Aintitcoolnews discussion board RED discussion

[Yash Keough]

Hey everyone,

Found this thread on www.aintitcool.com where they are discussing Peter Jackson's decision to recast Ryan Gosling's role with Mark Walberg. Some people brought up the RED camera and now there's a bunch of bashing going on...

http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_display/34515#comment_1737174

[Noah Kadner]

Now there's a bastion of tech-savvy users...

[Graeme Nattress]

I always find it amazing that people who've never built nor designed a camera, and have probably never shot professionally with one, find themselves qualified to be critics of cameras.....

Graeme

[wshultz]

Now there's a bastion of tech-savvy users...

I remember when I was oh so young and still flipping burgers. I was an expert on everything then. At least they give 'em breaks so they can express themselves online.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

It's really just the one guy, metaluna. And he thought Batman Begins was "crappy" so he's clearly on a totally different planet.

[M Most]

I always find it amazing that people who've never built nor designed a camera, and have probably never shot professionally with one, find themselves qualified to be critics of cameras.....


You mean the same way people who have never shot film find themselves qualified to be making comments about how difficult it is to shoot and finish, and how it's "dead" as an image capture technology?

I'm just sayin......

[Brook Willard]

A serious overheating problem? :) This stuff is hilarious.

[Álex Montoya]

The overheating thing has been rumored a lot in different sites and blogs, so you can't blame them.

[Darwin]

You mean the same way people who have never shot film find themselves qualified to be making comments about how difficult it is to shoot and finish, and how it's "dead" as an image capture technology?

I'm just sayin......

If you pay attention film is dying. Starting with the world of still photography! Say as you please it's a fact.

[Michael Stanmore]

Brilliant stuff... to be honest there are some harsher words aimed at Marky Mark at some stages than at the Red. :)

[Jeremy Torrie]

I cannot believe they would cast Wahlberg in place of Gosling. He was the worst part about The Departed, and Planet of The Apes had better performances from the monkeys. From what I know of the role, it requires someone to actually emote. Too bad -it had the opportunity to be a good drama.

[Anthony Gratl]

If you pay attention film is dying. Starting with the world of still photography! Say as you please it's a fact.

I say word

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, film is dying -- just like all of us are dying...

It's sort of a meaningless point to make, since film is not dead today and it won't be dead tomorrow, nor two or three years from now, and since I make movies in the here and now, not in the future, it's irrelevent whether film will be gone by the next decade. And when it's gone, I'll make movies with whatever is currently being used.

3-strip Technicolor photography was obsolete in 1955, five years after Kodak introduced monopack Eastmancolor. Does history deride those features shot on 3-strip Technicolor in the period from 1950 to 1955 because 3-strip was on its way out? Don't we cherish the movies shot in b&w? Shot in 65mm like "Lawrence of Arabia"? In the long term, there is no real "reward" for being an early adopter.

I was one of the first people to shoot a feature on the F900. So what? It's a minor historical footnote.

If you want this forum to be taken seriously, lay-off on the silly "film is dead" posts, please.

[Tinkleton]

i love you david mullen.

[Desert Rune]

Film is dead. There I said it. :tongue: (to me, anyway)

[Anthony Gratl]

Sure, film is dying -- just like all of us are dying...
It's sort of a meaningless point to make, since film is not dead today and it won't be dead tomorrow, nor two or three years from now, and since I make movies in the here and now, not in the future, it's irrelevent whether film will be gone by the next decade. And when it's gone, I'll make movies with whatever is currently being used


I guess the idea David, is that film, or rather 35mm 'film quality', is now accessible to people at a much cheaper rate than before, so the quality of the stories will now start to be that much more important, since one of the features of the notion of a high quality film, the literal image quality, is no longer the obstacle it once was. (not trying to condescend, just reiterating the point)
An industry that makes tripe will only survive as long as everyone is only watching tripe, however, once there is more to watch than tripe, and I'm sure that Red will help many storytellers who simply haven't yet had the chance push their stories to the forefront, and those stories are widely available and accessible (the internet), than the whole art and commerciality of filmmaking may well change. This is the potential possiblilty that Red offers to many filmakers of all ages, especially the young.
And with all due respect, this switch is very different from changing and evolving film stocks, since the factor of price never really changed before. It was always really bloody expensive. So this, simply, is an evolution, and as some call it, a revolution, if we the filmmakers choose to embrace it as such.


If you want this forum to be taken seriously, lay-off on the silly "film is dead" posts, please.
The occasional cheer for potential revolution will nary a forum destroy nor make look stupid. It's healthy to debate and scream once in a while. Relax and enjoy.

[David Mullen ASC]

Why does film have to die for RED to be successful? Why does the death of film have to bring any "cheer" to some people's hearts?

Film is not your enemy. It's not the gatekeeper stopping you from entering the world of moviemaking or having a success in Hollywood. You're free to shoot on the RED camera now so what difference does it make to you if someone else is free to shoot with a film camera?

Celebrate a new technology that enables you to do good work, certainly.

But don't bash an old technology used by cinematic artists that has given us over 100 years of pleasure from watching movies. If any of you listed the greatest all-time cinematic images ever made, the most stirring, inspirational, visually beautiful, whatever, the majority of them would be film images. So even if the medium is passing into history, show a little respect for the old lady.

[Andrew Kimery]

An industry that makes tripe will only survive as long as everyone is only watching tripe, however, once there is more to watch than tripe, and I'm sure that Red will help many storytellers who simply haven't yet had the chance push their stories to the forefront, and those stories are widely available and accessible (the internet), than the whole art and commerciality of filmmaking may well change. This is the potential possiblilty that Red offers to many filmakers of all ages, especially the young.
Red will increase, not reduce, the amount of tripe because the cost of entry gets lowered for everyone, not just the relatively few and far between people w/talent and skill. Will there be some diamonds in the rough out there as well? Of course, just like there are sometimes very good things buried in the mounds of crap on YouTube. The stories might be widely available and accessible, but so are everyone else's so how do you get people to find yours? There are something like 60,000 videos a day uploaded to YouTube. That's a lot of room to get lost in the shuffle.

