Red Ruination Blue - a production blog

It's a big enough budget to do film right, so film we are doing.

It's not TV with film, it's just film.

Plus when you see my cast, there will be no hiding it from the public. It's going to need to be filmed on a closed set. Actually even when I did shoot HD we had a twenty man crew - no hiding them either!
 
LOL. My crews usually consist of the camera person, boom operator and a gaffer. You're 17 people up on me. When we shot in the subway I took the DVX in and shot with no incident. Then again our budget was $4500 which I'm sure 2 million will get you a lot more leverage as far as the doors that will readily open for you.

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
I'll say this. I wouldn't do TV with film. What I love about 24p DV/HD is the pick up and go quality. You can get in and out of places you just couldn't with a film crew. Like when I did the scene on the train. It was just me and the actress. No one stopped us or cared. If I had went in there, busted out the tripod and had to set up the film and ect, I'm sure someone would've said something. I'm looking at the HF100 now for even more ability to get in and out without problems, plus the light weight cameras can be stuck onto a Stickypod and placed onto an automobile or something like that.

-Nate
Click to expand...

Almost all major television shows are shot on Film still.

And sounds like you are well on your way. Just be careful with selling it. Acquisitions at sundance this year (many films that are hitting the big screen - like Adventureland) ranged between mid-six figure and two million. Indie films that are in the 1 - 4 million range are hard to sell and recoup investment. Just something to keep in the back of your head.

But if you have some contacts for pre-sale. More power to you. I wasn't aware that pre-sells still happen. I suppose on limited cases.
 
Steven, you don't have to rent Panavision to shoot anamorphic 35mm, but Panavision has some terrific deals on rentals, because a lot of people are switching to digital.

There are many rental houses that will rent you anamorphic lenses and Arri cameras. They are competitive, but if you're going to shoot 35mm anamorphic you should consider the "filmed in Panavision" credit on the film. You're going to get your money's worth with just that title.
 
That is exactly where I got it.

And Taormina - Best of luck buddy. Hope you do have the right cast. I am always a fan of your threads.
 
Ryan Paige said:
A lot of episodic TV is shot in controlled environments, though. Soundstages and the like.

I have noticed a lot more mixing of formats on some shows. For example, I know Numbers will often use digital (sometimes not very good digital) for in-car shots or other location work.
Click to expand...

This is very popular with NCIS. I was reading about it in HDVideo Pro. They mix formats all the time. If I had my pick I would shoot HVX200, HCM150, the Canon Xl-h1 or A1. I'd have the HF for really tight shots (like in cars). Production would move faster. I'd kick it over to the editor. See any problems right then and there.

That's what I love. I remember shooting a whole role of film in school under poorly lit conditions. Most of it was unusable. We forgot to set our light meter for indoor. We were getting bad readings and didn't know it. With digital, most of the time, I know immediately if there's an issue, especially if we have a monitor.

I love to see HVX200 footage with the 35mm adapters. It looks a really good. What I've found is your average person doesn't know the difference between 24p, 30p and a rock. They only know what looks filmish and what looks like video. I look at something like Corrado and if I didn't know it was shot digitally I wouldn't care. It looks cool and that's what a lot of people go for. The story, the look and the action, horror, romance or whatever. You can get a great look from any of these. So far I think Panasonic cameras get the best looks, but I really do love the Canons. This new JVC really has peeked my interest, me being a Mac-head and all.

-Nate
 
I wonder if this season of "24" is being shot digitally. I hate to put it this way, but it looks lower-def than I remember it looking in the last couple of seasons. Some of the low light scenes have been *really* noisy...
 
If you're going for a DI, how about the new Aaton Penelope 35mm? It's 2-perf native (techniscope style), so you save money and get 2.40 ratio straight off, with spherical lenses.
I don't think it's been widely used yet, but I'm sure it was released for sale some months back - I'm sure some of you on this forum will have heard of it and debated on whether it's worth considering or not.
I know that it's light and very quiet.

L.A. rental is at Abel Cine Tech.

At the Aaton website:
www.aaton.com/products/film/penelope/
 
Nathyn said:
I love to see HVX200 footage with the 35mm adapters. It looks a really good. What I've found is your average person doesn't know the difference between 24p, 30p and a rock. They only know what looks filmish and what looks like video.

-Nate
Click to expand...

I like the look of the adapters. I shot my film with the HVX200 and the Letus Extreme and even when blown up on a huge screen (Tribeca Cinema) the image held it's own. Most people thought we shot on film.

Yes, the image isn't 35mm but it isn't 'digital video' either. I think the adapters have created their own look that is unique. Call it digital 35 or whatever, but the look is distinctive and helps the audience in making them believe that they are watching a 'film'.

Again, I was so happy to see the footage look so great on a big screen (of course the film was shown at 720p). Even as the director/actor/etc. I, myself, forgot that I was watching digital (even from the 'low' res HVX200 lol) looking at that huge screen; I was totally immersed into the 'theater experience' and I really think these adapters have opened a new door. For better or for worse (guess that depends on what side of the video/film fence you sit on).

Todd
 
DCP said:
I like the look of the adapters. I shot my film with the HVX200 and the Letus Extreme and even when blown up on a huge screen (Tribeca Cinema) the image held it's own. Most people thought we shot on film.

