Confused about the reality

[LoveDVX]

I'm not one to read film forums usually but I stumbled across this one again after we wrecked a DVX on a small shoot I was helping on. I feel the need, for whatever reason, to chime in here for some comments and questions that seem to have not come up before and does deserve a thread, which hopefully will be looked at seriously.

I applaud the Red team and Panasonic for their work in the area of small affordable cameras. I try not to get caught up in the tech too much but it's really impressive I'm sure.

My confusion, and maybe it's frustration too, leads me to ask something here. Do most of you out there understand how little any new camera or technology actually has on the world of commercial, independent film production?

I assume that most of you on here are tech gurus, video production crew or are students with the usual curiosity so maybe I'm in the wrong forum to post this kind of topic but it seems like a lot of people think that after whatever camera is made, everyone can suddenly make professional, marketable films. Am I alone in seeing this? Do you really think that is true, any more than it is right now? Did you know that Sundance gets 1000's of films every year and only accepts a few hundred or less (or whatever the number is)? Even with professional actors, well done film or HD, etc, the chances of selling a movie for more than you spent is about one in a thousand?

I think I wanted to bring it up because I've been developing a project that has an upper six-figure budget and am fresh with the in's and out's of what makes a film workable. Do you know how little the film and camera rental is of a real film budget? Do you know that most producers and directors (myself included) don't want too much resolution and prefer grain and organic "flaws"? Did you know that many very experienced DP's, mine included, think 35mm film is becoming too sharp and boring? Did you know that's it's all about the acting and story, of course after a certain basic level of quality has been achieved??

After much research on my own and collaboration with my cinematographer, who is very experienced with HD, up to anamorphic 35mm, we've chosen to shoot with Super16 without question. We will be using the new Arri 416 that I personally checked out at the NAB show (how cool that was). Anyway, this is not a huge concern when it comes to making the film. Your budget for legitimate actors, lighting, real sets, logistics and travel, insurance, professional sound, post sound, real music, etc., etc., will run you lots more than any camera or film.

So why do many people out there collectively think a technology will change anything? I know tech's don't like comments like this but face it guys, these companies are making cameras to make money. The technology to make a viable film exists right now and it's not so expensive when you consider what you really need to make a movie realistically. And I'm not referring to student level, $20,000 movies, which I've been involved with way too many times. I'm talking about a crafted piece of work that artists work on together to make a whole. Something people can be proud of and equally as important, strangers would pay to see.

If we could use a Red camera on this film, we might use it or might not, it wouldn't be a big deal for me unless it detracted from the feeling I want to visually get out of the settings. If it did as well as the 16mm tests, then it would be nice and convenient, but it wouldn't really change anything enough to make the movie much different or cheaper in the end. In fact I bet it would cause trouble technically as I've seen with current HD and how it is still not at all bug free.

It will be interesting if I get one well thought-out response to this. It hurts to learn guys... open your eyes and stop wasting money to try and fix your hopes and dreams!

 

[vidled]

LOL, this has been discussed here before....many times.
I don't read all posts, but I believe no one on this forum is saying that by using a RED cam as the capture tool, his/her film is automatically going to be a great movie.
The HVX has brought FANTASTIC quality into the hands of many new filmmakers; surely a good thing.
RED is continuing this exciting trend.

 

[Homersapien]

Hello LoveDVX,
A couple of points about your post. First off you obviously have been in the business for a while and as such have worked on larger productions, as you say you are budgetting a 6 figure one at the moment. So needless to say you have already found your niche or place in film-making and to be content with such a thing is not a bad thing at all.

But Digital film-making will become more common over the years and the point of Red One is that the acquisition of film quality footage being produced has been opened to the masses. Small independent film-makers will often find it difficult to shell out $1000 a day for a camera and zoom lense - after a month or two you could have bought a RedOne and a decent zoom. Next you have the costs of the film stock, transferring it to a digital version for post and then the ability to handle the RAW files once they are compressed and a whole lot more. The whole process of making a film is expensive and not something that anyone can do without some previous knowledge of that format. Imagine if you have never used a film camera, what are your choices for learning the trade? Go out and rent, borrow or steal? or pay upwards of the cost of a RedOne and more to go to college or university to be taught alot of stuff you possibly already know simply to get your hands on the equipment and start shooting? The point is for many people RedOne offers them the ability to have technology on a par with that being used by the studios, even a novice can buy a RedOne, some lenses and accessories and begin shooting scenes of all types just for the sake of learning the best methods by trial and error.