RED is a piece to the puzzle, but it's not a magic wand. I think in a year or two (after all the initial orders have been filled for a while) it will be interesting to see how many used REDs are on the market. I don't think that pro's who know what they need, and don't need, will be putting their RED's up for sale, but I think a lot of the people whose business model was a wing and a prayer, and a RED might be rethinking their investment.


-A

[Robert Sanders]

Why does film have to die for RED to be successful? Why does the death of film have to bring any "cheer" to some people's hearts?

Well said.

[David Mullen ASC]

As for the significance of this transition from film to digital origination, it is both fundamental and yet, by its nature of trying to imitate and then replace the standard 35mm format, it is generally going by unnoticed by most people.

This is why I make the comparison between 3-strip Technicolor and monopack Eastmancolor -- very different ways of capturing color information onto film. Yet for most people, color is color.

Look at the transition from analog to digital sound in movie production -- that's a pretty fundamental difference too, yet are sound movies radically different now that all the sound work is done digitally? Do you really think about how some movie from the 1991 was recorded on a Nagra but one from 2001 was recorded on a DAT, and one today is recorded onto a hard drive?

It's what could be thought of as an "invisible" revolution, a fundamental change that is intended to go unnoticed by the moviegoing public. For the most part, the transition to digital cinematography will be similar because the cameras are getting closer and closer to the 35mm gold standard. If all movies tomorrow were only shot on consumer mini-DV, that would be a change that a lot of people would notice. But if all movies tomorrow were shot on the RED camera, I think a lot of audiences would not notice the change. So that's simultaneously significant, revolutionary, yet it's also meant to be a smooth invisible transition that moviegoers aren't supposed to notice.

Sure, the price-to-quality ratio is a major difference that RED is bringing about that separates it from its competitors. And that will have an impact on the industry in various ways.

If film is personally dead to some of you, that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with that. But as far as film in general being dead, that's premature to say the least. I personally shot over 1 million feet of the stuff last year, and I'm just one DP out of thousands. That's a lot of film being shot every day around the world.

Truth is that after a period of shooting a lot of indie features in HD, I've been shooting more film lately and less digital. I'm sure that's a factor of the budgets climbing on my shoots, but from my perspective, it's not a clear-cut case of digital stomping over film as the medium of choice among filmmakers. The transition will be slower than many of you suggest, though it will also not be steady -- there will probably be a rapid switchover in several years when a good tipping-over point is reached.

[Jay A. Kelley]

David,

I agree with you totally. I am not going to say why, because I have tried that and I get shouted down here.

I will say this: I bet film outlasts this current version of RED. That is not saying anything bad about RED, it's simply saying that I believe the digital playing field will be very different in 6 years, and I fully expect 35mm to still be here.

Knock it if you want, but a lot of people can make a lot of money in 6 years. That's what matters.

Personally I am glad 35mm is still around, or none of you would have a benchmark to compare RED to.

:)

Jay

[David Mullen ASC]

In my fantasy world, every format ever invented would be available now, and affordable (hey, I said it was a fantasy...) -- 3-strip Technicolor, 2-color Technicolor, Agfa color negative, Kodachrome, 3-camera Cinerama, Technirama...

One of my particular interests has been collecting art books on obsolete color photographic processes like Autochrome.

I also can't wait to shoot a feature on the RED camera, which is actually a reasonable ambition...

[PaulClements]

I presume all those that think film is dead won't be watching any movies shot on 35mm film in the next few years?

I also agree with David and I hate that segregations between digital and film should even exist. Red like most digital cinema cameras is based on the tried and tested appeal of film. The two co-exist and will do for some time and that's something all film makers should appreciate rather than trying to tell others one way or the other.

Modern photography chose digital because it is an immediate format suitable for an immediate application. Digital videography in EFP and ENG situations already exists for the same reasons; To deliver our news stories, make documentaries etc. Movie making is a different kettle of fish that although digital gives a whole host of options that film cannot it isn't the be all and end all.

A better statement than 'Film is dead' would be 'In Red - movie making is now more affordable and perhaps a little bit easier' - though I can see it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely. :)

Paul

[Anthony Gratl]

Okay I'm gonna make a go of this here.....this thread, seems to me, is shaping up into a nice discussion no?


Why does film have to die for RED to be successful? Why does the death of film have to bring any "cheer" to some people's hearts?

Well first off, I don't think anyone has said anything about the relationship between film and red and the relative success of either.
I haven't once cheered "the death" of film, although I will say, from an environmental perspective, the less chemicals used the better. Where does all that stuff go when it's finished being used? A million feet of film? How much emulsifier does that take to process?


Film is not your enemy. It's not the gatekeeper stopping you from entering the world of moviemaking or having a success in Hollywood.
Gotta disagree with you there. Shooting film is prohibitively expensive. It's not the only gatekeeper stopping the shooting of a good script lacking money, but I'd say it's one of the biggest.


You're free to shoot on the RED camera now so what difference does it make to you if someone else is free to shoot with a film camera?

Celebrate a new technology that enables you to do good work, certainly.

But don't bash an old technology used by cinematic artists that has given us over 100 years of pleasure from watching movies. If any of you listed the greatest all-time cinematic images ever made, the most stirring, inspirational, visually beautiful, whatever, the majority of them would be film images. So even if the medium is passing into history, show a little respect for the old lady.

