A camera is not the first step... it is the LAST!

A

AshG

Veteran
I am as excited about the possibility of a diverse high end camera but it seems that on this forum more than others, people assume that the camera is the first step into getting into the movie business. I suppose because there are more home grown indie film makers on this site than others.

IMHO RED is targeting HD 2/3" CCD cameras, not HDV or 1/3" CCD cameras. It is not about market share, it is about making a quality product with superior specs for the same or less money. At $25K without a lens, the product would be revolutionary and steal away a lot of Varicam and F900 rentals/sales.

Back to my original point, getting the best brush does not make your painting better. Hollywood is hollywood because of producers/studios/ACTORS/SCRIPTS/MARKETING/etc. not because of tech specs, rez charts, cameras, formats, etc.

The sad reality is that you are far more likely to get distibution with a has-been actor on your DVX movie than you are from a movie shot in HD with no-names. Sucks for sure but anyone with experience will tell you that getting Scott Baio in your movie will help it with distribution (especially overseas) more than it being shot with better cameras.

The RED camera will be a great great tool for the indie film maker but it wont help you sell your movie or get it on the big screen. What it will do, is help you get your vision for your film in the highest quality possible at less cost than previously thought. If you have big screen dreams, focus on your story that will hopefully lure an actor that will hopefully get some funding that will help you up your production value and THEN you make the decision on what camera/format to use...




ash =o)
 
I think your point is a given. I think the camera has the potential to not only level the playing field, but put more attention on the creative side of digital low budget filmmaking. People won't be hindered by the format limitations of Minidv/HDV. They will however be hindered by their own creativity. Isn't that how it should be?
 
When I make my next feature (sometime in 2007) I'm certainly not going to get one of the latest HD 1/3" cameras annymore. I'm gonna either rent an f900, or the RED camera (if it's out by then). I just finished making a feature using a DVX100, and while it was certainly a great tool, a better camera would have made a better looking image, all else being equal.

I'm not putting down the DVX or XL2s of the world at all. For the price, they're spectacular. But they do have many, many limitations. Detail, color, chromatic aberration, dropouts, artifacting, noise... I don't want to put up with it anymore. For the price of a tricked-out XL-H1, I can rent an f900 for 3 weeks. There's just no contest.

A movie that looks spectacular will still suck if the screenplay is bad, or if the editing is off, or the actors are cheesy. But if everything else is in place, then I'd certainly want the best-looking footage I can get. Therefore, Ash, I agree with you completely.

Scott Baio... Hehehe.
 
I don't think anyone expects this camera to equal automatic distribution for their film.
What it will do is 'level the field' hopefully - so that from the first frame of a film a distributor won't be automatically turned off by "another low budget digi-film"

I've said it from the start - it's not going to make it any easier to make a good movie,
but it will definitely make it harder to make excuses for a bad one.

Like Issac said, we'll be hindered by our own creativity...
As it should be.
 
...people assume that the camera is the first step into getting into the movie business.
Click to expand...

People think a camera guarantees getting into the moveibusiness. Who said this ?

But lets be honest; without a camera it's just film theory. Putting a quailty camera into a young indiefilmmaker's hand's is substantially more rewarding for them than 'practicing' on some Hi8. So, on that note, a camera is a first step. Without it we're just talking about it. With it, we're out there getting wet and getting practicle experience. As Isaac mentions; then our creativity is what is hindered.

I suppose because there are more home grown indie film makers on this site than others.
Click to expand...

This is because we rule.

IMHO RED is targeting HD 2/3" CCD cameras, not HDV or 1/3" CCD cameras. It is not about market share, it is about making a quality product with superior specs for the same or less money. At $25K without a lens, the product would be revolutionary and steal away a lot of Varicam and F900 rentals/sales.
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly concerned with what market Red is after. There's a long way to go before we get to the issue of cost. The first step here is 'Can we build it' ?

Back to my original point, getting the best brush does not make your painting better. Hollywood is hollywood because of producers/studios/ACTORS/SCRIPTS/MARKETING/etc. not because of tech specs, rez charts, cameras, formats, etc.
Click to expand...

When it comes to tech specs, rez charts, cameras and formats, I really don't care. All this techtalk takes the fun out of it for me. Save that for those that understand these things. Like Algebra, I just need to know how to do it; not why.

In truth, a HI8 in Spielberg's hands is better than a 35mm Arri in our hands but it is tons more rewarding working with the best gear. In the 60's, Spielberg, Lucas, DePalma, Hooper all worked with quality film equiptment. These day's we can't afford to work in Super8 it seems as it is just not practical to the pocket.

