Any Big Time Director's Buying RED? [Archive]

Ruairi Robinson

01-02-2007, 09:33 AM

Most traditional "big time" directors don't own cameras nor are they really knowledgable about them, you'd even be hard pressed to find one that has even operated one in a long time.

There are exceptions like Robert Rodriguez or others that actually own a full production company with gear like Peter Jackson but they're the exception and not the majority.

There is a much better chance of a Cinematographer/DP owning one.

This is different though, With film you have to deal with stock, development and telecine costs on top of the camera and lenses, so there was never any point in directors owning one outright, because you couldn't just shoot and plug shots straight into the editing timeline. I think with this camera, you just might find this situation could change at least for some people... Because in the not too distant future you will be able to skip a whole lot of costs, favours, bureaucracy and all sorts of grief that can impact image quality.

It changes EVERYTHING.

Ben Feuer

01-02-2007, 09:37 AM

There's some truth in that - but I think most directors will still have their hands full taking care of everything a director is supposed to do without trying to do the DP's job for him.

Jason Francois

01-02-2007, 09:42 AM

I for one, am a director-type that continues to have an interest in cinematography. I don't really ever plan to hire myself out as a DP nor will I ever shoot my own features, but I want to learn more about the craft.

For me RED represents a way for me to learn and add a bit of "serious hobby" to my love for filmmaking. I also believe that in order to be the best director it doesn't hurt to know as much about what everybody else is doing, even if you will never do their jobs. Usually in business the best CEO's are the ones that have worked their way up the ranks learning as much as they can as they go.

I think there are at least a few directors out their buying this camera and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I guess that really doesn't address the BIGTIME DIRECTOR issue unless it counts in my own mind. :)

Jason Francois

01-02-2007, 09:44 AM

There's some truth in that - but I think most directors will still have their hands full taking care of everything a director is supposed to do without trying to do the DP's job for him.

well said. I still show up on set and pretend like I've never touched the camera, so that nobody will ask me to deal with something I shouldn't be doing. :)

Ruairi Robinson

01-02-2007, 09:44 AM

There's some truth in that - but I think most directors will still have their hands full taking care of everything a director is supposed to do without trying to do the DP's job for him.

It's not JUST owning the camera though - you can still have a DP to light and operate and all that stuff and careers aren't threatened. It's owning the file management system that gives you complete control of all the footage that you shoot, from shoot to edit all the way to making a finished film print.

And it means if you need, umm... one a shot of the sun through trees or something, and you are in the editing room long after the DP has gone onto another job, and this one shot will make all the difference, you can grab that one shot without having to invoke a whole massive chain of cost and labour that's typically involved in shooting ANYTHING on film, and to a certain extent, cut out the fat.

Steve Gibby

01-02-2007, 10:20 AM

The compartmentalized staff and crew situation of features and certain other higher budget cine-style productions (especially union projects), may hold true for a certain percentage of projects using RED One, but there will be a vast number if indie projects, smaller productions, and small to mid-sized EFP productions where project staff performs multiple functions. The old "I'm the producer, you're the director, you're the DP" structure simply does not apply for those genres and sizes of productions.

I'm a good case in point. I do no union work. Over a 30-year career I've developed the experience and skills to function as an Executive Producer, Producer, Director, Scriptwriter, Editor, DP, Cinematographer, Videographer, Photographer, and Production Assistant at the national and international production level. On some smaller, but nationally airing productions, I function as all or most of those job titles on the same production. On larger contract projects, I may function as only one of those job titles. I regularly win national awards (Emmy, etc.) for work in most of those job titles.

RED One is will be a flexible and versatile tool that will be warmly embraced by motion media professionals who are also versatile and flexible - and yes, many of them will be a highly-experienced combination of director, DP, cinematographer, and videographer. A versatile tool designed for versatile workers to use in a versatile manner.

Thomas Mathai

01-02-2007, 10:23 AM

It's not JUST owning the camera though - you can still have a DP to light and operate and all that stuff and careers aren't threatened. It's owning the file management system that gives you complete control of all the footage that you shoot, from shoot to edit all the way to making a finished film print.