...
Even as the director/actor/etc. I, myself, forgot that I was watching digital (even from the 'low' res HVX200 lol) looking at that huge screen; I was totally immersed into the 'theater experience' and I really think these adapters have opened a new door. For better or for worse (guess that depends on what side of the video/film fence you sit on).
Click to expand...

I agree. When I saw my little V1U blown up on the big screen (rented to a friend for his movie) I was blown away. It didn't look like video at all. I think to the uber-pro well trained eye, they may think something is wrong. But to 99% of America (the main audience) they couldn't tell what it was shot on. The adapters, forcing the depth of field along with 24p make most people feel that it was shot with 35mm or at least Super 16mm.

And now from what I've learned through creative cow (the whole post in the 24 diary last page) I really feel that Digital Cinema is just being bashed because those in Hollywood are just used to doing things a certain way. People bashed Windows / Mac because they were used to using DOS. People bashed Digital photography. People just don't like to change. To go out and "rebuy" and "rethink" a new technology.
 
jsb23 said:
If you're going for a DI, how about the new Aaton Penelope 35mm? It's 2-perf native (techniscope style), so you save money and get 2.40 ratio straight off, with spherical lenses.
I don't think it's been widely used yet, but I'm sure it was released for sale some months back - I'm sure some of you on this forum will have heard of it and debated on whether it's worth considering or not.
I know that it's light and very quiet.

L.A. rental is at Abel Cine Tech.

At the Aaton website:
www.aaton.com/products/film/penelope/
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tip - I'll def. look into this....
 
jls4 said:
And now from what I've learned through creative cow (the whole post in the 24 diary last page) I really feel that Digital Cinema is just being bashed because those in Hollywood are just used to doing things a certain way. People bashed Windows / Mac because they were used to using DOS. People bashed Digital photography. People just don't like to change. To go out and "rebuy" and "rethink" a new technology.
Click to expand...

Hey, I love digital cinema. I put my money where my mouth is and spent half a million dollars on a digital film shot on two HVXs and two Letus Extremes with a set of Nikons. I was very happy with the results. And I'll probably shoot digital again if the project warrants it.

Still, if there's any bashing to digital, we, as digital filmmakers helped create it. Any idiot with a $5K camera was given the liberty to go out and shoot a movie....and damn it, they did just that, releasing poorly lit, badly focused, awful sounding movies shot for just pennies. Sure, there's the odd gem in there, but really, low cost film making has produced a glut of crappy homemade films that can't get distribution and basically make us all look bad.

Digital filmmakers like to point out that "Lucas shoots on a genesis" and "Soderbergh shoots on a RED". Let's me tell you, the average digital filmmaker has nothing in common with what Lucas and Soderbergh do and it has nothing to do with talent: These guys shoot with just as many people as if they were shooting film!

They are just as disciplined and well funded. For them, digital isn't a way to take a shortcut and shoot a feature with one light and two people. It's just another tool in their arsenal. They still employ the same number of crew (if not more) they would have on their 35mm films.

So if you are seeing digital filmmaking as another tool in your artistic palette, I salute you. If you're seeing it as a big money saver 'cause you shoot with fewer crew, sneak into locations you'd otherwise have to pay for, etc. .....you aren't shooting digital for the medium itself, it becomes solely a cost saving device and the "art" of it becomes economy.
 
jls4 said:
I agree. When I saw my little V1U blown up on the big screen (rented to a friend for his movie) I was blown away. It didn't look like video at all. I think to the uber-pro well trained eye, they may think something is wrong. But to 99% of America (the main audience) they couldn't tell what it was shot on. The adapters, forcing the depth of field along with 24p make most people feel that it was shot with 35mm or at least Super 16mm.

And now from what I've learned through creative cow (the whole post in the 24 diary last page) I really feel that Digital Cinema is just being bashed because those in Hollywood are just used to doing things a certain way. People bashed Windows / Mac because they were used to using DOS. People bashed Digital photography. People just don't like to change. To go out and "rebuy" and "rethink" a new technology.
Click to expand...

hell, in 2005 I showed a DVX100 (no adapter) feature to the guy who teaches cinematography at USC and he thought is was 35mm. and this was after seeing it projected at the Egyptian in hollywood (i.e. massive screen).
 
taormina said:
Digital filmmakers like to point out that "Lucas shoots on a genesis" and "Soderbergh shoots on a RED". Let's me tell you, the average digital filmmaker has nothing in common with what Lucas and Soderbergh do and it has nothing to do with talent: These guys shoot with just as many people as if they were shooting film!

They are just as disciplined and well funded. For them, digital isn't a way to take a shortcut and shoot a feature with one light and two people. It's just another tool in their arsenal. They still employ the same number of crew (if not more) they would have on their 35mm films.
Click to expand...

The hard truth.

-Nate
 
Just to add to the list of those shooting digital ER is shooting the last 7 episodes on RED. I'm glad to see more acceptance of digital workflows in the mainstream, but like Adam said it isnt any easier or cheaper necessarily. Glad to see you're going with you know what works - removes alot of the what-ifs and potential surprises of a new workflow.

I'm curious to hear more about potential casting though when you can talk about it. Perhaps I missed it but are you going to try and cast Sizemore again for this? I think you mentioned you wanted him for Hanger 51 but couldnt remember on RRB. Good luck on this Adam, look forward to hearing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top