I don't believe I nor anyone else ever said it was the enemy, nor did I say anything about someone else shooting with a film camera, although, as stated, chemicals are no good (for our kids, the earth, animals, fish)
So I'm not sure what your point is....also I haven't bashed an old technology, nor afforded her any less respect, but it's interesting that you acknowledge that the medium is passing into history. I do understand and share your sentiment.


Red will increase, not reduce, the amount of tripe because the cost of entry gets lowered for everyone, not just the relatively few and far between people w/talent and skill. Will there be some diamonds in the rough out there as well? The stories might be widely available and accessible, but so are everyone else's so how do you get people to find yours?
RED is a piece to the puzzle, but it's not a magic wand.
-A

Your absolutely right. It will increase the amount of tripe. I'm hopeful that there will be proportionally less tripe :biggrin:
Puzzle: No, not a wand. But perhaps a wizard's robe? I dunno that's kinda weak though huh? This could be LOTR Episode 4, The Red Wizard Army...
How do you get people to find your amazing film in the clutter? I could tell you, but I'm saving it for my brilliant filmmaking exploits...:w00t:


As for the significance of this transition from film to digital origination, it is both fundamental and yet, by its nature of trying to imitate and then replace the standard 35mm format, it is generally going by unnoticed by most people.....sure, the price-to-quality ratio is a major difference that RED is bringing about that separates it from its competitors. And that will have an impact on the industry in various ways.
...The transition will be slower than many of you suggest, though it will also not be steady -- there will probably be a rapid switchover in several years when a good tipping-over point is reached.

Agreed. Like global warming, there will be a tipping point for sure.
On the idea of the average person noticing, I guess that's the point right? If Red footage can be blended with the standard of 35mm without the average person pointing with outrage, then a major hurdle has been overcome, and that will hopefully push the better stories forward.


I also agree with David and I hate that segregations between digital and film should even exist. Red like most digital cinema cameras is based on the tried and tested appeal of film. The two co-exist and will do for some time and that's something all film makers should appreciate rather than trying to tell others one way or the other.
Paul, that's a bit ham-handed...up till now with the appearance of Red, the reality of cost (even for digital) has certainly caused most of that "segregation". So that wasn't by choice that most people couldn't shoot the beautiful renderings of their friends and genius scripts.

And I don't think that filmmakers are telling each other which way it's at though, although, if I haven't beaten the drum enough, from an environmental perspective, seems to me that film is far more destructive than digital imaging, regardless of how pretty the images are.



Modern photography chose digital because it is an immediate format suitable for an immediate application. Digital videography in EFP and ENG situations already exists for the same reasons; To deliver our news stories, make documentaries etc.
Actually, having worked in both of those worlds, I don't think that documentaries and news stories live in the same realm at all. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.
Can't really speak to the photography side of things, although I've shot thousands of frames of films for use when shooting footage. Definitely like the immediacy of digital far more.
If you've seen any of Ed Burtynsky's work ( www.edwardburtynsky.com ) he still shoots his pictures with the first camera he ever used, a mamiya 4 x 4 (or whatever his particular model is called) My point on this is that a photographer can keep their costs down irrespective of the format they choose, which unfortunately hadn't previously existed as an option in filmmaking. ViVa ReD for that reason alone. I think we all agree on this. I don't think many on this board were considering rushing out to purchase a viper, a dalsa, or an f23 last I checked. But I'm rambling on like a drunken filmmaker here..so let's keep on truckin'



Movie making is a different kettle of fish that although digital gives a whole host of options that film cannot it isn't the be all and end all.

That wasn't the point of my comment on the post about 'film is dead'. My comment was the notion that for a whole group of people, it is the end all and be all, because it opens the door for them to go in (and potentially fall on their faces in glorious-precisely-sharpened-yet-somehow-out-of-focus-on-every-grimace 4K, but hey, you'll never know unless you try, and most couldn't try with film). So Red is the catalyst of what many have wanted for a long time. But I see you agree below...



A better statement than 'Film is dead' would be 'In Red - movie making is now more affordable and perhaps a little bit easier' - though I can see it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely. :)

Paul

It's not even that it's 'more affordable', insofar as it's WAY more affordable.

Consider this though: Red's true power lies in the idea that it has the very serious potential to fundamentally challenge people and change how we will see ourselves as people on this planet within ten years.
And dammit David, that's a reason to cheer.

So cheers :biggrin:

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not like there were no affordable digital alternatives to 35mm film before the RED camera showed up, it's just that they didn't look as good as the RED camera, and the best digital alternatives were certainly more expensive than RED.

But the notion that you could not make your movie if you couldn't afford 35mm film, but now with RED you can, is a false argument. There have been many low-budget independent features shot not only on 35mm, but also Super-16, HD, and DV. And some were even successful, both financially and critically. RED represents a leap forward in quality compared to cost, but it's not like you had no way to make a movie if you couldn't afford 35mm film.

A director friend of mine just recently made a tiny-budgeted feature called "The Itty Bitty Titty Committee" in Super-16 and Super-8, which has a limited release in some theaters right now. She didn't wait for the RED camera to be invented before she went out and made her feature, and a nice 4K digital image would have been completely wrong for the sort of punk rock aesthetic that her movie needed. And her feature before that, which I shot, was done in HD on the F900 ("The Quiet"). My point is that there have been alternatives to 35mm for filmmakers for quite some time. I know someone in Ohio who made two features in 16mm for about $15,000 apiece.

[Gunleik Groven]

If film is done, we'll have to stop seeing movies at theatres here in Norway -;)

I watched a Red vs 35mm demo in Norway on Monday. My first.
And the comparison testst may have been slightly biased towards 35mm, in that they had struggled with the workflow while they were comfortable with the 35mm path. I suspect/hope that some of the problems we saw with the Red images was due to RedCine not being out, lack of "development" of the RAW files and tests where Red and 35mm was exposed like 35mm and not exposed individually to get the best of both.
4k is mindblowing... -;)
Red is cool.