And it means if you need, umm... one a shot of the sun through trees or something, and you are in the editing room long after the DP has gone onto another job, and this one shot will make all the difference, you can grab that one shot without having to invoke a whole massive chain of cost and labour that's typically involved in shooting ANYTHING on film, and to a certain extent, cut out the fat.

It's assuming the director enjoys being that hands on and/or doesn't have the resources available to have it done for him/her.

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 01:48 PM

It just doesn't work that way in Hollywood. Directors don't deal with cameras, thats a tool of the camera dpt just like they don't own the barbecue that makes the hamburgers at the craft services table.

Outside of Hollywood and internationally it's a different story.

Trevor Meier

01-02-2007, 02:02 PM

RED is part of technological catalyst that is rebuilding the way Hollywood does things... as is not unusual, from the outside in - the independants embrace it and, what is successful, the studios adopt.

The technology of storytelling is slowly becoming transparent. The truly valuable asset is becoming the craft of storytelling. RED and Final Cut and other products that commoditize the technologies used in filmmaking mean that the structure of how a show is produced will follow the form needed to enable the highest craft, rather than boundaries imposed by the technology.

There is still need for large, unionized, hierarchical shows. For certain genres that makes sense. But it's now not a requirement to create a great show, it's an option. Cameras like RED are one part of the shift - options.

Ruairi Robinson

01-02-2007, 02:13 PM

It's assuming the director enjoys being that hands on and/or doesn't have the resources available to have it done for him/her.

Damn, cuz I was assuming they would be forced to, with guns pointed at their children's heads. Obviously it would suit the people it would suit. It's axiomatic.

And we all know how much directors hate having CONTROL.

It just doesn't work that way in Hollywood. Directors don't deal with cameras, thats a tool of the camera dpt just like they don't own the barbecue that makes the hamburgers at the craft services table.

Outside of Hollywood and internationally it's a different story.

There was no point owning a film camera for all the reasons already mentioned. It's a different deal with Red, because for a reasonable cost, you can own something outright that would shoot stuff that would fit seemlessly into the pipeline of the entire production process at no extra cost.

Some of the shots in 28 days later were taken in the directors back garden because it was shot on DV, so it didn't cost any more. And it cut in perfectly because the rest of the film had the same look. You think people won't take advantage of this if they can capture full quality images with NO extra cost, beyond buying the camera and a couple of lenses?

Shots in The Bourne Identity were taken by just the Director (who used to be a cinematographer) and the actor on the street. Ridley Scott always operates his own camera. George Lucas operated B camera on loads of shots on Raiders of the lost Ark, and have you heard of that guy, what's his name... something Rodreguez? There are COUNTLESS examples of this, all through history, in and out of hollywood.

That may not have been how Hollywood tended to work in the past, but there was never the option of a low cost 4k rez digital cinema camera either.

R.

Appleton

01-02-2007, 02:33 PM

That may not have been how Hollywood tended to work in the past, but there was never the option of a low cost 4k rez digital cinema camera either.

R.Most directors prefer not to op. It has little to do with the cost of a system. In my experience there are various reasons for it. Some of it's generational, stylistic, performance requirements, ego etc...albeit that seems to be changing. More directors seem to be grabbing the reigns themselves.

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 02:39 PM

If anyone from the traditional film industry is going to start buying their own cameras now it's DPs and Camera Ops.

Sure, there are some directors (the exception) that have more of a cinematographic inclination and ocassionally operate the camera and a very short list of ones that actually own one. For these people the cost of the camera has not been a factor in wether they operate or own one.

Even though the camera is the single most essential element in filmmaking, it is still a single element in a long list of things to handle when it comes to making a film. A director's job is about making sure that every department (among them the camera dept.) and actors get his vision and that it all comes together artistically. Focusing on the camera dept, if anything is going to hurt the production more than help it, unless that director is a phenomenal cinematographer which is doubtful since he's probably been to busy with the millions of other things that being a director entails.

