While there are productions that have done no vfx review filmouts, there are productions still doing it.

My original remark was to the flippant remark that outputing vfx shots to film is stupid. I'm sure there are many vfx supervisors who would disagree.

I have sat through many vfx reviews in a screening room and they are always helpful in finding issues, much more so than just reviewing off any monitor.

[killfilm]

it'll be sweet the day film will be found at garage sales and in antique dealerships.

[Chris Pickle]

Am I missing something? When did this forum turn so hateful? Saying "f**k so and so" because they choose to shoot film?

Is this still a forum for professionals or has it turned into something else?

Chris

[Andrew Benz]

Chris, it is not everyone nor the majority.

I may be wrong but I believe a Panavision truck ran over killfilm's dog. It was a bitter day that evidently has stretched into the night... :)

[Chris Pickle]

Chris, it is not everyone nor the majority.
)

Point taken, but it does seem like the discussions of late turn sour fairly quickly.

And specific to Spielberg -- I'm not his biggest fan, but he certainly deserves much respect for his huge body of work. I don't see how one could dismiss that with a straight face.

Cheers,
Chris

[Andrew Benz]

Point taken, but it does seem like the discussions of late turn sour fairly quickly.

And specific to Spielberg -- I'm not his biggest fan, but he certainly deserves much respect for his huge body of work. I don't see how one could dismiss that with a straight face.

Cheers,
Chris

I agree completely on both counts Chris. Why would anyone willingly cut off a path to continued learning when it comes to shooting film, even in one's leisure. Tangents can be the spice of living and learning. I cannot wait to fire up my bolex rex 1/tobin tcs ttl or my canon 1018 and shoot bts of my camera in action... I like the juxtaposition that might create. I also see RED as a clean pl mount sampler that one can do filmouts for looks... Now finding the line on how "homebrew" one can get with this process could be a "barrel of monkeys" fun and confuse the hell out of everyone in the process.:)

Cheers,

Andrew

PS-killfilm: I was just joking above to relieve the tension...

[James T Mather]

It seems people like killfilm forget what motivated them in the first place.

[killfilm]

my apolygies for the swearing everyone

but i'm not aploygizing on the views of film, being prohibitively expensive to begin with has caused many only to dream of shooting a full feature

all i'm saying is steven is a good director, but he aint the only one out there,
and i'll bet if those same aspiring filmmakers had the TOOLS, MONEY, POWER, CREWS and CONNECTIONS in HOLLYWOOD then they can do the same or better job than spielberg.

RED has now opened the doors to many filmmakers, BUT of course, good Writing, acting, lighting etc. is still needed,

instead of renting a panavision or buying an arri for 233,000 dollars, you can get a 4k RED CAM for 200,000 dollars cheaper and use the other money to buy a 4k projector to show spielberg what he's missing:bleh:

[PappasArts]

Am I missing something? When did this forum turn so hateful? Saying "f**k so and so" because they choose to shoot film?

Is this still a forum for professionals or has it turned into something else?

Chris


What is weird Chris, Im seeing this same strange cloud at CML. CML has always for the most part been a group of professionals that have respected one another's opinions and enjoyed sharing new ideas. Not so lately. Very weird; maybe it's just a mirror of what's happening to our society in large....

Michael Pappas

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

people tend not to buy arri's they rent them.
Unless your Micheal Bay he's got a 235 apparently it's his favorite camera in the world.

[James T Mather]

235 is a lovely camera - I agree - 35mm with a super 16 size.

[Felipe Jaco]

Isn't Dalsa Origin more close to the film quality having 16 bit image and RED 12 bit. Better latitude.

[number6]

Is this still a forum for professionals or has it turned into something else?

Chris

Interesting question. My thoughts are that it is a forum of renegades. That is, there are professionals here who have done their due diligence, and there are soon-to-be professionals, a la RED. I think it is just a forum that marks the new starting point of movie-making.

edit: but with all due respect to those who will use RED for something other than making movies

[James T Mather]

Interesting question. My thoughts are that it is a forum of renegades. That is, there are professionals here who have done their due diligence, and there are soon-to-be professionals, a la RED. I think it is just a forum that marks the new starting point of movie-making.

edit: but with all due respect to those who will use RED for something other than making movies

Skill and talent have always been the things that have marked out people who survive and thrive in the film business. Having a new sharp camera - ie: riding in on the back of a technological step forward - will briefly give people a quick step forward but, in the end, as more people get their hands on such cameras - it will re-stablize to much the same bias as it always had. In other words, we are unlikely to discover thousands of Spielbergs or Truffauts coming out of the woodwork - more like tens. Regrettably everyone suspects themselves to be talents-in-waiting.

[number6]

Skill and talent have always been the things that have marked out people who survive and thrive in the film business. Having a new sharp camera - ie: riding in on the back of a technological step forward - will briefly give people a quick step forward but, in the end, as more people get their hands on such cameras - it will re-stablize to much the same bias as it always had. In other words, we are unlikely to discover thousands of Spielbergs or Truffauts coming out of the woodwork - more like tens. Regrettably everyone suspects themselves to be talents-in-waiting.

Hah! jtm. Pretty good, but please, don't take this personally...there are much better naysayers than you on this board. Again, no offense intended, but I personally have waded through discouragement that was much, much stronger.

And I gotta admit, I have stopped and taken stock of it all to see if there was any merit to what was said, in my individual case.

I have come out on the other side with a stronger than ever belief that there are people unable to see change, while there are others who just create a sea change.

[James T Mather]

Sure, sure - I'm not a naysayer. I just see the business for what it is. I see and appreciate change just fine - but owning a cheap camera doesn't make anyone a photographer - Moreover I'm not suggesting that you're not one by the way. Just understand this, Judging by the amount of phone calls I'm getting at the moment, I have a horrible feeling that owning the red camera might make me the friend of the low budget guy (as in : "got NO cash" filmmakers looking to make their opus that got rejected by investors, everyone etc).

Just remember...it's a camera. I see many on this board who think it's going to be the answer to their Hollywood (or indie cinema) dream. Owning a DSLR hasn't produced many unsung photographers of note. Why this?

[David Mullen ASC]

I have come out on the other side with a stronger than ever belief that there are people unable to see change, while there are others who just create a sea change.

Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.

The ability to predict future trends or be the first to jump on a new one, is -- in the long run -- relatively unimportant compared to the quality of one's work and one's overall artistic sensibility. There are plenty of people working with cutting-edge technology who are lousy artists.

