movies still shot on film ?

[HenryDee]

This may be a really simple answer for some...I was just wondering..I wasn't sure where to post this question and if anybody has any wisdom to pass on I'd appreciate it.

Are the majority of major films being produced today still shot on film ? Or is it all Hi def..I dont really know much about major features since Im to young to have worked on any yet but i was just wondering if and what types of new cameras they shoot on.
if anyone knows the answer or could point me in the right direction of getting the answer i'd appreciate it.

thanks

 

[dory_breaux]

Film. But, that may soon start to change, now that RED has come up with the One and soon the Epic, wich both break atleast one film resolution.

 

[Erik Olson]

Film. But, that may soon start to change, now that RED has come up with the One and soon the Epic, wich both break atleast one film resolution.

RED is but one tool in the emerging digital toolbox. Viper, Genesis, Dalsa, SI, Arri D20, VariCam, Sony HDCamSR/CineAlta are all being used on features every day.

Film is predominant. HD and digital are making inroads.

e

 

[utako.o]

Film still has quite a few years left on big budget epics but that will soon change. Apocalypto (when i saw it on the big screen, i thought something was just a little off colour wise but it was still spectacular footage. Afterwards when i read about Apocalypto in American Cinematography: how they shot with the genesis and did Look up Tables to emulate film stock, i knew film will be phased out in maybe ten - twenty years max.

 

[Mattykins]

Red is hardly the main competition.

The panavised cameras are taking the cake. Especially the F23. CineAlta's flagship. The F900 did well, and still does well. But really, most major things are shot S16, or S35. Then brought to digital, then back to film. As digital becomes the main exhibition format - digital will take over. Give it ten years.

 

[renegadewill]

I was at my local cinema yesterday and after seeing 88 minutes (don't see it, I never heard any reviews and I theater hopped into it). I noticed the film I saw before it "21", was not as sharp as 88 minutes. 21 was shot on the panny genesis but put back to film which actually lowers the qualtiy of the image. 88 minutes sucked, but was way sharper because it was shot on film and projected on film. Film projected digially will look great on cinemas, but digital projected through film is lack luster. When I saw Zodiac I was disappointed that my theater didn't have digital projection. I think that will will be around the same way that gasoline and cars are still around. There are plenty of other alternatives, but there will always be the traditional way of doin things.

 

[JonathanLB]

Film definitely reigns still, film is the dominant format for any high budget work regardless of medium, that's commercials, music videos, and features. But I'm "anti-film" in the sense that I don't believe in film in 2008, I don't want to work with it, it doesn't hold any appeal to me or idealization, and I'm very pro-digital. I wrote "anti-film" in quotes because of course film is GREAT quality, there's nothing wrong with 35mm, it's just been used for about 100 years and it's time has come and gone, there are better, cheaper ways to get crisper images now than film. The RED One is already better looking than film, not only just as good or better resolution but it's a lot clearer image, no obnoxious grain issues, and grain isn't a good thing it's a weakness. It just has been accepted for a long time.

Obviously film is better than the HVX200, and if I had unlimited budgets I'd rather have shot my music videos to 35mm I suppose, but is the extra money worthwhile? Not even CLOSE. It's just not even a comparison. The annoyance of having to dick around with film stock, which is a joke, and bring it to some telecine house, do color correction there (should be done in software, let's be honest, like Color), and just go through this whole nonsense to get a visual image is really absurd. I mean it's 2008. It's not 1948. Seriously. Film was great, until digital has started to be able to duplicate the quality at a fraction of the cost.

I already would argue the RED One is significantly better quality than film, it just looks better, it's prettier, it's crisper, it's more real, but the Epic is another step up from that with better dynamic range most likely than film (the RED is slightly less than film there), better resolution, and again a lot cheaper overall.

I don't care for the film workflow, it's annoying, there's nothing about it that makes shooting an easy process. It can look gorgeous, no doubt about that, but I'm not the kind of person who wants to have film canisters on my set and worry about exposure issues and all of this. I want the digital images on my hard drive WHILE I'm shooting, so those P2 cards (or CF cards or hard drives, whatever) are transferred to several external hard drives on the shoot for safety and I can see what I have right there on set. Lunch break? Great chance to go ask my on-set capturer what we're getting and how it looks. Not yet too late to refilm a few shots if absolutely necessary.