IMHO, Robert Rodriguez is a very good multitasker, he's enjoyed decent commercial sucess but he still does focus too much on the camera as most of his work is severely lacking in most other departments.

Edit: Just for actual real input, two directors we are in direct contact with, Bryan Singer (via friendship) & Kenny Ortega (has guest directed our stage production) have no interest in owning or operating a camera. Kenny comes from Choreography and focuses on performance and Bryan deals with the "global" production, which is enough to handle.

Ruairi Robinson

01-02-2007, 03:11 PM

If anyone from the traditional film industry is going to start buying their own cameras now it's DPs and Camera Ops.

For the most part, of course :)

Sure, there are some directors (the exception) that have more of a cinematographic inclination and ocassionally operate the camera and a very short list of ones that actually own one. For these people the cost of the camera has no factor in wether they operate it or own it.

Indeed. The exceptions. I think the good ones tend to be exception-al, don't you? That sort of goes for anything really. And David Fincher, James Cameron, Matthiu Kassovitz and Peter Jackson are buying 'em. That we know of. Each of them have done some of my favourite movies.

Did Rodriguez order one too? Or does he not count because his films are not good enough...? (I liked Sin City pretty good, disliked some of his other films... but each to their own...)

Most directors prefer not to op. It has little to do with the cost of a system. In my experience there are various reasons for it. Some of it's generational, stylistic, performance requirements, ego etc...albeit that seems to be changing. More directors seem to be grabbing the reigns themselves.

Yeap. But the option is there for those that want to take it. No guns at heads, remember?

You want to direct a movie underwater screaming through a snorkel if that's your style, knock yourself out. In the meantime, the subset of filmmakers that want to trailblaze new technologies and lead the way for other people to follow will take full advantage of every new piece of technology they can get that helps in service of the stories they want to tell. If the option to record a depth channel was there, James Cameron would probably use it. Ken Loach on the other hand, probably not. And as a fan of both The Terminator, and Sweet 16, it's all good :)

Gavin Greenwalt

01-02-2007, 03:15 PM

I think you're overlooking one significant responsibility of the Director.

It's the director's job to set the tone and workflow of the production. Switching to the RED camera or any digital aquisition system is a paradigm shift in production dynamics. Just ask Fincher. I don't think directors will purchase the RED because they're wanting to push the envelope on picture quality, if that was the case they would stick to film, they want a new way of interacting with the crew and medium and it offers them new creative possibilities.

The red offers something that wasn't exactly available before: the digital workflow, without too large of a compromise in quality. There was no reason previously for a director to purchase a camera because choosing an Arri over an Aaton was nothing more than an ergonomics and operator level decision, the product was still film, the result was still film so why did the director care there was no workflow change. The decision to shoot digital will in a large part be by my guess the director's decision until the quality surpasses film.

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Did Rodriguez order one too? Or does he not count because his films are not good enough...? (I liked Sin City pretty good, disliked some of his other films... but each to their own...)

Hehehe, I did enjoy Sin City... of course, most of the film was created in post and the director's job is easier when you have good experienced actors, the cast & crew on set is small and not everything needs to be decided and finalized then and there.

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 04:18 PM

It's the director's job to set the tone and workflow of the production. .

Artistically, not technically. Technical decisions and developing a workflow traditionally are not directly his unless of course he says something like "this shot is the home video camera's POV" or "It's essential that we roll on this take for 30 minutes straight". I don't think most directors in Hollywood have the technical understanding to make those calls, they are directing at that level because their strengths lie elsewhere (leadership, storytelling, directing performances, creativity, etc...) otherwise they'd most likely be DPs or technical consultants.

Unless you're refering to someone with a big name, I can't see a director walking into a production and commanding technical details unless there's a very strong artistic reasoning behind it. In that case he's probably going to have to sweet talk or fight the EP/execs/DP to get it his way.

I can't see the digital workflow on it's own offering much improvement from the "Hollywood" director's perspective. Perhaps shooting longer takes, not having to reload as much and also for some, the difference with watching dalies. From his perspective, post will probably feel identical to how it's currently handled (and would most likely remain in it's current structure).