If a camera such as this is available from the smallest independent right through to the studios then it offers a greater scope for the evolution of a filmmaker because they are not reliant on whether their film fails because their footage didn't look good enough on a large screen, they are simply responsible for the telling of the story and the quality of the lighting, actors, sets props etc - It's one more link out of the complex chain of movie making.

I don't think there is a single person here at DVXUser that believes they will become a filmmaker overnight simply by owning a RedOne - if they aren't already - but the best tools DO make for the best looking piece of art - imagine if the sisteen chapel were painted in powder paint

I personally believe film and digital both have their place, but the advantages of working in a digital format are very high and whilst it can be argued that film grain gives a certain look and feel the truth is that if your heart is so set on having it in your movie it's not exactly difficult to add it in post anyway. Purists would argue this is not right but the fact remains that the same purists would struggle to even recognise which is which when the two were shown side by side (Given it was done well). One of the purposes of red is to produce such a pure image that you can manipulate it post to however you wish your movie to look.

The biggest revolution in technology here isn't so much the actual camera (Although on spec it outstrips the best digital cinema cameras currently available) but the fact it is priced at a different customer than cameras such as this usually are.

Sundance may very well still reject films made by users here on this forum but at least those users will know it wasn't rejected because it looks like video shot on a dvx but instead because their story or acting or whatever failed them.

So why do many people out there collectively think a technology will change anything? Because independent film makers will be able to afford a quality digital cinema camera and a well thoughtout post production process that doesn't require the most expensive computer in the world to edit, color correct or whatever - that can be used over and over again on multiple productions, vastly decreasing the costs of each production and produce impressive pieces of art (at least visually anyway ).

I'd be very keen to hear what your DP thinks of RedOne. I'm sure he would be able to better explain the benefits of it more than I could.

 

[ZaneIsNumber1]

It will be interesting if I get one well thought-out response to this. It hurts to learn guys... open your eyes and stop wasting money to try and fix your hopes and dreams!

No well thought out response coming from me, you're tone is too condescending for me to bother. Just lots of people interested in digital cinematography and looking forward to a (hopefully) great digital cinema camera chatting on this board.

 

[Barry_Green]

Been there, done that, in depth. Lots of good discussion ensued.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=654875

 

[wigby]

did you know?

did you know?

and did you know this? and did you know that? and did you know...

shut up.

we get it.

 

[visceralpsyche]

Just a quick note on the grain (or lack thereof in digital cinema) being part of the warmth of film:

A DP I worked with once mentioned something interesting which people tend to forget - even if you shoot and post entirely in the digital domain (we were talking about the Genesis at the time), if your movie ends up on screen it is generally still being projected from a celluloid copy, which by its very nature, HAS grain built into it. The other thing that he suggested was that if you wanted a filmic look for your final cut, you could always scan out at whatever resolution to a film stock, then scan or telecine that back into your mastering suite for the DVD version. This is obviously predicated on having the budget to do this sort of thing, but if you're talking a film which has theatrical distribution locked in then it's a moot point as the budget will already be there in 99% of cases.

As always, think outside the square

 

[Homersapien]

Whether he is condescending or just being ignorant with the do you know this and that comments give him your honest opinion, telling people to shut up because they have a negative point of view only makes this community look stubborn and unwilling to consider viewpoints such as his.

Likewise however if you write something like:
"It will be interesting if I get one well thought-out response to this. It hurts to learn guys... open your eyes and stop wasting money to try and fix your hopes and dreams!"

You are always going to come across as a complete tool.

Many people here are professionals, many are not but still have a very high understading of concepts and practices and many come to learn - not to be spoken down to by people who mistakenly believe they've earnt the right to do so.

 

[HKSC 2007]

Confused about the reality :

Creating Content is creating ARTs, and no matter it's in a Film or Digital format.

Find your comfortable tool to change your world.

Tomorrow will rain, some people will follow the RED hot sun.

As always, there's only one in the crowd.

Pleased yourself first then pleased somebody, we hope.

 

[Haakon]

I'm not one to read film forums usually but I stumbled across this one again after we wrecked a DVX on a small shoot I was helping on.

Sounds like you're off to a great start!