Major features don't care much about the cost of film because it's a TINY portion of the budget. If you spend $2 million shooting to film let's say, and on digital you could have done it for $500,000 or $750,000, well, who cares, big deal. That's chunk change if your budget is even $30 million, let alone $100 million or more. That being said, as there becomes no reason to shoot on film (i.e. digital systems will offer superior solutions, like the RED One and Epic), the cost savings will matter because it'll just be sort of a no-brainer. Then only the dinosaurs will still be shooting to film.

As it is, features are going to be the last area where film dies, just the same as they are the last area where Avid will die. Because really old people always shoot on film and edit on Avid, and young people hate Avid for the most part and don't care about film much either, or don't have access to film at least. On music videos even, I can't see film lasting much longer at all. I think film will be dead for music videos almost completely within 24 months. The budgets have been shrinking on music videos for some time now, a number of years in fact, and when you have MAXIMUM budgets for most major acts being at around $400,000 (with the occasional video at nearly $1 million, but those are becoming dinosaurs), that means the cost of shooting to film just to show the video on MTV2, Fuse, and mostly YouTube / MySpace is really stupid. I mean, I can't think of anything stupider than wasting money on shooting to 35mm for something that will NEVER, EVER show on a theater screen and that will in all probability be seen by 80% of viewers on YouTube, where you could shoot with the XL2 and it'll look the same as 35mm film because it's such a terrible site with awful compression. Spend the extra money on what you put in front of the camera, not the camera and the film stock. It's just silly. I think they'll realize that and also the low budget videos record labels are doing, you can't really afford film. If you're going to shoot a video for $20,000 to $40,000 film is too large of a portion of the total budget, it's virtually impossible to make a great video shooting with film for those prices, and paying everyone union wages, etc. No way. I mean great if they want to do that, I can beat their videos with $10,000 then shooting to the HVX200 because absolutely nobody will be able to tell the difference since they'll never see our videos compared on a 70-foot screen

 

[HenryDee]

cool thanks.....i wonder by the time im old enough to go to film school ( 18 in 6 years)
If I'll be taught how to edit from film.

 

[agcohn]

I was at my local cinema yesterday and after seeing 88 minutes (don't see it, I never heard any reviews and I theater hopped into it). I noticed the film I saw before it "21", was not as sharp as 88 minutes. 21 was shot on the panny genesis but put back to film which actually lowers the quality of the image. 88 minutes sucked, but was way sharper because it was shot on film and projected on film. Film projected digially will look great on cinemas, but digital projected through film is lack luster. When I saw Zodiac I was disappointed that my theater didn't have digital projection. I think that will will be around the same way that gasoline and cars are still around. There are plenty of other alternatives, but there will always be the traditional way of doin things.

Going from digital to film does NOT hurt image quality. The Genesis only outputs 1080p. That's why the image wasn't as "sharp."

Now if you watched a motion picture shot on 4k, then output to film, it would not look any less "sharp" than a motion picture starting on film.

However, unlike many people in this forum, I don't think RED is going to make any difference in the transition of major motion pictures from film to digital. The actual resolution is nowhere near as important as RED wants people to believe, and the quality of the engineering in nowhere near that of Panavision, Sony, or Arri. RED will certainly convert the independent filmmakers, because it is cheaper, but those are the same people who were happy to shoot on DV and HD.

By the time RED has got their act together, the big players (Panavision, Sony, Arri) will have 4k cameras in the works. And mark my words, those cameras will produce images that blow the RED ONE out of the water.

Resolution is not everything. I mean you can get a DVX100b for a couple thousand dollars, but a professional DVCPRO camera, which technically has the same resolution as the DVX, would have cost you tens of thousands.

The Dalsa Origin's imaging chip alone costs the same as the entire body of the RED ONE camera, and that's not even the price that RED is making the chip for, but selling it at. The extra money Dalsa is spending is going somewhere.

 

[William_Robinette]

I think we are at the point where digital needs to step it up in the latitude department more then anything else.

I will say though, the RED footage they were showing at NAB this year was the sharpest footage I have ever seen anywhere, period.

 

[JonathanLB]

No, the "big companies" will not blow RED out of the water, RED is blowing them out of the water, and yes, RED image quality IS that good, it's not just a matter of it being 4K. It looks amazing and clear and crisp.