Ruairi Robinson

01-02-2007, 04:43 PM

Artistically, not technically. Technical decisions and developing a workflow traditionally are not directly his unless of course he says something like "this shot is the home video camera's POV" or "It's essential that we roll on this take for 30 minutes straight". I don't think most directors in Hollywood have the technical understanding to make those calls, they are directing at that level because their strengths lie elsewhere (leadership, storytelling, directing performances, creativity, etc...) otherwise they'd most likely be DPs or technical consultants.

Unless you're refering to someone with a big name, I can't see a director walking into a production and commanding technical details unless there's a very strong artistic reasoning behind it. In that case he's probably going to have to sweet talk or fight the EP/execs/DP to get it his way.

I can't see the digital workflow on it's own offering much improvement from the "Hollywood" director's perspective. Perhaps shooting longer takes, not having to reload as much and also for some, the difference with watching dalies. From his perspective, post will probably feel identical to how it's currently handled (and would most likely remain in it's current structure).

Director decides all of these things if A)It's important to them or B) they have the power to make that call and not have their decisions overridden, and C) they know what they are doing.

I can't imagine a director walking into a production and NOT making these calls, if they are worth their salt. Maybe most directors don't have the technical skills to make these calls, I don't know, I'll have to ask each and evey one of them individually to find out, and that may take some time. But then again, most directors aren't very good. Same as most of everything - the good ones are always the exception... (and if you ask a director does he CARE what format the movie is shot on, I doubt you'll get an indifferent answer)

Also you are forgetting one MAJOR workflow difference from Film to HD - the ability to monitor on a big 50 inch high def plasma screen on set, and not have to rely on the DPs promise that "it'll look good on film, honest guvna"

R.

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 05:13 PM

There are plenty of sucessful directors out there that can walk off the set and not know anything about the camera or equipment being used other than "It's 35mm film, anamorphic". For the most part that's all they need to know along with perhaps what a 25mm lens looks like vs a 50mm one.

It's just not his job to know this just like it's not his job to know what brand microphone is attached to the boom. If he does decide to be involved, it's his decision but it's still an extracurricular activity, sure, he could probably hold the boom if he wanted to. But is it the best use of his focus and talent given that he's the one and only director?

If it's important to them or the story, sure they can be involved in making these decisions but really, for the most part, that's why you have artists that do this for a living aka: cinematographers. A director shouldn't micromanage unless he must and for the most part the key people of each department are much more talented than he is in their respective areas, heck, they've got nothing else to worry about other than that one thing.

Watching on set on a screen to judge the DPs work is just wrong since post/color correction and or timing makes all the difference in the world. Even when you're shooting in HD and using the paintbox on set, it's not the way to judge a DPs work since there may be several things not being taken into account like shot continuity. A director that feels that he needs to do this because he doesn't trust his DP should either get a different job or get another DP... Really. Perhaps that director should also check his communication skills since the look of the film should have been discussed in pre-production.

Not trying to start a war on wether it's the director's responsibility but traditionally, no, it's not directly his unless the adoption of this technology has a critical effect on telling the story and the DP is not doing his job. Even then he might have to fight to get it his way.

Alexander Nikishin

01-02-2007, 05:18 PM

I cant imagine not. But it would be nice to know who is..

One of my short list of the most favorite Director's "Hal Hartley" is always making movies on a shoe string budget. I just cant imagine anything better than Red.

BTW, anyone have any idea what the Australian short "We Have Decided Not to Die" was shot on?

I think the title should read, "Are any bigtime cinematographers buying Red?"

- David Stump for one I'm sure.

Ruairi Robinson

01-02-2007, 05:43 PM

>>>>>There are plenty of sucessful directors out there that can walk off the set and not know anything about the camera or equipment being used other than "It's 35mm film, anamorphic". For the most part that's all they need to know along with perhaps what a 25mm lens looks like vs a 50mm one.>>>>>

Sure - depending on the people, depending on the story. Of course.