Do most of you out there understand how little any new camera or technology actually has on the world of commercial, independent film production?

How little what?

It seems like a lot of people think that after whatever camera is made, everyone can suddenly make professional, marketable films.

I think most people here are creative filmmakers who care about the images they create. I haven't seen any posts saying that RED is going to change the marketability of the films made with the camera.

Even with professional actors, well done film or HD, etc, the chances of selling a movie for more than you spent is about one in a thousand?

Is that a question? Again, no one here is saying otherwise. RED is a new tool; any artist wants the best brush he can apply to his canvas.

I think I wanted to bring it up because I've been developing a project that has an upper six-figure budget and am fresh with the in's and out's of what makes a film workable.

Wow, six figures eh? I hope you don't wreck that camera too!

Do you know how little the film and camera rental is of a real film budget?

What defines a "real" film? Money? If that's how you judge a film, we're further behind than I thought. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, so you must know that there is more to filmmaking than just a budget. Lemme break it down for you... if you included all of the stock, developing, processing, and telecine fees, the budget of my last film would have more than tripled if we had chosen to shoot 35 instead of shooting digitally. So yes, it was a significant part of the budget. Sure, when you look at a multi-million dollar hollywood feature, film makes up a much less significant part of the cost - but then again if Big Momma's House 2 and The Benchwarmers are the "standard" by which we're judging "real" films... ooh boy.

Do you know that most producers and directors (myself included) don't want too much resolution and prefer grain and organic "flaws"?

Choosing to shoot on 16 for stylistic reasons is one thing, but knocking a fomat because it has "too much resolution" is nonsense. If you're taking it from the perspective of dealing with the extra file size in post, that's a reasonable argument - but if you have the budget for a "real" film, then you have the budget to deal with a 4K post workflow. In fact, thanks to advancement in RED's compression technologies, even the "independents" can deal with a 4K workflow. That's a pretty big deal (and hence, why there is so much discussion over it).

As for grain, that's a completely subjective topic that no one can be more right or wrong than anyone else with their opinion. I have my own opinions on the subject, but we'll leave it at that. All I can say is that it's a good thing that it's usually the cinematographers and not the producers and the directors that are spending time worrying about what kind of "organic flaws" they do or don't want when capturing the look of the film.

Did you know that many very experienced DP's, mine included, think 35mm film is becoming too sharp and boring? Did you know that's it's all about the acting and story, of course after a certain basic level of quality has been achieved??

35mm is too sharp and boring? So digital must be too dull and... boring?

I'm not sure what to make of this one. It sounds to me like you only had the budget for a 16mm shoot so you're trying to convince yourself that you're better off this way. Or that you belong to the school of thought that thinks that any movie with a bunch of grain and a bleach bypassed look is inherently better than any other film on the planet, just because it's "cool!" Lemme guess, Fight Club is your favorite movie? Trainspotting? Se7en?

Oh wait, they shot those on 35... definitely too boring. You got me!

After much research on my own and collaboration with my cinematographer ... we will be using the new Arri 416 that I personally checked out at the NAB show (how cool that was).

*scratches head*

"Do most of you out there understand how little any new camera or technology actually has on the world of commercial, independent film production?

(unless it's really "cool," apparently...)

Anyway, this is not a huge concern when it comes to making the film. Your budget for legitimate actors, lighting, real sets, logistics and travel, insurance, professional sound, post sound, real music, etc., etc., will run you lots more than any camera or film.

This may or may not be true, and depends completely on the project, the resources you already have, and the scope of the demands of your film. Everyone here is already in agreeance that story, character development, lighting, and sound are crucial elements to any good film and nobody is saying that RED (or any other camera) is going to compensate for that. Certainly having a camera that you can own, however, and not have to continually dump money into stock or processing can only be a financial benefit.

The technology to make a viable film exists right now and it's not so expensive when you consider what you really need to make a movie realistically. And I'm not referring to student level, $20,000 movies, which I've been involved with way too many times. I'm talking about a crafted piece of work that artists work on together to make a whole. Something people can be proud of and equally as important, strangers would pay to see.