At least, this is true for filmmakers. Maybe not so much for Wall Street investors or businessmen, where catching a wave before the masses catch on is financially rewarded. But for filmmakers, the technology used is often a small part of the overall process and whether the final work is a success, artistically or financially. There are some exceptions of course.

[number6]

Sure, sure - I'm not a naysayer. I just see the business for what it is. I see and appreciate change just fine - but owning a cheap camera doesn't make anyone a photographer - Moreover I'm not suggesting that you're not one by the way. Just understand this, Judging by the amount of phone calls I'm getting at the moment, I have a horrible feeling that owning the red camera might make me the friend of the low budget guy (as in : "got NO cash" filmmakers looking to make their opus that got rejected by investors, everyone etc).

Just remember...it's a camera. I see many on this board who think it's going to be the answer to their Hollywood (or indie cinema) dream. Owning a DSLR hasn't produced many unsung photographers of note. Why this?

While I understand, and agree with for the most part, what you are saying, I also wonder if there aren't many talented individuals out there who may be able to make their oun breaks before they get settled into a life where they are afraid to take a chance.

That is, I'm thinking there are some risk takers out in the wild who have no hope of ever becoming an insider and need a shortcut to show what they can do before giving up.

That's the clientèle I think RED will and is attracting. Some of us will fail. Some of us will fail again and again. And some will strike gold. I think what you were saying is that RED is just a pick or shovel that one uses to dig for the gold. But my thinking is that it puts more picks and shovels in the hands of the gold diggers.

[James T Mather]

Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.



Agreed.

[James T Mather]

I think what you were saying is that RED is just a pick or shovel that one uses to dig for the gold.

...and agreed - but the cost of film stock etc is a small part of the overall costs required to produce a film. But more power to those who try ...and given the dreck that is often produced these days - why not? Someone's gotta try dammit.

[David Mullen ASC]

Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.

And before someone else says it, it's not like there's a choice in reality, you can do both. But being able to see change coming in itself is not necessarily enough, nor is it a necessary trait of all good artists.

[James T Mather]

That and I see lotsa good films going by the wayside - Saw Curtis Hansen's latest last night "Lucky You" - great little movie - Straight to video. Such is life.

[number6]

Given a choice between being the guy who can see change, or the guy who makes a good movie, I'd rather be the guy who makes a good movie.

The ability to predict future trends or be the first to jump on a new one, is -- in the long run -- relatively unimportant compared to the quality of one's work and one's overall artistic sensibility. There are plenty of people working with cutting-edge technology who are lousy artists.



David, spoken like a true bean-counter. (Not that there is anything wrong with bean counters) But I'm thinking that we are in one of those periods where some great lake turns over and that which was once the bottom water becomes topwater. I truly understand your protection of the status quo, even in independent film making.

But read the postings of some of the younger members of this forum. Sure, some of them tread lightly for now, but if you read between the lines you sense something building... at least, that's been my experience.

I think what is coming is a lot of people taking their turn at art, and if it sticks they continue. If not... well then, they get a real job.

[number6]

Someone's gotta try dammit.

I'll do it! SANCHO PANZA! Bring me my horse. My lance! There's a windmill...

[James T Mather]

Good luck with it Number 6 - I agree people have to chase their desires and callings, some will succeed, some fail. I wish you all the luck. ]

BTW - David's post doesn't sound much like "bean counting" - more a plea for "good work". I second it.

[James T Mather]

BTW like the Don Quixote reference - dream the impossible (or possible) dream.

[number6]

BTW - David's post doesn't sound much like "bean counting" - more a plea for "good work". I second it.

Or a plea for "status quo"

Thanks for the good luck wishes, but I would prefer to succeed on merit rather than serendipity.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't give a shit about protecting the status quo. I'm all for change as long as it is a change that makes for better movies, not change for the sake of change, doing something new just because it is new. New is not a virtue in itself, it has to lead to something of value artistically.

I'm just saying that the WORK itself is what really matters, and how different artists go about getting there is their own business. If one guy does it with stone-age tools and the other guy with space-age tools, then fine. There isn't extra artistic value added by virtue of using the newest tools rather than an older tool to accomplish the art. When I see a great painting, I don't care whether the brushes used were new or old.

Whether Indy 4 is a great film or a bad film is not going to rest on whether Spielberg cut it digitally or on film, or whether he used a RED camera or a 35mm camera. That may have a cosmetic effect, but not a fundamental affect on its value as art or entertainment. It will rise or fall based on other bigger, non-technological factors.

Now if respecting artists and their different choices is the "status quo", then I'm all for protecting that.

[James T Mather]

Or a plea for "status quo"



Good luck with the revolution.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

'Revolutions' imo are often the result of a third generation product long after the cutting edge technology is considered new.

I could cite hundreds of examples of products released that sported the absolute latest and greatest but failed miserably from a profit/consumer impact standpoint. I've made this point before but the early adopter is often a terrible demographic to market to and very poorly reflects the long term success of a product.

Take a look at Apple products. They're often released years after other companies have done the grunt work of releasing actually revolutionairy products. The 'revolution' of Apple is in usability not science or technology.

You could easily argue that Red is also a third generation technology. Video -> Digital Cinema -> Useable/Affordable form factor. It's not the first 4k cinema product (some even argue that the Genesis has almost as many pixels but just chooses to output 2k.) Dalsa and the Phantom 65 being the notable other holders of the title. It's not the first camera to use wavelets (see Silicon Imaging). It's not the first IT or Flash camera (see HVX or again SI).

There's an instinct to feel that by being someplace first and recognizing the value of a technology before it's common place will translate into success but actually capitalizing on that discovery is very very rare. As a result you'll always have a handful of individuals who are catapulted by harnassing this before anyone else but by and large the average user is not 'left behind' because they adopt anyway when they follow the crowd as the product becomes mainstream.

Things move very slowly in this world. Even if you miss the train you can usually catch up and hop on without breaking a sweat. There's a reason you never hear about a 'secret revolution'. ;)

[number6]

I don't give a shit about protecting the status quo. I'm all for change as long as it is a change that makes for better movies, not change for the sake of change, doing something new just because it is new. New is not a virtue in itself, it has to lead to something of value artistically.

Change allowed as long as it follows the rules? To me that is change by the rule of status quo.