>>>>>It's just not his job to know this just like it's not his job to know what brand microphone is attached to the boom. If he does decide to be involved, it's his decision but it's still an extracurricular activity, heck, he could probably hold the boom if he wanted to.>>>>>>

It's his job to know what brand microphone is attached, if he knows it will make a difference to the quality of the recording, and if that has some bearing on the story.

>>>>>>If it's important to them or the story, sure they can be involved in making these decisions>>>>>>

Ah - see you really agree with me :)

>>>>>>>but really, for the most part, that's why you have artists that do this for a living aka: cinematographers. A director shouldn't micromanage unless he must and for the most part the key people of each department are much more talented than he is in their respective areas, heck, they've got nothing else to worry about other than that one thing. >>>>>>>

And I agree with you - for the most part, it may be irrelevant, and he may have better things to do, but if it's important for the story - he, we already agreed on that, right :)

>>>>>>Watching on set on a screen to judge the DPs work is just wrong since post/color correction and or timing makes all the difference in the world. Even when you're shooting in HD and using the paintbox on set, it's not the way to judge a DPs work since there may be several things not being taken into account like shot continuity. A director that feels that he needs to do this because he doesn't trust his DP should either get a different job or get another DP... Really. Perhaps that director should also check his communication skills since the look of the film should have been discussed in pre-production.>>>>>

The framing of the shots get discussed on set. The tendency to use small low rez playback monitors has, in my opinion, (and I think the opinion of others whose opinions I greatly respect) produced far too many films composed of boring medium shots - people are afraid to frame wide, because the detail becomes a mush on the crappy small monitor. The ability to see this detail on a big high def monitor will, I believe alter the way movies are shot.

I mean you can't seriously be suggesting that the ability for directors to clearly see the shots they are shooting on set is a BAD thing - thats just insane.

If you think directors need to trust DOPs, and of course they do, but it works both ways, and Dops will have to learn to trust that directors know that what they are looking at is not the "final" image. But then, directors have been doing that for years anyway - viewing wireframes and animatics for CG shots, for examples. So it's not much of a leap really.

>>>>>Not trying to start a war on wether it's the director's responsibility but traditionally, no, it's not directly his unless the adoption of this technology has a critical effect on telling the story and the DP is not doing his job. Even then he might have to fight to get it his way>>>>>

Well, according to union rules, of course not, but ultimately EVERYTHING is the directors responsibility. And the directors fault.

Here's a nice little quote from Steven Soderbergh, which I completely agree with :)

......BLVR: Do you generally blame yourself when that happens?

SS: When I’m on the set? Yeah. Everything is the director’s fault—you can quote me on that

Jason Francois

01-02-2007, 08:34 PM

There's a lot of talk about "traditionally". Most traditions eventually evolve and become an entirely new tradition.

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 09:01 PM

Everything is the director's fault in the same context that everything is the CEO's fault in a corporation. This doesn't mean that the CEO of say IBM is hand picking the bearings of the rollers on the assembly line.

It's his job to know what brand microphone is attached, if he knows it will make a difference to the quality of the recording, and if that has some bearing on the story.

Well after doing that he better remember the brand because he's going to have a hard time getting a real mixer for his next film. Not only is questioning wether a professional film sound mixer knows how to record quality sound an extremely insulting thing to do to him but assuming that one knows better than someone who has a degree in sound and spends his days testing equipment and recording sound is the epitome of a micromanager.

The framing of the shots get discussed on set. The tendency to use small low rez playback monitors has, in my opinion, (and I think the opinion of others whose opinions I greatly respect) produced far too many films composed of boring medium shots - people are afraid to frame wide, because the detail becomes a mush on the crappy small monitor. The ability to see this detail on a big high def monitor will, I believe alter the way movies are shot.

I mean you can't seriously be suggesting that the ability for directors to clearly see the shots they are shooting on set is a BAD thing - thats just insane.