In fact, I don't give very good odds to any of the other camera companies to compete with RED, which is taking the market by storm too fast. We'll probably upgrade to the Scarlett because it's in our budget range, other people are going with the RED One, big guys will go with the Epic, and there's nothing any of the other camera companies can do about it but sit by and watch their marketshare collapse. People are now realizing just how overpriced the rest of these cameras are, when you can get a 4K RED One for just $17,500, and a working package for $35,000 anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the other companies will try to compete, but it's too late for them. They won't have anything out that competes in price and quality in the next 18 months and by that point RED will already have a dominant share of the market. There's a new sheriff in town and it's not Panasonic, Sony, or any of those overpriced companies. They made critical mistakes that led to this point and they haven't caught up fast enough. Now, their odds of producing similar cameras for similar budgets are quite bad.

 

[agcohn]

No, the "big companies" will not blow RED out of the water, RED is blowing them out of the water, and yes, RED image quality IS that good, it's not just a matter of it being 4K. It looks amazing and clear and crisp.

In fact, I don't give very good odds to any of the other camera companies to compete with RED, which is taking the market by storm too fast. We'll probably upgrade to the Scarlett because it's in our budget range, other people are going with the RED One, big guys will go with the Epic, and there's nothing any of the other camera companies can do about it but sit by and watch their marketshare collapse. People are now realizing just how overpriced the rest of these cameras are, when you can get a 4K RED One for just $17,500, and a working package for $35,000 anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the other companies will try to compete, but it's too late for them. They won't have anything out that competes in price and quality in the next 18 months and by that point RED will already have a dominant share of the market. There's a new sheriff in town and it's not Panasonic, Sony, or any of those overpriced companies. They made critical mistakes that led to this point and they haven't caught up fast enough. Now, their odds of producing similar cameras for similar budgets are quite bad.

There is no such thing as market share in this business. Nobody buys equipment; they rent it. People rent the best equipment for the job at that particular point in time. That might be RED one year, Panavision the next, and so on and so on.

If RED is all you say it is, why are people complaining about rolling shutter / other issues? Because the price of RED comes with a compromise. People still use film because it doesn't require them to compromise.

You say that RED is taking the market by storm, but I don't see any major motion pictures committing to it. Soderbergh is the largest, but considering his DV roots, that isn't much of a surprise. And there are rumors that Soderbergh isn't as happy with the Red One as RED would have you believe.

RED is great for low-budget filmmakers who can't afford to shoot on film, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it is a piece of equipment that is going to satisfy everybody, including the major studios. It won't.

I don't think that there will ever be a piece of equipment that will satisfy both major studio pictures and low-budget filmmakers. The studios will always find a way to keep a competitive advantage, and that will involve using equipment that is out of the indie filmmaker's price range. The stuff is expensive for a reason; it's higher quality, it always works, and it doesn't require them to compromise, ever.

 

[Mattykins]

Question, have you used upper level cameras?

Film is great. And you can get an amazing image from it. The colour timing is professionally done and they can blow the standard user away in colour timing. That is why we pay the money to get the best light telecine. Because the footage looks amazing. Especially with the Vision 3 stock by Kodak. There is less grain then ever before with amazing latitude, and fantastic low light performance. Try to get your DVX to shoot low light perfectly. I've used cameras from the Bolex, to the Aaton XTR Prod, to the Panavised F900.

They are big name companies with a high price tag for a reason. The footage is quite honestly outstanding. The F23 blew the Viper out of the water on the set of cloverfield. And the F23 killed the HVX on set as well. Claims of the HVX being used extensively are false. Only about an hour went onto the head. The F23 did amazingly well in the low light conditions and provided an image that can be edited and have VFX added to it.

The Red is hardly a threat. People using the Red wouldn't be using a panavision anyways. The Red will only be used by independent film makers, unless they can fix the flaws with the camera. I've heard mixed reviews by people on the Red. Sure, is it amazing for indies? Yeah.

But if anything, Panavisions, Arris, and more will still be used on set. 35mm and 16mm will still be used, not just by older people, but by new schoolers as well. I much prefer the film format as opposed to digital. Mind you, I don't have a red, or an HVX. I like the look of film better. And yes, would it be great to do unlimited takes? Yeah. But I will be using an F900 or an F23 as opposed to the Red. Since Panavision has been in the business far longer - and those cameras have a nice backing.

 

[renegadewill]

Going from digital to film does NOT hurt image quality. The Genesis only outputs 1080p. That's why the image wasn't as "sharp."

Now if you watched a motion picture shot on 4k, then output to film, it would not look any less "sharp" than a motion picture starting on film.