I'm just saying that the WORK itself is what really matters, and how different artists go about getting there is their own business. If one guy does it with stone-age tools and the other guy with space-age tools, then fine. There isn't extra artistic value added by virtue of using the newest tools rather than an older tool to accomplish the art. When I see a great painting, I don't care whether the brushes used were new or old.

It's not just about the tools. It's about access. Film and the Hollywood "old boy" network is exclusive. RED is inclusive.


Whether Indy 4 is a great film or a bad film is not going to rest on whether Spielberg cut it digitally or on film, or whether he used a RED camera or a 35mm camera. That may have a cosmetic effect, but not a fundamental affect on its value as art or entertainment. It will rise or fall based on other bigger, non-technological factors.

And so will the work of the small-time innovative movie maker who has a chance to ply his or her craft economically due to the availability of RED.


Now if respecting artists and their different choices is the "status quo", then I'm all for protecting that.

Me too, but not just the "old Europe" type movie makers, but the emerging ones as well.

I think I should also add the disclaimer that I probably don't like much of what is being made by younger movie makers. I say probably because I actually haven't seen a movie in a theater for more than 25 or 30 years. (I actually can't remember the last movie I watched in a theater. I remember watching one titled "Immanuel", I think. Probably watched one after that but don't remember for certain.) Still, I think RED will offer the opportunity for some good ones to take their shot before they might otherwise have to be driving a forklift to support the wife and kid.

My oun attempts will likely look like a throwback attempt to the movies that gave me enjoyment. So, perhaps you can see why I don't really have much sympathy if some of the clout in movie making shifts to truly independent movie making.

This is not about a revolution in the art of movie making. It is all about availability.

[number6]

Btw, calling a guy who has spent more time in the indie trenches and has contributed more than almost any pro I know of for those wanting to learn a bean counter is offensive to me. Call someone else a bean counter if you want to deride Hollywood elitism and moneycentricity.

Yeah, I owe David a heartfelt "I'm Sorry!" for that, although I did add that bean counter was not necessarily a bad thing. I too have learned at the feet of David Mullen, but while I'm a willing student of the craft, I require no tutoring in philosophy. (And I was not implying that David was trying to imprint his philosophy on me or anyone else for that matter.)

edit: please tell your avitar to call me.

[Frank Weeks]

When I see a great painting, I don't care whether the brushes used were new or old.


amen!

[David Mullen ASC]

Change allowed as long as it follows the rules? To me that is change by the rule of status quo.


Exactly what "rule" do you think I seem to be suggesting be followed? I'm not clear that I've laid down any rules. I'm just suggesting that the true value of a technology or a technique is not its newness but its usefulness to the artist. If an artist finds an old technique or technology useful to them in the creation of art, well, what's wrong with that?

Not all art has to be cutting-edge or avant guarde, or even innovative. There is room for all types of arts and artists.

Spielberg's got his 35mm camera and you've got your RED, so you both should be happy... I have no idea why it's so important to some people that Spielberg dump 35mm and use digital. It's like some people aren't happy with the notion that other people out there make different lifestyle choices. You like RED because it gives you the financial freedom to pursue your personal moviemaking interests, but for some reason, Spielberg is to be ridiculed for pursuing his own idiosyncratic tastes by choosing to cut a movie on a flatbed or shoot on film.

Besides, in this particular case, "Indiana Jones" is a bit of nostalgia for 1930's/40's adventure serials, and this particular sequel is a bit of nostalgia for the 1980's Indiana Jones movies on top of that... two layers of nostalgia for the past going on, so it makes a lot of sense to shoot this sequel using "old school" techniques.

I've never suggested that everyone should make Hollywood-style movies or use the same Hollywood-style techniques. But by that same token, I'm not going to say that using digital technology to make movies is right for everyone. To my mind, what I'm suggesting is that people try to maintain some emotional neutrality when it comes to technology and not get wrapped up in one brand or technique, nor equate "new" with "good" and "old" with "bad" (or vice-versa) -- so I don't see why suggesting that people have an open mind is somehow an example of me protecting the status quo. If only open-mindedness was the status quo!

[number6]

David, I've posted on top so that yours will be the last word, as you have earned that right by your body of work. My eyelids are getting heavy.


Exactly what "rule" do you think I seem to be suggesting be followed? I'm not clear that I've laid down any rules. I'm just suggesting that the true value of a technology or a technique is not its newness but its usefulness to the artist. If an artist finds an old technique or technology useful to them in the creation of art, well, what's wrong with that?

Not all art has to be cutting-edge or avant guarde, or even innovative. There is room for all types of arts and artists.

Spielberg's got his 35mm camera and you've got your RED, so you both should be happy... I have no idea why it's so important to some people that Spielberg dump 35mm and use digital. It's like some people aren't happy with the notion that other people out there make different lifestyle choices. You like RED because it gives you the financial freedom to pursue your personal moviemaking interests, but for some reason, Spielberg is to be ridiculed for pursuing his own idiosyncratic tastes by choosing to cut a movie on a flatbed or shoot on film.

Besides, in this particular case, "Indiana Jones" is a bit of nostalgia for 1930's/40's adventure serials, and this particular sequel is a bit of nostalgia for the 1980's Indiana Jones movies on top of that... two layers of nostalgia for the past going on, so it makes a lot of sense to shoot this sequel using "old school" techniques.

I've never suggested that everyone should make Hollywood-style movies or use the same Hollywood-style techniques. But by that same token, I'm not going to say that using digital technology to make movies is right for everyone. To my mind, what I'm suggesting is that people try to maintain some emotional neutrality when it comes to technology and not get wrapped up in one brand or technique, nor equate "new" with "good" and "old" with "bad" (or vice-versa) -- so I don't see why suggesting that people have an open mind is somehow an example of me protecting the status quo. If only open-mindedness was the status quo!

[Jason Francois]

To my mind, what I'm suggesting is that people try to maintain some emotional neutrality when it comes to technology and not get wrapped up in one brand or technique, nor equate "new" with "good" and "old" with "bad" (or vice-versa) -- so I don't see why suggesting that people have an open mind is somehow an example of me protecting the status quo. If only open-mindedness was the status quo!

And all the people say...Amen. :)

Thanks David.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

It's not just about the tools. It's about access. Film and the Hollywood "old boy" network is exclusive. RED is inclusive.

...

And so will the work of the small-time innovative movie maker who has a chance to ply his or her craft economically due to the availability of RED.
Question: would not said small-time innovative movie maker already have had the chance to ply his/her craft economically due to the availability of such high-end prosumer cameras as the Panasonic HVX-200? Which is

a) already out in mass production, and
b) cheaper than the RED by a good 60-80% (depending on accessories)?