All I can think about is how some of the best and most beautifully shot films ever were shot before the invention of the video assist and without the director looking through the viewfinder as the images were captured. I personally don't think that the technology alone might be the reason for the point you're making. I think it's more about the people shooting it. It's also pretty common for some directors to step away from the video monitors and stand next to the camera to focus on the actor's performances.

If you think directors need to trust DOPs, and of course they do, but it works both ways, and Dops will have to learn to trust that directors know that what they are looking at is not the "final" image.

Well, trust and communication is what the teamwork is all about. By the time that the DOP is on set lighting he already understands the director's vision, unless something needs a change in direction, the DOP is the artist here making the creative choices. At this point the director should be busy with the millions of other things he's got on his plate (like taking apart the boom and checking the mike make/model :D ).

Of course, nothing is written in stone and there are as many director/crew dynamics as there are films made but in essence, the director communicates visions and desires to the department heads who make the choices based on their testing, talent and expertise that best suit that vision. For the director to override those choices is a last resort when something is really wrong. For him to get involved in technical minutae is a waste of his time since there are plenty of other things that are in his job description that will make a more significant difference in most cases.

I guess we can agree to disagree about all these details. :oP

Matthew Greene

01-02-2007, 09:05 PM

There's a lot of talk about "traditionally". Most traditions eventually evolve and become an entirely new tradition.

Well, since all bets are off on the independent film set we're talking for the most part about the Hollywood style filmmaking structure and ettiquette where these traditions evolve as fast as a river of poop moves. The reason for this is that it works and the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" system dominates. Even no brainer changes take time, there's a whole lot of people to convince, workflows to prove, testing to be done and union rules to modify.

Jason Francois

01-02-2007, 09:08 PM

Well, since all bets are off on the independent film set we're talking for the most part about the Hollywood style filmmaking structure and ettiquette where these traditions evolve as fast as a river of poop moves.

I agree, even if a "river of poop" is a bad visual...an effective visual...but a bad one never-the-less. :)

Simon Wyndham

01-03-2007, 02:18 AM

I agree with Gibby.

Red may encourage a new type of producer/director/shooter. Until now most movies or documentaries that require a lot of free shooting have often been restricted to very low budgets and therefore low grade equipment.

Like Gibby I produce, direct, and shoot among other responsibilities. Hey, I'm a control freak! When I direct I don't like other people to have all the fun of camera operation ;-)

While it is very true that in most movie productions the cost of the camera is not the foremost expense, there are some productions that are the exception. Recently a production was made in the UK called Underground. It was shot on a DSR570, with most actors working expenses only. But they managed to attract some 'names' from the NHB fighting circuit to be in the movie and some British actors. Some of the movie looks pretty good and film like. Other parts look like video just by the nature of the camera that they were using. A camera like Red would have given it a much better look.

The movie Kampfansage is another example. That was shot on a Canon XL1S with a Mini35. The lighting and cinematography in that movie are stunning. Red would have taken it to the nth level. Even if the filmmakers couldn't afford to actually buy a Red, the price of the camera means that renting it is very viable. Unlike a Panavision!

But for shooters like me who like to do everything, the shallow DOF and total lack of electronic edge enhancement etc, means that I will be much more likely to be able to get the compositions that I desire. I hate my on set photos looking better than the movie itself! ;-)

Matthew Greene

01-03-2007, 08:26 AM

Simon, I think most of us would agree that RED is a revolution to the independent filmmakers and any production that previously would have been forced to shoot on video due to budgetary reasons.

Emanuel A.

01-03-2007, 08:52 AM

Simon, I think most of us would agree that RED is a revolution to the independent filmmakers and any production that previously would have been forced to shoot on video due to budgetary reasons.100% agreed.

EDIT -- And for those film shooters without freedom to shoot unless according the mainstream even into the pseudo-called indie moviemaking.

[* now virtually dropping after the RED introduction]

Steve Gibby

01-03-2007, 09:03 AM

This has been a good thread!