However, unlike many people in this forum, I don't think RED is going to make any difference in the transition of major motion pictures from film to digital. The actual resolution is nowhere near as important as RED wants people to believe, and the quality of the engineering in nowhere near that of Panavision, Sony, or Arri. RED will certainly convert the independent filmmakers, because it is cheaper, but those are the same people who were happy to shoot on DV and HD.

By the time RED has got their act together, the big players (Panavision, Sony, Arri) will have 4k cameras in the works. And mark my words, those cameras will produce images that blow the RED ONE out of the water.

Resolution is not everything. I mean you can get a DVX100b for a couple thousand dollars, but a professional DVCPRO camera, which technically has the same resolution as the DVX, would have cost you tens of thousands.

The Dalsa Origin's imaging chip alone costs the same as the entire body of the RED ONE camera, and that's not even the price that RED is making the chip for, but selling it at. The extra money Dalsa is spending is going somewhere.

I dunno. I bet If you shoot super 35 and project super 35, It will look better than Any digital to 35 projection. Atleast that's how I felt about Die Hard 4 and No Country when I saw them project in the cinema, comparing them to superbad and Forgettign sarah marshall which are genesis features. You are right though because i have yet to see a film from 4k to film. Hopefully I get it digiatlly projected by then.

 

[Tim Naylor]

I already would argue the RED One is significantly better quality than film, it just looks better, it's prettier, it's crisper, it's more real, but the Epic is another step up from that with better dynamic range most likely than film (the RED is slightly less than film there), better resolution, and again a lot cheaper overall.

Major features don't care much about the cost of film because it's a TINY portion of the budget. If you spend $2 million shooting to film let's say, and on digital you could have done it for $500,000 or $750,000, well, who cares, big deal. That's chunk change if your budget is even $30 million, let alone $100 million or more. That being said, as there becomes no reason to shoot on film (i.e. digital systems will offer superior solutions, like the RED One and Epic), the cost savings will matter because it'll just be sort of a no-brainer. Then only the dinosaurs will still be shooting to film.

As it is, features are going to be the last area where film dies, just the same as they are the last area where Avid will die. Because really old people always shoot on film and edit on Avid, and young people hate Avid for the most part and don't care about film much either, or don't have access to film at least. On music videos even, I can't see film lasting much longer at all.

can't think of anything stupider than wasting money on shooting to 35mm for something that will NEVER, EVER show on a theater screen and that will in all probability be seen by 80% of viewers on YouTube, where you could shoot with the XL2 and it'll look the same as 35mm film because it's such a terrible site with awful compression. Spend the extra money on what you put in front of the camera, not the camera and the film stock. It's just silly. I think they'll realize that and also the low budget videos record labels are doing, you can't really afford film.

Lots of good points. I started in flim over 20 years ago. Two years ago 80 percent of my work was film. Now it's about 20 percent and shrinking.

But I have yet to see a proper A/B test comparing RED ONE to film. Until then it's hard to objectively say RED ONE really looks better than film. And for several reasons I doubt it.

First and foremost is the dynamic range in RED's (as well as anyother video camera) highlights falls several stops short of film. Where RED begins to clip at 2 stops or so, I can pull detail from film 5-6 stops over. It's really unbelievable. In the under exposure regions they're neck and neck, but with less noise in film. The practical implications leave you in awe. Bright windows, skies, bald guys, wet roads on a sunny day, etc.. situations where you'd be clipped on digital you shoot with impunity on film. In digital, you must either shoot plates, use ND grads or bring in a ton of fill.

And that I think is the number one reason why features and commercials haven't jumped the film ship. People like that highlight range. If you get the chance sit in a proper telecine session and you'll be stunned at what the colorist can pull from the brights areas.

This link sums it up quite well: http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/02/digital-cinema-dynamic-range.html

In terms of grain, I think that's a non-issue as grain on film is mapped frame to frame randomly where pixels are in a fixed position relative to the frame. Now you tell which is more natural.

Then there's color space. The color space of a film neg has considerably more info than RED's compressed info. And again this is info that can be graded with considerably more flexibility.

But this all comes at a cost. I can make a feature on digital for the price people spend on telecines. I can use the savings to get better screenplays and actors.

Will film die? Only when video surpasses it in both dark and highlight dynamic range and color space. Rezolution is overrated. At certain point the audience doesn't care for the difference between 4k or 5k. We just don't perceive it. But we do detect false colors and prematurely clipped contrasts. They ring a false note.