If the upswelling of talent based on availability didn't come two years ago when the HVX hit the streets, what's going to be so different about RED? The "availability" model has already come and gone, and a better sensor doesn't make a better filmmaker.

Now, as much as I don't wholly agree with number6's conclusions, I do agree somewhat with his premise. I've seen a LOT of good stuff come out of the HVX that I probably never would have seen if the same filmmakers had only had 35mm film available to them. And those saying that the "cost of film is a small fraction of a film budget", remember that when you're talking to a certain group of indies, the film cost is the ONLY cost on the film. Everything else is begged, borrowed, or stolen. $100,000 in film stock isn't much on a $20 million film set, but on a smaller set it's basically the entire budget.

I don't think that RED will make anyone a better storyteller. But those who are really serious about what they do will find it easier and cheaper to do what they would have eventually done anyway. I don't think we're going to magically start seeing all these brilliant filmmakers come out of the woodwork that wouldn't have been able to make themselves heard without RED. If not for RED, they would have figured it out some other way, just like the others before them.

RED supplies the tools. You have to supply the talent. And if your film isn't great, you can't blame the camera.

[James T Mather]

I Agree - plus there has always been super 8 & super 16 as a cheap option - the Beaulieu R16 camera, the Arri BL (El Mariachi), Bolex (Peter Jackson), Beaulieu 4008/7008 - some current European Drama is shot on Digibeta and field blended (Hardly ideal I grant you) but the myth that the availablity of a camera that is XXXX% sharper will suddenly emancipate downtrodden talent who were cruelly excluded from hanging out at Spagos is just nonsense.


The proliferation of "Spielberg had better watch out" threads since we've got what he's got is similarly idiotic. The filmstock costs are generally a tiny portion of a films budget - Location costs/sound editing/music/actor's fees/Catering/Crew fees/transport/lighting equipment/special effects etc. personally I don't want to see movies in the cinema made for thirty bucks starring people I've never heard of - with effects done by uncle Al and soundtracks by cousin Abe playing the spoons.

well, maybe just one...for the giggle.

[Ramesh Jai]

I read this somewhere - A ten year boy did a documentary with his VHS camera about his father's car showroom.

The father had a sales promotion at his car lot where one of the latest pick-up (or van) was parked. The idea was that the last person standing with his hand on the pick up got the pick-up for free.

The competition started with about a hundred people with their hands on one part or the other of the pick-up. The boy kept shooting with his VHS camera the best he could. Ofcourse he had no idea about camera stability or angles but he kept on filming.

From a hundred competitors emerged the winner and the boy took all the rushes of the event and edited it on two VHS decks. He gave that 'edited' version to a local TV station who put it on air. The whole production cost about fifty bucks.

That was one of the most viewed program in the station's history.

Let's learn whatever we can from this story.

[James T Mather]

did the soundtrack feature someone playing the spoons?

kidding - it's a nice story and illustrates the point well. Would it have been a better film at 4k? I'm not sure. The moral seems to me that you should make a movie about a subject rather than with a system - it's great to have 4k - but audiences interested in a subject will seek out material regardless of the uptake medium.

I suspect that some of the movies produced with Red will be underwritten, underproduced or overacted because the films had to go through no development process or quality control - as is often the case with short films. Precious few are any good - despite being shot on 35mm with all the technocranes and steadicams. Most short films I get sent to shoot are cliche ridden and simplistic despite enormous enthusiasm from the director/writers - no one ever thinks they've written a bad script. We are all Tarantinos, waiting to be discovered.

Plus a lot of the calls I seem to be taking regarding the RED are from people who want the cheap option - the "we're getting it made on 100,000" conversations. Shooting these gigs, this way, will do no-one (least of all me) any good. Budget buys you time. Time to light, time to wait for the sun (or shade), time to get 2 more shots in this scene, time to go for another take because "a white truck parked in the background of that last one". - Without budget, the producer shuts it down and the cameraman ends up looking like a moron when they hard-cut sun and shade together in the final piece.

But despite the rant - it's still great to have 4k.

[Keith Alan Morris]

Erm, the director was 26 when he made "Hands on a Hard Body." http://imdb.com/title/tt0116481/

It was released in 98, hes around 36 now.


I read this somewhere - A ten year boy did a documentary with his VHS camera about his father's car showroom.

The father had a sales promotion at his car lot where one of the latest pick-up (or van) was parked. The idea was that the last person standing with his hand on the pick up got the pick-up for free.

The competition started with about a hundred people with their hands on one part or the other of the pick-up. The boy kept shooting with his VHS camera the best he could. Ofcourse he had no idea about camera stability or angles but he kept on filming.

From a hundred competitors emerged the winner and the boy took all the rushes of the event and edited it on two VHS decks. He gave that 'edited' version to a local TV station who put it on air. The whole production cost about fifty bucks.

That was one of the most viewed program in the station's history.

Let's learn whatever we can from this story.

[James T Mather]

Like Orson Welles - peaked early.

[Ramesh Jai]

Erm, the director was 26 when he made "Hands on a Hard Body." http://imdb.com/title/tt0116481/

It was released in 98, hes around 36 now.
Sorry. The person who told the story (or wrote it) mentioned it was a ten year old boy. I cannot verify anything. But I am sure you appreciate the point being made.

[James T Mather]

I do. And not to worry man - as I always say - If it isn't true, then it should be true.

[Ramesh Jai]

I do. And not to worry man - as I always say - If it isn't true, then it should be true.
LOL! True. True.

[tj williams]

Seems to me the difference between RED n other cheap digital ways to get a story told is that RED will also be used by some folk to shoot high end full budget shows.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Ok two things. First, Macs are far superior to PCs, anyone knows this. I have used both, mainly PCs for 15 years, and Mac for three, and it's still obvious. But please keep using your PCs, I don't like viruses, and I love people using inferior equipment so I can feel free to use something better. Honda Civics are very popular cars, too, but there's a reason a Ferrari costs a lot more -- it's a much better machine, sleek, fast, and perfect. Like a Mac. The only reason I'm a Mac "fanboy" is because of the facts. I used PCs from the time I was about 6 to when I was 21, and they are crappy computers beyond belief. I used to make fun of Macs until I realized how much better they were, then it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when I was using a Mac it was just a much better experience. Besides, what am I going to edit with using a PC? Avid? That piece of **** program? You gotta be kidding me.