That said, as a master format - Film is and won't be dead for a long time.

And why should it and who cares?

One reason to choose one format over another is aestethics.
VHS or 8mm might be the right tools for some jobs, like 70mm may be for others...

The other is pure practicality.

For me, with a small organisation, digital is the logical way to go, and with Red - even more so.

For a big organisation - i think the verdict is, and will be out for a while. I figure Red will be just another toolset. (eg a good way to get directly from shoot to the VFX department)

I am thoroughly amazed by the Red, its images and its development, and I think its impact will be tremendous, but in another way than killing film...

In two years from now, I predict it will be a bigger disadvantage for small shops NOT to have Red or similar at your disposal, than it is an advantage to have it. Much like what happened in the audio-industry in the 90's.

And that is actually kind'a good.
Because then the guys in the know will get gigs - as they always do, and the others won't.

I think on the long-term the workflow and codec concepts of Red will have a much bigger impact than the camera itself, and fun thing is:
These are the two sides of the camera people are currently struggeling with...

1st it is "in development"
2nd Neither film, nor video people are familiar with the RAW and/or compressed image concepts.

This leads to massive suspicion and major workflow hickups...

At said screening, we could only watch something like 4 minutes of the 4k material, simply because they didn't have machinery to render out the 4k dpxs fast enough (and we're talking days here and in Norwegian context - high end post houses...)

The wavelet compression (or similar - codec-theory isn't my piece of meat) has to extend to the deliveryformats for the impact of 2k/4k imagery to have something close to the impact the "film is dead" dudes predict.

loading uncompressed files onto a 4k projector is such a time-consuming task that switching a roll of films seems like... well... err... nothing, really -;)

AND it is extremely expensive AND actually the 4k projector went down 3 times in an hour...

Thus:
Not really there yet.

So.

1. Film is not dead
2. Red Rocks
3. Workflow after capture are currently similar for 35mm and Red
4. Practical (I'm not talking possible) screening is still 35mm
5. The rest of the equation (from post to screen) must be solved before film is even having a bad day at the dentist.

Me thinks -;)
that the Red guys may have a good thing if they would work with Cineform (Ican't really believe I'm saying this!) as they have working workflows beyond capture and apparently some kind of screening solution, while working with similar concepts.

I understand why Red won't let others into the image-capture-encoding side of things, and why they want to keep controll over the development stage of the workflow. But to give the revolution real impact, the post-post workflow has to be adressed (and I am pretty certain it is, I'm just curious about how this pans out)

For digital screening to work well, we need good, but compressed solutions for the "final prints".
DPX/IFF DCT looks great, but is so far just a huge practical and economical argument for films prolonged life in the film-industry.

But as I said, I don't really mind... -;)


Gunleik

[Jannard]

The RED ONE was intended to be an alternative to shooting film (a very good alternative) that:

1. Has a full frame 35mm size sensor.
2. Uses 35mm PL mount lenses and accessories.
3. Is affordable.
4. Footage can be shot, processed, graded and output by one person at home.
4. Footage can be shot, processed, graded and output by a trained professional army to produce a studio quality feature film.
5. Can be upgraded to stay current in a rapidly changing electronics environment.
6. Is light enough to hand-hold yet versatile enough to fit into any existing studio configuration and be used with all other professional gear.

Jim

[Gunleik Groven]

And that sums it up pretty nicely!

Cheers
And take care in the fire!

Gunleik

[PaulClements]

from an environmental perspective, the less chemicals used the better. Where does all that stuff go when it's finished being used? A million feet of film? How much emulsifier does that take to process?

Unfortunately the effect on the environment for all movies over an entire year is probably equal to about 10 minutes of an industrial plant or an entire highway full of cars. Whilst we can argue the virtues of cutting down every step of the way it's not a point I would use when discussing artistic virtues persay. Ok so it's a plus I'll give you that much. But you can compensate for using film by planting a few trees to offset your carbon footprint if it's that big a concern.


Paul, that's a bit ham-handed...up till now with the appearance of Red, the reality of cost (even for digital) has certainly caused most of that "segregation". So that wasn't by choice that most people couldn't shoot the beautiful renderings of their friends and genius scripts.

And I don't think that filmmakers are telling each other which way it's at though, although, if I haven't beaten the drum enough, from an environmental perspective, seems to me that film is far more destructive than digital imaging, regardless of how pretty the images are.

I don't think my comments are as ham-handed as the statement 'Film is dead'. There are many film makers put off by digital because they are looked upon as dinosaurs for not embracing it with their entirity by digital adopters. Like-wise many of those embracing RedOne are looked upon by film users as individuals who know little about the reality of making a movie. It's not everyone of course but if you read any number of cinematography or camera related forums you'll be able to pick out the types from both sides of the coin relatively quickly. Either way of looking at it is something everyone here on RedUser should actively try to distinguish and comments such as Film is dead does little to do so.

Of course using Red makes incredible financial and artistic sense for individuals such as yourself and myself. The point that film is not dead, however, relates to the fact that there is an entire industry that embraces 35mm film and will continue too for a while yet. The comment itself is nothing short of insulting to those who still work with film, given that it is derogatory towards their chosen format.

Paul

[Graeme Nattress]

It's not the digital cameras that will herald the "death" of film - but digital projection and distribution as it's the mass amounts of film needed for distribution that keep those film making plants in operation. That's my thought on it anyway.

And film won't die - it will just be used by people who like it's specific properties and can afford to indulge themselves, just as I continue to listen to music on thermionic valve technology, which is significantly more expensive than a similarly powerful transistorized amplifier.