So, I'd rather learn my craft using the best brush I can get and that really shouldn't stress anyone out should it ?

The sad reality is that you are far more likely to get distibution with a has-been actor on your DVX movie than you are from a movie shot in HD with no-names. Sucks for sure but anyone with experience will tell you that getting Scott Baio in your movie will help it with distribution (especially overseas) more than it being shot with better cameras.
Click to expand...

Tell this too Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez, Shane Carruth, Jared Hess, Kevin Smith, Craig Brewer and (Gasp!) Robert Rodriguez. My point is:

Is takes talent, skill and perseverance sprinkled with a dash of luck. Forget about has-beens and high-def.

The RED camera will be a great great tool for the indie film maker but it wont help you sell your movie or get it on the big screen. What it will do, is help you get your vision for your film in the highest quality possible at less cost than previously thought. If you have big screen dreams, focus on your story that will hopefully lure an actor that will hopefully get some funding that will help you up your production value and THEN you make the decision on what camera/format to use...
Click to expand...

I could not agree more and if there are people that believe otherwise, point us in their direction.
 
We can do nothing about one's creativity. That's up to you and your therapist. What we can do is open the door to a new place once you wish to use your creativity. We do not want your tools to be the limiting factor.

With reference to the Sony 900, we have one. And we use it. But it's limitations are one of the things that inspired us to take on this project.

I hope to personally meet all of you who come to NAB. I'll be there everyday to talk "shop". I'll also be surrounded by a group of capable and interesting people to answer all questions... starting with Graeme. I love his thinking. In his mind (and mine) there is a creative solution to every problem. There are no walls thick enough to stop us from getting to the prize. Others in our group (which need to remain nameless for now) share the same vision, talent and passion for this project.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
With reference to the Sony 900, we have one. And we use it. But it's limitations are one of the things that inspired us to take on this project.

Jim
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Like Isaac said, this is all a given. What's sad is that sometimes a better scripted film will be less favorably received solely because of technical quality of the format. For example, at my school we shoot two formats - 16mm and minidv. Even the best of the MiniDV films get ragget on by the average person just because "DV sucks". It's one of those things people imbibe and memorize, but don't understand or question. And yet, people believing it helps keep drawing more people into the financial sinkhole of 16mm, and all the talentless hacks keep choosing DV, thinking, OH, DV IS EASY. Grr.
What a random response. The upshot is, cameras matter. They matter a lot. Saying, oh, script will pull you through is like talking to a poor person and telling them, oh, work your way up. A lot easier if dad's a millionaire ...
 
What I don't get is -- why does everyone assume that everyone's a filmmaker? I'd say the vast majority of users who use these cameras to make money are not out there producing independent films. They're stringers, or wedding shooters, or event shooters, or convention coverage, or news shooters, or videotaping concerts and things like that.

There are plenty of reasons to talk about the tool that have nothing to do with cinematography, lighting, scripting, acting, or any of that stuff.

A camera will not make a film good, nor will it turn its owner into a filmmaker. But having a specific camera can turn a shooter into a hired shooter.
 
My post was only in reaction to several "stick it to the man...let's show Hollywood" type replies on other posts and also many hinting the price should be lower to give more people a chance, etc.

I think RED will be great, it is a better tool and cheaper than most in its class, ultimately it is up to the architect what he does with the tool. The number of movies shot on FILM that dont get distribution is pretty high. Even then, distribution without marketing is meaningless.

My ultimate point is that no camera, now or ever will be the tipping point for the indie film maker. A great tool? Yes...



ash =o)
 
Barry_Green said:
What I don't get is -- why does everyone assume that everyone's a filmmaker? I'd say the vast majority of users who use these cameras to make money are not out there producing independent films. They're stringers, or wedding shooters, or event shooters, or convention coverage, or news shooters, or videotaping concerts and things like that.

There are plenty of reasons to talk about the tool that have nothing to do with cinematography, lighting, scripting, acting, or any of that stuff.

A camera will not make a film good, nor will it turn its owner into a filmmaker. But having a specific camera can turn a hooter into a hired shooter.
Click to expand...



I agree 100% with that Barry. I have shot one feature doc and I make a ton more on freelance one offs. I have done several press kits for indie films where I was making more than anyone on the entire film crew. Pretty unfair IMHO but the money, for the little guy anyway, aint in movies. I think RED has the potential to make a nice dent in the market of guys like myself that are used to renting Varicams for HD projects...




ash =o)
 
Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but the only thing I do with my DVX is shoot narrative film. Which is why the prospect of the RED camera is so appealing. I don't know many folks out there who would want their wedding shot on 4K ;)

That would make an interesting poll, though. What do people here do with their cameras? Films, events, documentaries, stock footage, extreme sports?
 
