Aintitcoolnews discussion board RED discussion

[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/2007/1...peratures.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

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.
(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.