Graeme

[Anthony Gratl]

Unfortunately the effect on the environment for all movies over an entire year is probably equal to about 10 minutes of an industrial plant or an entire highway full of cars. Whilst we can argue the virtues of cutting down every step of the way it's not a point I would use when discussing artistic virtues persay. Ok so it's a plus I'll give you that much. But you can compensate for using film by planting a few trees to offset your carbon footprint if it's that big a concern.

Actually, the carbon footprint from Hollywood filmmaking alone, never mind the independants, is one of the largest in the state of california, which by itself has the 7th largest economy in the world. So it has a HUGE impact. With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about.
Artistic virtue? How about the notion that if we don't start cutting down our footprint every step of the way there will be no artistic virtue left to discuss?
Here's a study released today.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/24/extinctions-temperatures.html

also, here's the website for the union of concerned scientists...
http://www.ucsusa.org/

Planting a few trees? As in 30 or 40 billion as a minimum? Environmental problems are far greater than planting a few trees. But I'm thinking you're just kidding right?



There are many film makers put off by digital because they are looked upon as dinosaurs for not embracing it with their entirity by digital adopters. Like-wise many of those embracing RedOne are looked upon by film users as individuals who know little about the reality of making a movie.
These generalities you've written are just that, and do nothing other than to contribute to the idea that there is this vast gulf between those who shoot film and those who don't. Kinda like the notion of "the war on terror". We're gonna find those WMD's somewhere....more like Weapons of Mass Distraction, as Matthew Fraser put it in his book.
Most filmmakers I talk with, including many who shoot on film, are eager to exchange thoughts and ideas on all mediums of filmmaking.



It's not everyone of course but if you read any number of cinematography or camera related forums you'll be able to pick out the types from both sides of the coin relatively quickly. Either way of looking at it is something everyone here on RedUser should actively try to distinguish and comments such as Film is dead does little to do so.

Sorry man, I think what you've written here is again, stereotyping, and I'm not sure what the point of the second sentence is.



Of course using Red makes incredible financial and artistic sense for individuals such as yourself and myself.
Absolutely. I guess I also see it as a way forward for both of us, and everyone else in the industry, to lessen our footprints as well. Which in my mind is actually incredibly important.



The point that film is not dead, however, relates to the fact that there is an entire industry that embraces 35mm film and will continue too for a while yet.
Yup. An incredibly wasteful and polluting industry at that. Given us pretty images and lots of nostalgia, but I'm not a freakin' magpie, engrossed in the shiny objects all day long. Well, except for Reduser.net maybe :huh:




The comment itself is nothing short of insulting to those who still work with film, given that it is derogatory towards their chosen format.

This is sooooo melodramatic.....as if people shooting film give a shit about what others are saying, or that the people saying "film is dead" are directing it at the people shooting film, like it's a war.
The only war is by humans, on the environment and each other, and any discussion that I choose to be a part of, from a filmmaking perspective, should include the idea that we shouldn't poison the ground we walk on, as this earth sustains our existence, and more importantly, that of our great-great-great-great grandchildren.

Let's start trying to build a sustainable future.
So with that in mind, I say peace.

[krd]

Shooting film is prohibitively expensive. It's not the only gatekeeper stopping the shooting of a good script lacking money, but I'd say it's one of the biggest.

The commercial prospects of a low-budget, non-Hollywood movie, one without celebrities, has little or nothing to do with its production value, or the format on which its shot. This is either bad or welcome news, depending on your interests in the medium. But it's a demonstrable fact. You need only look at the indie market over the last 10-15 years to see the proof of it.

If the cost of 35mm was the main obstacle to stellar filmmaking, there would be thousands of masterpieces on 16mm, DV, hi8. VHS and pixelvision. Not everyone considers sub-35mm formats beneath his talents.

The trouble here is, if you don't have the money for 16mm or 35mm, you won't have the money for skilled crew, for production design, lighting, casting, etc., either. You may own a great camera, but what are you going to do with it without production funds which can far exceed the cost of film?

Red will be of highest use to filmmakers who had the resources to shoot film, and to shoot it well, but who chose Red instead. It's unlikely to do much for the impoverished filmmaker, other than give him more lines of unsaleable resolution.

[Graeme Nattress]

Other artistic audio/visual works can have much lower budgets than narrative drama and could certainly benefit from the image quality that RED offers and reduce their budgets.

Graeme

[Chris Pickle]

I have been trying to get a film off the ground for the past 18 months. It has been a "go" picture with a 7 figure budget on 2 occasions. I have pitched and pitched and pitched. Not once, not ever, has anyone asked what format I planned to shoot on. The only questions ever: How good is the script? Who's in it? Even at 2 million, the line item for the shooting format becomes somewhat irrelavant.

If possible, I really want to shoot Red, but most producers could care less when I mention it. I tell them we could save 50 k, maybe 100k. Their first concern? Risk! And they know that if we save 50k it will end up being consumed by the other line items. They know better then to think we could march the 50k directly over to something important. Line items are like a pack of wolves. You throw a bit of meat to keep them content until the next crisis.

Now I could run and gun with 200k from my dear old aunt, but I've lived the indie route before. When you have to pay your own FedEx bills, your mortgage starts to look small. And really, how do I look a friend or relative in the eye and tell them that my indie film with no stars is going to make them rich. Even indie films that win awards have trouble getting sold.

Now I'm going to go out a limb here, and I'm sure I will get hung out. I think the high cost of filmmaking is somewhat of a filter against the crap. I know "Hollywood" still makes crap, but the indie world certainly isin't a bastion of greatness. My first indie film was part experimental, part wanking off. The years since allow me to be more realistic about my own personal efforts. I'm still proud, but again, I'm more realistic.