Second, Spielberg is a moron when it comes to technology and he's a terrible businessman. He's a great filmmaker, one of the best ever, but he's also not highly creative or great at thinking outside of the box. He is JUST a great director. You compare him to Lucas and it's not the same at all, Lucas is a director and a storyteller and a businessman (a very, very, very good one), and he's been a huge force for digital filmmaking and pushing technology forward. Spielberg, on the other hand, never does anything to help filmmaking as a whole, because he has no concept of what it means to evolve technologically, and he doesn't write his own stories, he never comes up with an idea himself, it's just other people's ideas and he brings them to the screen. He may be history's greatest mercenary but he isn't the greatest filmmaker. Great filmmakers know how to do it all, like Tarantino or Rodriguez, not just take great scripts that come your way because you're Steven Spielberg and then put them on the screen. I love a lot of his movies, but that's mainly because they had great stories, ones he didn't write.

Spielberg is ultimately not a visionary, whereas Lucas is, and Jim Jannard is. I think everyone who loves film can appreciate what a great director Spielberg is, but to expect that he is a great visionary or going to help push the medium forward is asking too much. He is not THAT filmmaker.

And film is dead, get over it. It's a terrible medium with massive flaws that are being corrected by superior technology. I don't want a lousy chemically ruined bunch of garbage with grain all over it that takes days to process. I want a PERFECT, pristine image that looks gorgeous right from the camera, and then if I want to make it grungy in post or grainy in post I'll do that. But I want options.

Spielberg is so inside the box he couldn't escape if he wanted to. He will never be remembered as someone who pushes cinema forward as did great pioneers like Orson Welles or George Lucas, instead he'll be remembered for directing a lot of great popular movies that were very entertaining and a lot of fun. And the few really thought-provoking movies he has done darn weren't his ideas (Minority Report, for instance, NOT even close to his idea).

[Gavin Greenwalt]

:| ... ?

I guess since this is so obvious to you perhaps you would like to back it all up with... tangible examples.

1) Macs are FAR superior.
2) Avid is a POS software.
3) Spielberg's lack of original vision.
4) The Massive flaws of film.
5) Spielberg's inability to utilize technology to its maximum.

Just to help you along in things you should enumerate upon. Since it's all so obvious...

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I think all you Steven Spielberg bashers are just pissed that he isn't shooting Indiana Jones on Red One.
If he was you'd be singing his praises till the cows came home.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Jonathan, can you ever come into a thread without bitching about things in a unrespectful short sighted manner?

Spielberg wrote the story (not the script) of E.T., he wrote the script of Close Encounters, he wrote the script of A.I. (although it was based on notes by Kubrick and a story of... Philip K Dick? Don't know for sure that last one).

Jurassic Park was the first movie (or at least the first big movie, but I think the first) to use DTS surround sound.

And you don't know how much Spielberg has altered ideas from stories and so on... I mean, yes, most of his movies aren't written by himself, but I'm pretty sure he oversees the scriptwriting fase and makes alterations...
Stop being so childish, coming on these boards and just throw flames to respected filmmakers, a popular medium, popular software,...
You always do it in this unrespectful manner, and people on this board have already MANY times talked to you about that.
Sorry to get personal, but it's really annoying.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Jonathan's post is so bass-ackwards I'm almost tempted to think it's some kind of satirical performance art.

The main thing I want to take issue with is this:


he doesn't write his own stories, he never comes up with an idea himself, it's just other people's ideas and he brings them to the screen.

...

Great filmmakers know how to do it all, like Tarantino or Rodriguez

As much as I love Tarantino, the man's never had a fully "original" idea in his entire career. His ENTIRE THING is taking ideas that have been done before and putting his spin on them. Like, to the extent that he says things like "This is the scene from such-and-such movie, but with CHICKS." Or whatever. His entire body of work is one long, vulgar, cathartic series of homages and cinematic in-jokes.

Like I said, love Tarantino. He certainly has an original vision. But he's a synthesizer, not a creator.

Seriously...Spielberg a "moron" and a "terrible businessman"? I'm pretty sure he's got more money than you do, buddy.

Personally, I don't think Spielberg is inside the box. I think the more accurate statement is, Spielberg has the dubious honor of being the man who DEFINES the box.

He's doing his own thing and always has been. The fact that all of Hollywood is following in his wake isn't his fault.

And Spielberg not being remembered in the annals of cinema? What planet are you from?

[James T Mather]

Hear, Hear! (applause).....Jonathan, a touch of humility is a commendable quality in people - You might try it. People not possessed of it often come off sounding like a loudmouth punk kid.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Seriously...Spielberg a "moron" and a "terrible businessman"? I'm pretty sure he's got more money than you do, buddy.

Yes, I even forgot to respond to this...
Jonathan if you would have read some biographies about spielberg you would know he's a GREAT businessman.
How do you think he became the nr. 1 richest man in Hollywood????
Please get your facts straight before you go and throw bombs.

[Steve Sanacore]

Who cares? You fanboys are starting to creep me out with your insanity. Film is not dead, contrary to what many have said on this site. Yes Red is great and one of the highest quality digital cameras, but it isn't Jesus. You don't need to praise it and you don't need to fear if everybody doesn't love it. It's a frickin camera! There is much more to movie making.

WELL SAID!

The RED will give many talented people the ability to make feature films and commercials with the quality of any other format without buying or processing or printing a foot of film.

Now THAT is a revolutionary tool in my hands and what RED is all about to me.

I will leave it up to the software to add all the grain and life if I find it lacking.

Thank you RED!

Steve

[Allan Stallard]

Jonathan's post is so bass-ackwards I'm almost tempted to think it's some kind of satirical performance art.

That deserves to be quoted again.

[Joe Carney]

My own theory is that Red will actually extend the life of film as a distribution medium. Most of the world will be on film projection for at least 15 more years.
The great thing is Red and cameras like it are future proofing the content for when it all goes digital.
Digital is cool though, just download from the bird and get ready to play.

The next wave will be on demand new releases into the homes the same way as theaters, but with no box office overhead to deal with. I figure 10 years at the most. And I don't mean DirectTV or DishHD, but a seperate receiver just for new studio releases.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

The next wave will be on demand new releases into the homes the same way as theaters, but with no box office overhead to deal with. I figure 10 years at the most. And I don't mean DirectTV or DishHD, but a seperate receiver just for new studio releases.
I really hope not. I mean, I think you're right, but I hope theatrical screenings still have their place. I'm a firm believer in the communal experience of movie-going, and I wouldn't ever want to trade that for an HDTV and VOD downloads.