I think the bottom line is that the intended flexibility and scalability of RED One will enable traditional segmented crew production (a la Hollywood, union, etc.), but also enable mobile, multi-tasking, non-union, non-traditional crew EFP and cine-style productions. The camera and crew tasks won't be dictated by the camera design, but rather by what genre of production it's used on, and the resulting accessory and lens requirements. As an IT-based camera system, nobody will "film" anything with RED. Everybody will "digital cinema" projects with RED, which may or may not be output to film at the very end of the workflow.

The camera system, and crew size and use, will become what you need for each individual production. When I only direct on larger productions, my deep experience as a cinematographer, videographer, and editor help me immensely in my approach to directing. With good experience in those crafts, I understand as a director exactly what challenges my DP and cinematographer are faced with, and creative solutions for them. The added benefit when I direct is that my crews know that I am experienced in all crew positions for a production, thus I get a lot of respect on the set or on location. As a producer/director I surround myself with talented people, and let them do their craft. I don't micromanage my crews, I macromanage them. If I'm purely producing a project, I try to hire crew with as many skill sets as possible, thus everybody has an understanding of what everybody else is doing. Large crew, segment responsibility productions get a lot of press, but in terms of sheer numbers of productions with RED One, I believe the vast majority of productions will be mid-sized to small productions, cine-style and EFP style, that use multi-tasking crew who have multiple skill sets. That said, the segmented responsibility model will survive for a long time to come in features, union productions, and with those who are comfortable with that crew model. RED One is an inanimate object. How we use it is up to us for our current project at hand.

Again...this is an excellent thread that illustrates the flexibility of use style we'll experience with RED One.

Gavin Greenwalt

01-03-2007, 06:13 PM

I think directors want the digital workflow, but they haven't been able to get their DPs to confidently endorse the quality... until now.

Red offers camcorder flexibility with Film quality which is a drawback/advantage depending on your personal views of a film based workflow.

Which was what I meant when I said a Director sets the "workflow". I didn't mean to imply he would micromanage how the data is captured etc... just that the decision to direct from behind an HD monitor vs sitting next to the camera can have a significant effect on how the production operates, let alone the capability of watching a full HD preview or take hour long takes if necessary can change the production 'workflow'.

Matthew Greene

01-03-2007, 10:07 PM

I think directors want the digital workflow...

I would say that many directors and DPs want it, some don't.

Chris Gearhart

01-04-2007, 08:00 AM

The camera and crew tasks won't be dictated by the camera design, but rather by what genre of production it's used on, and the resulting accessory and lens requirements.

Well put!

garageman

01-04-2007, 09:52 AM

All I can think about is how some of the best and most beautifully shot films ever were shot before the invention of the video assist and without the director looking through the viewfinder as the images were captured. I personally don't think that the technology alone might be the reason for the point you're making. I think it's more about the people shooting it. It's also pretty common for some directors to step away from the video monitors and stand next to the camera to focus on the actor's performances.

This is true, one example that always springs to mind is The Ipcress File which even the DOP had to frame differently to what he saw through the viewfinder because of parallax error. It turned out to be one of the most interesting looking mainstream films ever.

Christopher Nolan never looks through the viewfinder or at monitors but watches the actors during rehearsals & takes. He trusts his DOP completely.

Horses for courses, depending on the context and style of your film.

d. sweetman

01-04-2007, 03:32 PM

Most traditional "big time" directors don't own cameras nor are they really knowledgable about them, you'd even be hard pressed to find one that has even operated one in a long time.

There are exceptions like Robert Rodriguez or others that actually own a full production company with gear like Peter Jackson but they're the exception and not the majority.

How many "big time" directors have you talked to, that you say that with absolute certainty? I wouldn't be so quick to make that statement with names like James Cameron having been mentioned, who has a reputation for knowing cameras and lighting. Even a quick gance at his IMDB shows several camera department positions. Most of those guys probably grew up shooting super-8, (Jackson and Raimi for sure) where you learn the different stocks, learn how to expose an image, etc. Then in yet another league there's Kubrick, Tarkovsky, and the rest, who fit even more closely into the Andrew Sarris definition of the "auteur."