Video acquisition for the most part is far more convenient and less expensive. But as mentioned, for the Big Boys it pales as a line item compared to your above the line costs. That's not likely to change. So if these costs are not the biggest deal to them, then Hollywood will go where the technical quality is, because everyone wants an edge on the next guy. If RED or other Digital Cameras gave you that edge they'd be on most of the features being shot. Red is not the first high rez digital acquisition nor is the best. The Arri D 20, Dalsa and Genesis surpass many of its specs. With more than a few years lead on RED you have to ask: why haven't the big boys embraced them?

My guess is they just don't look as good.

 

[Tim Naylor]

I think we are at the point where digital needs to step it up in the latitude department more then anything else.

I will say though, the RED footage they were showing at NAB this year was the sharpest footage I have ever seen anywhere, period.

Until we see the same subject shot with the same lens, one camera shooting on film (same ASA as RED) then scanned to 4k and one shot on RED, then both DI'd and output to film for projection, claims that RED is sharper are dubious at best.

 

[kenn michael]

The Red is hardly a threat. People using the Red wouldn't be using a panavision anyways. The Red will only be used by independent film makers, unless they can fix the flaws with the camera. I've heard mixed reviews by people on the Red. Sure, is it amazing for indies? Yeah.

Big Michael Douglas film just wrapped shooting with 6 Red cameras using Master Prime lenses. GI Joe is shooting completely Red. Darius Khondji (DP of Se7en) and Claudio Miranda (DP on David Fincher's latest film - Benjamin Button) are shooting on Red as we speak (big budget commercial campaigns)...

Not exactly indie films.

 

[JonathanLB]

The RED will be used and has been used for major projects already, like Wanted for instance.

It is a digital CINEMA camera, and when you film purists talk about making sacrifices, you are stating your own opinions. It'd be a sacrifice for me to shoot on film, I don't like film, I don't want to shoot on it, I don't want to deal with any film companies or camera companies that rent film cameras, etc. THAT is a sacrifice to my workflow and not something I ever want to do. I don't believe in film's future, I don't believe in the workflow, and I don't have any interest in going that route. Many other younger filmmakers don't either.

And RED isn't several stops below film, it's about 1.7, and that's not a huge issue. Epic will have better DR than film does or at least just as good I'd be almost sure of that. It's something RED has been working on for some time now.

RED footage isn't compressed either, not sure where you get that information, it's not compressed footage, it's 4:4:4 uncompressed colors and RAW footage. I know what I've seen from the RED and couldn't care less about any beta problems that have already been fixed or ARE being fixed now. That was anticipated. The RED is already better than film in many respects, and certainly the clarity of image looks a heck of a lot better than most of what is shot with film. Just download some of the clips and see for yourself. It's not hard to do anymore.

Film has its uses for now, but another 4-5 years and it won't be used much at all. Some directors or DPs will always want to use film still, so there will be that market, but most people will adapt as they always do to changing technology. Back in the day people thought digital could never compare to film because the best we had was like the XL-1 or something. We've come a long ways since then. For you to say that the RED shooting in 4K can't get as good of an image as film makes me think you are possibly blind or maybe just don't know anything about the visual image. The last two Star Wars prequels were shot in 1080p on the F900 and F950 and they both were output looking just as good as anything shot on film. In fact, much better because they were visually better movies than 99.9% of what is out there anyway. I saw Revenge of the Sith digitally projected and it looked crisper than film, even just at 1080p. So 4K being quite a bit better than that, yeah, it's better than film.

Also, you are on the DVXUser forum... and nobody buys their cameras? You did just write NOBODY buys cameras. Do you realize that 4,000 REDs have been sold, those aren't cheap cameras, and we all own HVX200s here or DVX100s, etc. I feel sorry for you if you get so little work that it's never worth buying a camera. I can't afford to rent, it's too expensive, I can't pay 5% of the price of a camera for every day I want to rent it. Or 10% the price of a reference monitor. It makes sense to rent grip and electric equipment because it's usually really cheap, and it may even make sense to buy it all if you have TONS of projects and know you'll use it all of the time, but cameras don't make any sense to rent in my opinion. Not unless it's a huge project and you are renting a better camera within the budget. But you should at least own something professional you can shoot with for your normal projects. It just makes no sense not to.

 

[Barry_Green]

It'd be a sacrifice for me to shoot on film, I don't like film, I don't want to shoot on it, I don't want to deal with any film companies or camera companies that rent film cameras, etc. THAT is a sacrifice to my workflow and not something I ever want to do.