[number6]

I really hope not. I mean, I think you're right, but I hope theatrical screenings still have their place. I'm a firm believer in the communal experience of movie-going, and I wouldn't ever want to trade that for an HDTV and VOD downloads.

On the other hand, if Bird flu/disaster du jour should be all around, it would be nice to still get entertainment without getting sick or dead.:rip_1:

[Joe Carney]

I really hope not. I mean, I think you're right, but I hope theatrical screenings still have their place. I'm a firm believer in the communal experience of movie-going, and I wouldn't ever want to trade that for an HDTV and VOD downloads.


Theatrical won't go away, people want to justify their high end home theaters and someone will figure out how to help them, hehehe.
Imagine getting a high quality experience the same time as theaters get it.
They could charge 20 to 30.00 a household for 2 views within 24hrs and then it expires. Still less expensive than taking a family to the movies. Invite some friends over, it's still a community experience.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The only thing more disruptive to the movie going experience than going to the theater is watching a movie with some friends over. Especially if the movie was chosen by committee and the vote was not unanimous.

[Fix]

Spielberg loves organic film, and so do a whole bunch of people including myself. I've got a home cinema, digital projected DVD/HD. But I go to the cinema anyways.. Actually as often as possible. Not becasue of a crapy home setup, but because at the cinema I can view it from an organic stock.

I'm one of those guys who love to see film grain presented. Not to much, but still conspicuous. IMO, Spielberg has a really good point saying that non moving images feels almost alive presented in organic film.

Still, many of us strongly believe that its also possible to achieve this with a RED ONE. It got the dynamic range and resolution. Its not 8bit (thank god). And the footage is compressed in a matter that we can easily work with (not uncompressed nor overly compressed).

RED can easily fake organic film... And I love the sound to that. So lets show Spielberg what we can do with this medium rather than bashing hes work.

[number6]

Its not 8bit (thank god).

You can call him Graeme, everyone else does.

[chuck colburn]

A long time ago (1990) Mr. Spielberg was thinking about shooting in 65mm.
So Universal built 3 identical sets on a sound stage and Mr. Daviu (sp) lit them all the same way. I brought the camera the company I worked for over to the studio as did Panavision and I believe the third was a Fries Mitchell conversion. Mr. Spielberg came over to where I was unloding our camera and asked me questions about the mechanics of the camera and the lenses (rebarrled medium format still lenses and a couple of Cookes with optical extenders to enlarge the circle of coverage) we had for it. His questions were all intelligent and some surprised me with the depth of his practical knowledge of shooting hardware. I found him to be a very pleasent person to converse with. No ego, no condescending attitude what so ever. So I don't care if he wants to shoot on 8mm and cut with a splicing block and a razor blade, he is a major talent in the making of motion pictures.
Oh yeah, and the highlight of the day was when his wife , Amy Irvin, showed up on the set. She kinda made me loose my train of thought for a moment or two. LOL Some may say if you throw enough money at a film it can't help but be good. Well we should all know that's not true. And remember that Jaws was not a very big budget film and IMHO it can be viewed over and over.
Just my 2C

[James T Mather]

I agree - Spielberg is a very shrewd practitioner - and has influenced cinema beyond pretty much anyone by this stage.

Apropos of Mr. Daviau - I thought his period with Spielberg produced the best looking and "feeling" Spielberg films - ET and Empire of the Sun are films in which the photograohy is still something I marvel at and learn from. I enjoy Kaminski's histrionics as a cameraman but find his stuff a little immature (as though learning the craft of cinematography (too much smoke and bleach bypass and dior stockings and skinny shutter and front of lens diffusion and exposure riskiness- too much of everything all round - all the stuff you do whilst learning and "showing off") - Daviau has both restraint and class. He's a storytelling cameraman IMHO. All this BTW is just heartfelt personal opinion - Kaminski has been Oscared - so "who are you to criticize"... etc. but I always loved the Daviau look. It is, to me, timeless. I don't feel that it will date much.

I still think the Japanese pilots going out to die in Empire of the Sun - all shot at magic hour is stunning stuff. His interior lighting in ET is extraordinary and beautiful - watch the scene where Elliott shows ET the star wars figures (all several stops down - try metering that ) - subtle and great but beautiful.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Humans are social beings, "zoon politikon".

There's a sharing and communication element in moviegoing. Yes, there are annoying things in the theater, but deep down inside, people want to get together, they want to share and be a part of a larger community - this is social instinct.

In the cinema they (un)consciously get that thing, although being anonymous.

So, there is this kind of psychology in going to the theater. Consciously or unconsciously you want to be a part of the crowd.

Home cinemas are getting better and better but they'll never really get that community element. Unless you invite 200+ people to your apartment :).

And even technically, home cinema can never be the same experience. That huge screen and the fine acoustics of a theater, you can never get that at home.

Home cinema is evolving, yes. But it's "home". The real thing will always be in the theater.

And there's something disturbing about all that digital and computer stuff. It has tremendous advantages but it also gets people alienated. More and more we're staring at computer screens but not into each other's eyes.

Charlton Heston said: "Internet is for the lonely. People should live."

I think he's right and there is something disturbing about the way things are going. "Virtual insanity".

Life is something else... and you shouldn't lose that... one shouldn't lose the fresh air, literally and figuratively...

Hmm...

Things like RED still rock, though :).

Maybe you can't have everything - you win something and you lose something.

My 2 cents...

P.S. I'm going out for a walk :).

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

A long time ago (1990) Mr. Spielberg was thinking about shooting in 65mm.
So Universal built 3 identical sets on a sound stage and Mr. Daviu (sp) lit them all the same way. I brought the camera the company I worked for over to the studio as did Panavision and I believe the third was a Fries Mitchell conversion. Mr. Spielberg came over to where I was unloding our camera and asked me questions about the mechanics of the camera and the lenses (rebarrled medium format still lenses and a couple of Cookes with optical extenders to enlarge the circle of coverage) we had for it. His questions were all intelligent and some surprised me with the depth of his practical knowledge of shooting hardware. I found him to be a very pleasent person to converse with. No ego, no condescending attitude what so ever. So I don't care if he wants to shoot on 8mm and cut with a splicing block and a razor blade, he is a major talent in the making of motion pictures.
Oh yeah, and the highlight of the day was when his wife , Amy Irvin, showed up on the set. She kinda made me loose my train of thought for a moment or two. LOL Some may say if you throw enough money at a film it can't help but be good. Well we should all know that's not true. And remember that Jaws was not a very big budget film and IMHO it can be viewed over and over.
Just my 2C

Great story about Spielberg! I've heard many times before that in spite of his high position, the man has no big ego at all. You clearly see this in the way he dresses and behaves in public also.
If you don't mind, i've copied this quote (with your name) at the spielbergfilms.comù forum (board for spielbergfans).