AshG said:
I agree 100% with that Barry. I have shot one feature doc and I make a ton more on freelance one offs. I have done several press kits for indie films where I was making more than anyone on the entire film crew. Pretty unfair IMHO but the money, for the little guy anyway, aint in movies.
Click to expand...
Exactly agreed, across the board. I know that it seems like everyone aspires to be a filmmaker, but I think a lot more money gets made on unscripted stuff.

I get a little frustrated when people imply that talking about the tool is a waste of breath and "let's all focus on the script or the lighting" or whatever, because not everyone is in it to make a Hollywood blockbuster... and no camera is going to make a dent in that anyway -- give a Genesis to the average aspiring filmmaker and they'll turn out a piece of work about equivalent to what they would have done on a DVX.

But when I get a phone call that says "hey, I need to hire three DVX shooters, I'm paying $850 a day", that means something. And while there's actually one place in town I could rent a DVX from, there's a whole lot of towns where you can't even do that. Not all of us live in L.A. or NYC or Chicago! :) So the actual choice and actual selection of a camera can be a decision of paramount importance for someone who's in the business of being a shooter.

So, if someone's trying to make a movie, the particular camera chosen is likely to be the least important thing to worry about -- I don't think anyone would say "wow -- lousy script, lousy lighting, horrible direction, but man, the fact that it was shot on high-def just saves it entirely, let's buy it and make that filmmaker a millionaire!" But there's plenty to talk about in camera stuff; someone with a DVX is going to get hired for jobs where we used to hire PD150's, but nobody's asking for PD150's anymore. Maybe I'm in an isolated area (Las Vegas), but when I show up for event coverage at SEMA or NAB or wherever, I never see PD150's anymore -- it's all DVX's, with 1 in 10 being an XL2 or a Z1 (among handhelds). People used to ask for BetaSP -- a couple of weeks ago I got my first request for BetaSP in the last two years. Not that it's not out there and not still working somewhere in some capacity, but nobody asks for it anymore.

I totally identify with your frustration. But I think there's a lot of people for whom the discussion is quite pertinent.
 
Jannard said:
We can do nothing about one's creativity. That's up to you and your therapist.
Click to expand...

I don't know if people missed that humorous quip or what, but this made me laugh for quite a while, thanks Jim!:cheesy:

As far as mini-DV and film and the RED and all that stuff goes, my view of it is that the camera does matter but to a point. My classes so far at UNLV have used cheap consumer JVC mini-DV cameras and one Bolex 16mm film shoot segment. The mini-DV shorts people made were nice, of course my GL1 spanked the cheapie JVC's, but I was beat by a guy with a DVX100A in terms of image quality. However, my films were deemed the best in the class because mine were actually original, fun, and enjoyable while everybody else stole things and got... well... the nicest way to say it is "artsy".

The point is that the camera, in that instance, didn't matter, the story mattered.

Continuing on with this, the film shoot and projection of it in class that we did only taught me one thing about the choices in movie making mediums, there's always bigger and better. The resolution of the 16mm film was amazing, I was blown away, no DVX or GL1 or XL2 could beat that, maybe the new HD cameras could match it but in full resolution comparisons, the 16mm film will still beat out in wide details, I'm sure. That's what I got out of seeing film in action.

Going further though, the camera choice starts to get even less important. There was a 48-hour film contest at UNLV back in November. I participated and was outclassed on creativity and camera technology (it was mostly a 24p-laden affair) because I didn't expect it to be such a big deal, so I half-arsed my project. Oh well, I wasn't going to win anything, but what I noticed was that the winners of the contest didn't use any fancy cameras like the FX1 or DVX, they used some cheapie mini-DV cameras of some kind and they beat out all the other high-end DVX and FX1 entries and won because their stories were very original and creative, though they did steal some stuff like music and perhaps a few little ideas. But in any case, story and creativity won the day again.

I guess that makes me a partial believer in "story first"-filmmaking but my attitude is that if the film looks good too, that doesn't hurt at all.
 
I guess it's way too soon to tell, since price isn't close to being determined, but RED seems like a pretty serious investment to try to recoup if you're an event cinematographer or the like. But hey, if you're the only one on your block with a DVX, you'll DEFINITELY be the only one with a RED...
 