For every "Primer", "Open Water", "El Mariachi", I'm sure there are many films that maybe are not so inspiring. (ironically, the past metioned films shot on formats with substantially less resolution than Red)

Where I think the Red will rock, at least in terms of being cheaper to shoot than film, is run and gun with my friends for essentially zero budget. We can all work together and have something we can be proud of. It may not get a theatrical release or make any money, but hopefully it will lead to more oppourtunity. (that includes someone else paying my FedEx bills)

I know this board also appeals to DOPs and not just writers, directors, or producers, so I understand the very helpful discussions on the tech aspects of the camera. It's a great place! But most of the time when I'm trying to get my project off the ground, I don't wish I had a Red, I wish I had written a better script. :)

Just my 2 cents.

Chris

[krd]

Other artistic audio/visual works can have much lower budgets than narrative drama and could certainly benefit from the image quality that RED offers and reduce their budgets.

Graeme

Agreed. And documentaries in particular could pick up enormous additional production value with Red , at a relatively small additional cost.

But in the feature market....

[Anthony Gratl]

If the cost of 35mm was the main obstacle to stellar filmmaking, there would be thousands of masterpieces on 16mm, DV, hi8. VHS and pixelvision. Not everyone considers sub-35mm formats beneath his talents.
Well, there are a few. The Dogme series out of Denmark comes to mind, beginning with "The Celebration". Myself, I certainly don't have issues with sub35mm formats as being beneath me, if it's to me that you are refering.


The trouble here is, if you don't have the money for 16mm or 35mm, you won't have the money for skilled crew, for production design, lighting, casting, etc., either. You may own a great camera, but what are you going to do with it without production funds which can far exceed the cost of film?
No I don't believe that this statement is correct. Skilled crew and cast can be swayed with excellent script and organizational abilities, with a touch of charm, as it's mostly labour that is involved, this in conjunction with finding peoples downtime. It'll also be much easier to get people on board once you tell them that you're shooting on Red, and can then do a light test shoot and have a screening party at someone's house to convince everyone that it's going to be amazing.
Asking companies to supply, and/or develop, and then one-light stock at their cost is another thing entirely, as it costs them money to help you. Big difference.


Red will be of highest use to filmmakers who had the resources to shoot film, and to shoot it well, but who chose Red instead. It's unlikely to do much for the impoverished filmmaker, other than give him more lines of unsaleable resolution.
Sorry I think this statement is just wrong. Someone like myself, who can get a red camera and then cut at home, will benefit greatly from this, and I'm not a starving film student or a newbie to the business either. I just know the ways (to some degree) how the bullshit walks in this industry, and to be able to circumvent that and just go out and shoot at the same image quality as 35 is incredible. Then it's about my story, not the fact I shot it on an HVX with lens adaptors. And I'm not saying that there isn't a place for that at all.

[Anthony Gratl]

I have been trying to get a film off the ground for the past 18 months. It has been a "go" picture with a 7 figure budget on 2 occasions. I have pitched and pitched and pitched. Not once, not ever, has anyone asked what format I planned to shoot on. The only questions ever: How good is the script? Who's in it? Even at 2 million, the line item for the shooting format becomes somewhat irrelavant.
I've been there. I guess that's why I'm excited about this camera. I'm sick of pitching what I perceive to be good ideas that immediately get dumbed down to saleability only.


If possible, I really want to shoot Red, but most producers could care less when I mention it. I tell them we could save 50 k, maybe 100k. Their first concern? Risk! And they know that if we save 50k it will end up being consumed by the other line items. They know better then to think we could march the 50k directly over to something important. Line items are like a pack of wolves. You throw a bit of meat to keep them content until the next crisis.
Well look, although I don't agree with your savings figures, you've got a point. But what you've described is the old way of doing things. And frankly, if you believe strongly in your script, then you ought to take a chance. And Red gives you that opportunity. That's all I'm sayin' yo.


Now I could run and gun with 200k from my dear old aunt, but I've lived the indie route before. When you have to pay your own FedEx bills, your mortgage starts to look small. .
I hear the mortgage part, although mine seems to be looking bigger as I consider Red. But that's the chance you take, well, I take.


And really, how do I look a friend or relative in the eye and tell them that my indie film with no stars is going to make them rich. Even indie films that win awards have trouble getting sold
You don't. You look them in the eye and tell them they're going to be part of something wonderful. And you don't hit them up for their life savings either. You give them an experience they'll remember forever (part of the life experience thing is about memory), they get invited to the premiere, you buy some drinks for everyone, and you plot the next one.


Now I'm going to go out a limb here, and I'm sure I will get hung out. I think the high cost of filmmaking is somewhat of a filter against the crap. I know "Hollywood" still makes crap, but the indie world certainly isin't a bastion of greatness.
This is a long sidebar conversation. In a nutshell, I think Hollywood manufactures trends on the street, and tries to convey an american ethos of sorts, and often fails. That being said, no doubt the indie world has got tons of crap. Proportionally, I'm not sure who has the larger crap truck.
:w00t: (god I love that woot, and I usually despise emoticons)



My first indie film was part experimental, part wanking off. The years since allow me to be more realistic about my own personal efforts. I'm still proud, but again, I'm more realistic.
Most first films are supposed to be that. It sounds to me as though you're the perfect candidate to shoot a few test scenes for your feature using Red. You've got a sober approach to the process anyways.



For every "Primer", "Open Water", "El Mariachi", I'm sure there are many films that maybe are not so inspiring. (ironically, the past metioned films shot on formats with substantially less resolution than Red) Where I think the Red will rock, at least in terms of being cheaper to shoot than film, is run and gun with my friends for essentially zero budget. We can all work together and have something we can be proud of. It may not get a theatrical release or make any money, but hopefully it will lead to more oppourtunity. But most of the time when I'm trying to get my project off the ground, I don't wish I had a Red, I wish I had written a better script. :)

Just my 2 cents.