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Great story about Spielberg! I've heard many times before that in spite of his high position, the man has no big ego at all. You clearly see this in the way he dresses and behaves in public also.
If you don't mind, i've copied this quote (with your name) at the spielbergfilms.comù forum (board for spielbergfans).

He even gives his friends fashion tips...

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g214/river_felix/5770.jpg

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

He even gives his friends fashion tips...

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g214/river_felix/5770.jpg

LOL! I have to save that picture :biggrin:

[Steve Sanacore]

Ok, heres a paraphrasing of his latest quote:
--quote from Spielberg to Quint on the set of Indy 4,
from aintitcool.com http://aintitcool.com/node/34376

What do you think? I dont think he's seen RED. :angry02: I know we've talked about it before...but still... :angry02:

He has always said this about digital capture. Why should he change the way he makes movies if he likes the look he gets now. There are probably hundreds of directors out there who agree with him - so what?

I think RED is far and away the best alternative to chemical cinematography yet - and it can shoot in place of film and create any look you want - including grainy soft film looks.

All this without transporting tons of light sensitive material around in cans, looking at a piss poor video image on set, etc etc etc.

In the end, the RED is only a camera. The best of it's kind right now, but artists make movies.

IMO

[Steve Sanacore]

Humans are social beings, "zoon politikon".
And there's something disturbing about all that digital and computer stuff. It has tremendous advantages but it also gets people alienated. More and more we're staring at computer screens but not into each other's eyes.

Charlton Heston said: "Internet is for the lonely. People should live."

I think he's right and there is something disturbing about the way things are going. "Virtual insanity".

Life is something else... and you shouldn't lose that... one shouldn't lose the fresh air, literally and figuratively...

Hmm...

Things like RED still rock, though :).

Maybe you can't have everything - you win something and you lose something.

My 2 cents...

P.S. I'm going out for a walk :).


I don't agree with it being bad in any way. It's all what you do with the technology. I embrace technology in every way to enhance my experiences not hamper them.

I think the art of letter writing was extinct until 'email' was invented. Deeper thoughts, better communications - I love that.

This camera will allow more of us to bring more beauty or whatever we want, into more homes easier than ever before.

And that guy who stays home on the internet instead of going out in the real world, would probably have stayed home and played cards a century ago too :-)

IMO of course.

[Adrian T.]

:)

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1863/redhatssi0.jpg

[Michele Gavazzeni]

You can see the chemical process after effects and even if nothing else is moving, the film has a life.


print out your red footage and you'll have that chemical movement he talks about!

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

print out your red footage and you'll have that chemical movement he talks about!

It really isn't that simple.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It's Spielberg's birthday today :).

I hope he makes many more of his marvelous movies.

[Bing Bailey]

we dont have to feel threatened. its all about choices. a lot of people shoot film because they like it. they like the way it looks and they can afford it. its a valid choice. the rest of us would probably and happily shoot film if we could afford it. the fact is most of us cant so we need the next best thing in the digital realm and it affords us speed in workflow too

all the film dead statements wont make a bit of difference. not everyone feels they are stuck with film. some people actually enjoy using it

[RCFisher]

I have been shooting since 1973 and have been hearing the "film is dead" thing for 30 years. So far nothing can replace the film experience, the Red will definitely have an impact on motion picture production providing an alternative to shooting with photochemical processes. It will also provide opportunities to film makers who can't shoot on film for one reason or another. I did enjoy the early days of more or less portable video gear, RCA & Ike cameras with Ampex portable video tape decks, it was learning another way to speak or communicate. I made lots of awesome images working within the confines of the medium. Film was technically liberating compared to video but not necessarily better, video provided an immediacy that film couldn't.

I shot a commercial early on where we had camera problems, Eclair ACL's had lots of issues in the 70's, and had to reshoot the spot. I hand delivered the spot about a 1/2 hour before air time, at the time there was no other way to do that. The client was happy and the spot actually looked better than the film version.

As Darkkelt said it is all about choices and story is everything!
But pretty pictures help!

[David Wyatt]

Ha ha...this love of grain makes me laugh..."it's such an organic look" etc. It's just an artifact of film technology that we're stuck with but which we now think is some kind of holy grail. I don't know about anyone else but my vision has no grain at all, so if you want realistic images shouldn't they be grain-free too? Having said that, "noise" is even worse :-(

David Wyatt.

[David Mullen ASC]

Ha ha...this love of grain makes me laugh..."it's such an organic look" etc. It's just an artifact of film technology that we're stuck with but which we now think is some kind of holy grail. I don't know about anyone else but my vision has no grain at all, so if you want realistic images shouldn't they be grain-free too? Having said that, "noise" is even worse :-(

David Wyatt.

Your vision isn't 24 fps either...

Who said hyper-clear immersive realism should always be the ultimate goal for a moviemaker? Doesn't leave much room for stylization then... Some movies are more like dreams than realities.

[Michael Lindsay]

When I look at 2k film scans against 2k sub sampled very clean DSLR time lapse, of the same subject, I always feel film gives, by virtue of its grain, a half glimpse of more. It leaves me with the impression of 'there is more' in the way life does. Not the same experience but analogous..

Also seeing clearly is not always good for a film/movie.

When I first saw Apocalypse Now .. It was off VHS letter boxed on a 29inch 4:3 TV. The experience was amazing.. I felt that the film penetrated far more successfully than J.C 'Heart of Darkness' novella did.. Where the novel failed for me with clunky purple prose passages that talked about the un-talkable, the film succeeded.. When I finally, years later, watched in the cinema a new print of the film I was less convinced.

I'm not suggesting the film was better on VHS. Only that 'my' experience of watching it the 3rd time on a big screen, with 'best clarity', was inferior for the expression of the most philosophical of the films ideas. As a war film (action/political whatever) it was great in the fresh print.

Conversely I believe The Thin Red Line's philosophical ideas benefits from the BIG screen and a good print.. Different film different ideas!