Whatever. 95% or more of all Hollywood features are shot on film. Digital acquisition will grow, but it'll be a while.

When you talk about workflow, have you ever shot on a Red?

And RED isn't several stops below film, it's about 1.7

Have you ever shot on a Red? Most tests put it at about 9 stops, and 35mm film at about 13 stops. That's several.

RED footage isn't compressed either, not sure where you get that information, it's not compressed footage, it's 4:4:4 uncompressed colors and RAW footage.

You are about as incorrect as possible in these assessments. Red is HIGHLY compressed, and it's nowhere near 4K, nor is it anywhere near 4:4:4. Red uses wavelet compression at rates of 10:1 (for RedCode 36) to 13:1 (for Redcode 28). And the color sampling is coming off a Bayer-pattern sensor, which gives it at best about 4:2:0 color sampling.

Does it look good? Incredibly. Is it uncompressed 4:4:4? Of course not.

Film has its uses for now, but another 4-5 years and it won't be used much at all.

This is preposterous. Dude, cut down the hyperbole and show some respect for the craft. People have been declaring film "dead" for more than 30 years. Film was "dead" around 10 years ago when Lucas had Sony build the f900 for SW Ep 2, yet somehow something on the order of 95% of all Hollywood films are STILL shot on film.

Check back in 20 years, maybe digital will be the majority acquisition media. But relegating it to the "obsolete" pile in 4 years? You're displaying alarming naivete.

because the best we had was like the XL-1 or something.

Since when is "the best we had" an XL-1?!?! You could buy a DigiBeta rig at the same time as the XL-1, and I assure you the DigiBeta was leagues better. But nobody would touch that for moviemaking except a few documentarians.

For you to say that the RED shooting in 4K can't get as good of an image as film makes me think you are possibly blind or maybe just don't know anything about the visual image.

I'll grant you that Red images look absolutely great when projected. No argument there.

I saw Revenge of the Sith digitally projected and it looked crisper than film, even just at 1080p. So 4K being quite a bit better than that, yeah, it's better than film.

Digital projection from a proper high-res digital cinema projector can be better than film projection with its flicker and gate weave. No argument there. Has nothing to do with whether it was acquired digitally or not though.

Do you realize that 4,000 REDs have been sold

Do you realize that your number is way off? 4,000 reservations have been taken. That doesn't mean 4,000 units have been sold! Of that 4000, we have no way of knowing how many people have canceled even before Scarlet was announced, how many had bit off more than they could chew, how many had no business making a reservation in the first place... and I am pretty sure that many of those original 4,000 reservations canceled after finding out about Scarlet. Scarlet will be far more appropriate for most all the DVXUsers who originally put down money on a Red One, and I wouldn't be surprised if many/most of the DVXUser-level customers cancelled and decided to wait. No matter, the Red One will still be the most successful professional-level digital cinema camera of all time, but I sincerely doubt that all 4000 of those original reservations will be fulfilled. I bet many, many of them will now wait for Scarlet.

but cameras don't make any sense to rent in my opinion.

Well, you can pretty much assure yourself that you'll never be in the big leagues then. ALL big-leaguers rent their cameras every single time. Panavision won't even sell you their cameras, yet they're one of the most-used camera companies. Major-league DP's never bother to buy cameras, they always rent the latest and greatest. They'll usually own, at most, a light meter, and that's it. Everything else is rented.

But you should at least own something professional you can shoot with for your normal projects. It just makes no sense not to.

For beginners, learners, and micro-budget folks, yes, this is good advice.

 

[dsleep]

"ALL big-leaguers rent their cameras every single time"

doesn't rodriguez own cameras? I know for sure david lynch has owned cameras. I know some folks that did well at sundance using owned, not rented cameras. There are probably a decent number of other examples. I think this is something that will shift even more for the more independent minded directors/DP's/producers.

as far as the way hollywood works being the sensible way to do things, that is very very funny. the music industry has been absolutely handed it's ass for not responding to changes in technology properly and the same thing could very well happen to film.

it's sort of silly for us even to be talking about the way the true big boys work because it is absolutely alien to the way we work. Even if the technology existed to make a movie for 1 million dollars instead of 100 million dollars, most producers would have no interest because, in the words of a well known hollywood player, you can't embezzle 2 million dollars from a 1 million dollar movie.