Chris
So get on with it Bro. Make that Knockout Film with your friends. That's what we're going to do here, although some of my friends don't know it yet. But I'll meet you on the other side of it for sure!

[Darwin]

Never mind

[Rocco Schult]

Darwin, how's that meant ?
Was it supposed to be funny ?

I find so much value in all, ok, most of the posts here, especially in this thread, and you can clearly see the different motivations and emotions. And while having different expectations, experiences and optimism, I see it mostly encouraging, like in the last post from Evolve.
In which relation is your post then ? Is it the superfluous relation ?

[Zk2007]

If you pay attention film is dying. Starting with the world of still photography! Say as you please it's a fact.

Yes, film is surely dying, and always was, for those who can't afford it.
This is the only fact.

[Mark L. Pederson]

If possible, I really want to shoot Red, but most producers could care less when I mention it. I tell them we could save 50 k, maybe 100k. Their first concern? Risk! And they know that if we save 50k it will end up being consumed by the other line items. They know better then to think we could march the 50k directly over to something important. Line items are like a pack of wolves. You throw a bit of meat to keep them content until the next crisis.

Chris -
I am a producer, and I was a production manager and line producer for over 10 years on indie features - so, Line Items of a budget are something I understand very, very well - while there is a lot of truth in your statement - I would not pitch "I can save you $50K to $100K" - because the ADDED VALUE of everything RED effects and offers the project, it worth MUCH more than that.

Shooting RED vs. another format, IMHO is about IMAGE QUALITY, speed and cost of workflow and MANY other advantages.

As far as RISK - it's always there. Every time you take 35mm to the wet lab, there is risk. Obviously, as Red develops - there will be "less" risk - but I feel TOTALLY comfortable shooting a high profile feature film on Red TODAY. In fact, I will never shoot another film on .... film.

[Darwin]

Darwin, how's that meant ?
Was it supposed to be funny ?

I find so much value in all, ok, most of the posts here, especially in this thread, and you can clearly see the different motivations and emotions. And while having different expectations, experiences and optimism, I see it mostly encouraging, like in the last post from Evolve.
In which relation is your post then ? Is it the superfluous relation ?

What does "never mind" mean?.....I'll tell ya..It means I originally made a long post then edited down to nothing! Don't read any more into it then that. It means absolutely nothing!

[Darwin]

Yes, film is surely dying, and always was, for those who can't afford it.
This is the only fact.

LOL If you think that is the only fact in play here..You can go walk with the blind man. Let me be clear here..When I said "If you pay attention film is dying. Starting with the world of still photography! Say as you please it's a fact"...I did not say Film is dead! Lets look at still photography...little more then 10 years ago professional still Photographers scoffed at the idea of using a digital camera , and if you did, no one would take your work seriously, blah-blah-blah..It's the same old song and dance, it's even the same tune. Now it's a common place among professionals, and film is now becomming the odd man out! Now lets talk motion picture and why film is far from dead. Is it because the image quality is so much better on film? If it is, it won't last! There are a couple of reasons why film will be around for a long time.
(1) A massive infrastructure and distribution network. A parallel comparison can be made with the automobile industry and it's relations with the big oil companies. Infrastructure is just one of many reasons why we don't see more electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
(2) The bigger the conglomerate, the slower it is to change... And greater the resistants is to the changes! The good news is, All must evolve or die! I can't sum it all up in a neat little package, but that is some of the reasons why film is far from dead...Now if RED gets them 4k projectors made, and they make it into alot of theaters that's another key to making the revolution complete.
This notion floating around that film is just another artistic medium to choose from is for most, a load of horse shit! Economic reality sets in and you shoot what ever you can afford to shoot on, 16mm, 8mm, DVX, HVX200 and so on. Is it because you could care less about the production value, and that is why you don't shoot 35mm film? Along comes RED a real alternative to film, and affordable one at that.Then all the sudden attitudes change. Digital is now encroaching on film. Some of the old school film guys are not taking it well

[M Most]

This notion floating around that film is just another artistic medium to choose from is for most, a load of horse shit! Economic reality sets in and you shoot what ever you can afford to shoot on, 16mm, 8mm, DVX, HVX200 and so on. Is it because you could care less about the production value, and that is why you don't shoot 35mm film? Along comes RED a real alternative to film, and affordable one at that.Then all the sudden attitudes change. Digital is now encroaching on film. Some of the old school film guys are not taking it well

It's not horseshit to a lot of people other than you. The fact is that on any studio picture, the final archival element for the foreseeable future is going to be film regardless of the original production medium. And that will be the case until someone can come along with some sort of long term storage solution for digital media that even comes remotely close in terms of permanence, flexibility, and resistance to technological changes. Regardless of what's said here, to most professional cameramen and crews, it's no easier or more difficult to shoot with a digital format than it is to shoot film. So if that's the case, and the project has a reasonable budget, there is no reason to shoot either one other than the particular needs of the project and the aesthetic choices of the creative team. Unless, of course, your choices are dictated primarily by zealotry.

One man's horseshit is another man's creative food.

[Simon Blackledge]

is that where the saying eat sh$T comes from ? :-/ :clown2:

joke!.. just in case anyone takes offence..

[Darwin]

It's not horseshit to a lot of people other than you. The fact is that on any studio picture, the final archival element for the foreseeable future is going to be film regardless of the original production medium. And that will be the case until someone can come along with some sort of long term storage solution for digital media that even comes remotely close in terms of permanence, flexibility, and resistance to technological changes.I guess you only read part of the post. That's part of the infrastructure.

. Regardless of what's said here, to most professional cameramen and crews, it's no easier or more difficult to shoot with a digital format than it is to shoot film. So if that's the case, and the project has a reasonable budget, there is no reason to shoot either one other than the particular needs of the project and the aesthetic choices of the creative team. Unless, of course, your choices are dictated primarily by zealotry.