Barry_Green said:
What I don't get is -- why does everyone assume that everyone's a filmmaker? I'd say the vast majority of users who use these cameras to make money are not out there producing independent films. They're stringers, or wedding shooters, or event shooters, or convention coverage, or news shooters, or videotaping concerts and things like that.

There are plenty of reasons to talk about the tool that have nothing to do with cinematography, lighting, scripting, acting, or any of that stuff.

A camera will not make a film good, nor will it turn its owner into a filmmaker. But having a specific camera can turn a shooter into a hired shooter.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you because I certainly don't call myself a filmmaker. I haven't made any movies and at the moment I'm just honing my skills. My card says videographer.
 
A previous post of mine on DV Info Net concerning ability, experience, and experience, and how those factors unlock or limit the potential of the RED camera seems appropriate for this thread:

“I view the creative process, whether it is in video or film, as having three key elements: ability, experience, and technology.

Ability, or in other words "talent", is something a person is born with. It is not learned, manufactured, or purchased, and there is no way to artificially generate it. You simply have it - or you don't. You can have a massive ability quotient, but if you never use it, you can never gain another critical element of the creative process - experience.

Experience has no shortcuts. You simply have to spend time learning your craft, or in a non-union, boutique shop environment, multiple crafts. No matter how much ability you have and how much technology you buy, you have to have the perseverance to spend countless hours acquiring experience. Assuming that you have good ability, and you tenaciously accumulate experience, you still need the final tool in the triad of elements - technology.

Technology is the universal democratizer. If someone with ability and experience makes an ongoing, concerted effort to stay continually current with their industry's technology, and maximize it's use in their creative efforts, their chances of professional and fiscal success are greatly enhanced. You can have all the ability and experience in the world, but if you can't get access to affordable technology to use as the paintbrush to paint your masterpiece, your chances of exhibiting your ability and experience to the public are severely disabled.

Summary:

Ability, experience, and technology must dance in unison for any given person to reach their highest and best use level. Will the RED camera automatically give users ability and experience? No. Will the RED camera give users that have ability and experience a new avenue to affordably demonstrate their ability and use their experience? Yes. Will the RED camera turn a low-ability, low-experience person into a master craftsperson? No. Will the RED camera provide producers will a cost-effective new production tool to help productions stay within budget, or to produce projects that previously were not financially feasible? Potentially. Will the RED camera allow experienced professionals with good ability to produce projects that have, until now, been the domain of large-budget gatekeepers? Potentially. Assuming that you have great ability and deep experience, the RED camera may be the technological key that opens the door to a vast array of new projects for you. You're born with your ability, work hard for your experience, but then technology is the vehicle that transports you to your dreams. Will the RED camera change the intrinsic dynamic and status quo of the film and HDTV industries? Potentially. Can the RED camera promote disintegration of the traditional compartmentalized, large-crew production model? Potentially.

I view the RED camera as the next generation of affordable, enabling vehicles…”

Postscript:

Will the RED camera be affordable, scalable and modular, thus allowing you to cost-effectively accessorize the basic camera to fit your budget and production niche, whether that be ENG, documentaries, features, indies, corporate media, events, commercials, and any other type of motion media niche you produce in – and in the process unlock a myriad of ways for freelancers to generate income? My guess is “yes”, but let’s just see what RED presents at NAB…

By the end of this year my in-house quiver of camera systems will probably be: 1) A RED camera, with a wide array of ENG and cine-style accessories. 2) An HVX200, with a wide array of ENG and cine-style accessories. I’ll simply rent, on a per project basis, any other accessories for those cameras I don’t have, or any other types of camera systems I may need for individual projects. Other professionals with similar equipment will be hired for my projects.

My mantra? “Maximize technology while minimizing overhead”.

Gibby

----------------------------
President
Cut4 Media Group
Web: www.cut4.tv

Member, Board of Governors
National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS)
Pacific Southwest Region
Web: www.nataspsw.com

Member, Board of Directors
San Luis Obispo International Film Festival
Web: www.slofilmfest.org
----------------------------
 
That is a good mantra. I dont mind talking gear, my red flags go up when I hear people talk as if the prohibitive cost of shooting film/HD/whatever is THE thing holding them or other aspiring film makers back.

For every Napoleon Dynamite that breaks out there are 100 TERRIBLE movies with bad scripts, horrific production values and a "B" rate star that get distribution, mainly from foreign money. Pretty sad that Tina Yothers can help your film more than a great camera like RED. It can still be part of the equation though...



ash =o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top