Back to grain....?

Michael Lindsay

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

"What is essential is invisible to the eye".

[Casey Green]

Your vision isn't 24 fps either...

Who said hyper-clear immersive realism should always be the ultimate goal for a moviemaker? Doesn't leave much room for stylization then... Some movies are more like dreams than realities.

Yes, indeed.

Also, I believe that a lot of what goes on in the human brain in between the 24fps interval (imagination filling in the gaps) is what makes each cinematic experience so amazing and unique.

[Petr Dvorak]

Ha ha...this love of grain makes me laugh..."it's such an organic look" etc. It's just an artifact of film technology that we're stuck with but which we now think is some kind of holy grail. I don't know about anyone else but my vision has no grain at all, so if you want realistic images shouldn't they be grain-free too? Having said that, "noise" is even worse :-(

David Wyatt.


Ha ha ... we tend to create better and better workflow and quality of picture all that only to find out that we are strongly sticked to that old dirty, grainy, flickering footage :biggrin:

Look at postproduction tools today. 70% of them are just for destroing all that perfect picture. Even color correction or lens flares just simulate all the flaws of DP, lenses, film stock, its development, enviroment or crew etc. Its just one big nostalgia and cliché which we love. :biggrin:

We are just used to it and call it magic :sorcerer:

[Jannard]

Some will shoot film, some will shoot digital. The best news is that digital is now a legitimate alternative.

Jim

[Michael Lindsay]

Some will shoot film, some will shoot digital. The best news is that digital is now a legitimate alternative.

Jim

I, for one, am very gratefull for that!!

[Jaime Vallés]

It's Spielberg's birthday today :).
I, for one, feel good about having the same birthday as Steven Spielberg! And Brad Pitt (cool), Ray Liotta (okay) and Katie Holmes (um...)

One week 'til Xmas! :red_bandana:

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I, for one, feel good about having the same birthday as Steven Spielberg! And Brad Pitt (cool), Ray Liotta (okay) and Katie Holmes (um...)

One week 'til Xmas! :red_bandana:

Happy birthday! :usd:

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Your vision isn't 24 fps either...

Technically no, but I personally feel that 24fps (with the attendant 1/48th shutter) does the best job of simulating in consecutive still images the "motion blur" that you see with your eyes. There's still a bit of play there since you can't have a 360-degree shutter, but systems that try to match the "refresh rate" of the human eye by increasing the FPS, the attendant decrease in motion blur detracts from the "reality" of it.

(Though of course some would argue that less motion blur looks more like video, and a "video look" increases the sense of reality since people are used to shooting their lives with a video camera and having it look like that.)

Anyway, as I just said in the Hobbit thread, I also love the organic look of film. Of course they're "flaws" in the image, but as I said, life's no fun if everything's perfect, and IMO neither are movies.

I come from a visual effects background, and the one thing that all the really good VFX artists know is that "perfect is wrong." (Except when you're pulling a matte.)

You WANT to dirty up the surface of your spaceship with grunge and dents, you WANT to have your digital character maybe stumble a little bit. You want flawed because that's what's REAL. I believe I remember David M. saying that he likes to let one light in a scene be "wrong" for that same reason.

I still don't think I'll ever shoot film now that RED's here -- unless I need to shoot with 35mm DOF at more than 60fps, which given that I do a lot of action is a distinct possibility -- but I do plan to degrade the "perfect" image pretty heavily in the final D.I. to maybe make it LOOK like I shot film. Because I agree with Spielberg -- the flaws and minor imperfections are what bring the image to life.

[mezmo]

RED is a revolution...
In it's own lunchtime
mezmo

[Nathan Garofalos]

I think the new generation of filmmakers are going to be shooting digital, its just the direction our society is going. We aren't using old mechanical methods anymore, everything is becoming electronic. Even though film seems to be quote un quote, "alive" Its going to become less and less common to see something shot on film when there are other alternatives you can use, like RED, the Genisis, and the one Arri has.

Production companies are interested in making money, when you can either shoot digitally and get the same look and feel as film, or you can spend thousands of dollars on film and get the same look for a less costly way, you are going to go with the cheaper method if you think logically.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

film = a bunch of still pictures playing back at 24 frames per second.. an illusion of captured movement
Digital = captured movement.. playing back captured movement...

film will always look better.

[Julio Quintana]

film = a bunch of still pictures playing back at 24 frames per second.. an illusion of captured movement
Digital = captured movement.. playing back captured movement...

film will always look better.

Wow, Zak. This debate really was more relevant 4 years ago.

[Mark Toia]

Steven is the most successful feature film director on the planet today... if you look at the list of hit movies he's been responsible for directing or producing... he is so far ahead of second place sitter that they can never catchup! he is the KING!

If he says film is better.. then it is. Even thought its blurry, soft and grainy and jitters in the film gate... Its just better. Its obviously all those charming old school textures and attributes that he likes. And I'm not about to argue with the King... nobody can. :))

I think its good that a couple of a the big boys stick with film... It keeps the world revolving :)

[Jake Bastian]

Why? Why would you go and dig up this nearly 5 year old thread?

[Scott Crawley]

:zombie_smiley:

Holy dead thread Batman!

[M.Halsell]

Did Steven change his mind?

[KETCH ROSSi]

TIN TIN... ;)

Oh wait, that is not the sound of a Bell... Its Spielberg's/Jackson's new DIGITAL Movie... Tintin... ;)

[Josh Beadle]

10-21-2007, 09:55 PM

This thread is so old Spielberg shot it on Super 8

Is there some kind of record for most Zombie thread? Brent we need you to shoot the undead

[KETCH ROSSi]

10-21-2007, 09:55 PM

This thread is so old Spielberg shot it on Super 8

Is there some kind of record for most Zombie thread? Brent we need you to shoot the undead

He he, was going to say something but I didn't... But fact is even Spielberg... A Die Hard Celluloid kind of guy, went Digital when the need came... ;)

[Josh Beadle]

This thread predates digital

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

He he, was going to say something but I didn't... But fact is even Spielberg... A Die Hard Celluloid kind of guy, went Digital when the need came... ;)

Apparently War Horse is being cut on Avid or has been cut on Avid and after the experience he's going back to the Moviola, it's just too fast for him apparently he wants time to walk around and think about a cut before he makes it... or something like that.

[Martin Weiss]

:zombie_smiley:

Holy dead thread Batman!

Yep.