One man's horseshit is another man's creative food.Again read my post. The point was You shoot on what ever you can afford to shoot on! and if you can't afford to shoot 35mm film.....Then what is the choice? Keep it in context. The reason More don't shoot digital in the professional world is in part is because digital has till only recently become a real option...I mean look if my choice was 35mm film or the f900 ...well I'll take film. Production studios are the ones that have the real choice! Not most of us!

[Joe Carney]

Just adding my sometimes worthless .02 here.
We should understand the difference between independent and low budget.
Most low budget movies outside the studio system are just trying to be studio movies. Same motivation, same "safe" story telling, maybe with a few twists, but the outcome always the same, usually 1 of 3 possibles....

I actually prefer Ray Carneys' (controversial) definition of truly independent vs low budget hollywood wannabes. I don't pretend to be an artist, or avant garde, just an entertainer. But I do appreciate the difference.

I firmly believe that RED will be an in demand tool for those wanting to make truly "Independent" features. No longer being relegated to dv/hdv because of lack of funds. (Jon Jost among others..).

[Darwin]

Zeke,
some good points, and I do agree with you. Oh by the way, Zeke if you are an entertainer you are an artist...don't let anyone tell you different.

[Zk2007]

LOL If you think that is the only fact in play here..You can go walk with the blind man. Let me be clear here..When I said "If you pay attention film is dying. Starting with the world of still photography! Say as you please it's a fact"...I did not say Film is dead! Lets look at still photography...little more then 10 years ago professional still Photographers scoffed at the idea of using a digital camera , and if you did, no one would take your work seriously, blah-blah-blah..It's the same old song and dance, it's even the same tune. Now it's a common place among professionals, and film is now becomming the odd man out! Now lets talk motion picture and why film is far from dead. Is it because the image quality is so much better on film? If it is, it won't last! There are a couple of reasons why film will be around for a long time.
(1) A massive infrastructure and distribution network. A parallel comparison can be made with the automobile industry and it's relations with the big oil companies. Infrastructure is just one of many reasons why we don't see more electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
(2) The bigger the conglomerate, the slower it is to change... And greater the resistants is to the changes! The good news is, All must evolve or die! I can't sum it all up in a neat little package, but that is some of the reasons why film is far from dead...Now if RED gets them 4k projectors made, and they make it into alot of theaters that's another key to making the revolution complete.
This notion floating around that film is just another artistic medium to choose from is for most, a load of horse shit! Economic reality sets in and you shoot what ever you can afford to shoot on, 16mm, 8mm, DVX, HVX200 and so on. Is it because you could care less about the production value, and that is why you don't shoot 35mm film? Along comes RED a real alternative to film, and affordable one at that.Then all the sudden attitudes change. Digital is now encroaching on film. Some of the old school film guys are not taking it well

Depends on what you call professional still photographers and what end of the professional spectrum you are referring. Digital has not replaced medium format still photography yet. Now if you are talking about the guy who has a shop and takes 4x3 and 5x7 pictures for documents or wedding "photographers", then yes. But that's far from the whole market and that is the rock bottom end of low end.
About reasons film is far from dead, I can think of many more reasons than just the two you gave above, but this is a digital forum, so I will just leave at that.

[David Mullen ASC]

I guess you only read part of the post. That's part of the infrastructure.
Again read my post. The point was You shoot on what ever you can afford to shoot on! and if you can't afford to shoot 35mm film.....Then what is the choice? Keep it in context. The reason More don't shoot digital in the professional world is in part is because digital has till only recently become a real option...I mean look if my choice was 35mm film or the f900 ...well I'll take film. Production studios are the ones that have the real choice! Not most of us!

I think you're oversimplifying. Obviously if you can afford something, you can't afford it... but there are people who make lemonade when handed lemons (budget-wise) and still make decisions based not only on budget but also on the creative needs of the script. For example, let's say you can't afford 35mm but can afford Super-16 or HD. I get that question all the time -- which to choose? Well, both impart a certain look and therefore it depends on your particular project which you choose. Some directors like the HD look (see "Crank" for example) and some like the Super-16 look (see "28 Weeks Later" for example).

There is a realm in the low-budget world where there is some wiggle-room as to what format you choose, depending on how much of the overall budget you want to shift in a certain direction. I was just reading a post about a $150,000 feature shot in Super-35 on b&w negative, for example.

Sure, I admit that 35mm is the standard out there, so the most popular digital alternative will be the one that matches that look like being cheaper than 35mm, hence the excitement regarding the RED camera. But there is always a percentage of filmmakers that opt for non-standard looks using alternative formats chosen not just for budgetary reasons.

Look at "Speed Racer" which opted to shoot on the Sony F23 because it didn't have 35mm-type depth of field, because they want the deeper-focus look that 2/3" sensors allow. Obviously they have to budget to shoot in 35mm, or on the Genesis.

But even with someone with only $200,000 on which to make a feature has some choices to make regarding format, some flexibility that may even include 35mm as an option. I've shot a 35mm feature myself that had a $100,000 budget. So when you say "you shoot on what you can afford to shoot on!" what happens when you can afford to shoot three or four different formats? It's not like your choices have always been between only two.

Now when your budget is only $50,000, probably 35mm is not an option, but Super-16 or HD is, so you can choose between them based on creative reasons.

And of course, now there is the RED...

[Darwin]

David,
In a lot of ways we don't disagree. I don't hate film and don't think It's the enemy of all things good! however I think digital will slowly become dominant over time.

[David Mullen ASC]

however I think digital will slowly become dominant over time.

I think that's inevitable too; I think most of us are just disagreeing about how fast it will happen.

[Darwin]

Time to move on