Well, first of all I think you need to research your target audience a little bit better. Many people here are students or independents, and yet are quite knowledgable about what it is they do. Sure, $20,000 is a microscopic budget compared to those "real" films you've rambled on about so much, but insinuating that anyone who makes a film for less than that shouldn't be proud of their work is, frankly, insulting. No one here has to prove themselves to you, but I can relate from personal experience that there is no magic budget necessary to make a "crafted piece of work that artists work together on to make a whole," that you can be proud of and that strangers would pay to see. I would invite you to the premiere of the film I just finished, but I'm afraid there's not enough grain in it to hold your attention...

If we could use a Red camera on this film, we might use it or might not, it wouldn't be a big deal for me unless it detracted from the feeling I want to visually get out of the settings.

There are numerous advantages to shooting digitally (just as there are pros and cons of shooting film). To blow it off so nonchalantly because of your love affair with 16mm shows quite overtly that you've already made your choice and further speculation would be pointless. You're right though, if you don't like a clean, high-resolution image with lots of dynamic range and RAW capability for ultimate image control in post, RED wouldn't suit you very well.

It will be interesting if I get one well thought-out response to this...

I hope this was well thought-out enough for you... I spent a lot of time getting it down to your level!

I kid... kind of... but really, next time you post, you might want to be a little more respectful and a lot less condescending. We're here because we love making films, and this particular forum exists for discussion about a camera which will be beneficial to a great deal of people. You should also know (from your extensive research) that Peter Jackson, David Fincher, David Stump, Otto Nemenz, Warner Bros., and James Cameron have all expressed their interest in and/or placed reservations for RED already - and the camera isn't even in production yet. There are a lot more people excited about raising the bar for digital cinema than just the "indies."

 

[Jaime Valles]

I think everyone agrees that the camera won't make the movie good. However, the tool does make a difference. Take my movie (link in my signature), for example. Everything was there, ready for shooting... script, costumes, sets, makeup, actors, lighting, sound, etc. Our budget was small, so we used a DVX. Looks great, everyone loves it, we're dealing with distributors right now. But, all else being equal, if one of the latest HDV cameras or the RED camera had been available at the time (Summer 2003), we probably would have gone for those instead of the DVX, simply because the end product would have looked that much better. That's all. That's why we're here drooling over the RED. It's an affordable alternative to 35mm film, with no image quality compromises.

 

[Roxco]

New Tools for Old Craftsman

New Tools for Old Craftsman

Let's say a young guy or gal wants to break into the business and has specific knowledge on how to use one of the latest tools. Often times they get paired with an older craftsman/craftswoman who has great skills using all the old tools. The young person learns from the old and the old person learns from the young.

Maybe the old person knows where the work is and refers the young person because of the pairing. Maybe they work together for years until the old person wants to sleep in on Tuesdays.

That's the way it has worked for years - It's talent and tools!

Rosco

P.S. More "films" means more cream will rise to the top.

 

[goldyprog]

Worthwhile thread-- especially because it engages discussion about Red.

Ever since I heard about Red, I think that anyone involved with filmmaking, to whatever end, is going to have a hard time wrapping around what this camera is, how it's going to impact the industry, how it's going to defunct any current tools (potentially) either by choice or by volume, and how it's going to break ID'd "barriers." It's too hard to take all of that in probably for most people. Nothing like this has ever been done with a product line before.

In my opinion, you're already seeing the impact of Red.....

 

[Chris Kenny]

LoveDVX, you've given a nice overview of the considerations involved in choosing a camera on a shoot with a significant budget. And you're right, for films in that class, Red will be one acquisition choice among many, and it won't really change very much.

I don't think you're saying anything that most people here don't understand.

What you're not mentioning is that it's quite possible to make a movie on a much smaller budget. I'm not entirely sure why you're not mentioning it, as there are a fair number of successful movies, picked up for distribution, that have been made for practically nothing on top of the cost of film stock, etc.

As I pointed out over on Cinematography.com in response to a similar post, the reason getting the cost of the camera (and related expenses) down is so important for the ultra-low-budget crowd is because those expenses are some of the few that are virtually impossible to circumvent, no matter how creative you are and how much time you're willing to invest. Your rich uncle might let you shoot on his boat for free (write it into the script to add production value), your sound guy who you know from college might be willing to work deferred, and there are lots of unknown actors who will work for nothing if they think your feature might go somewhere and get them discovered.

But odds are nobody is going to lend you a 35mm camera for a few weeks for free. And they're sure as hell not going to hand you 50,000 feet of film for free, or process it for free, or conform your negative for free.

The other thing to remember with Red is that once you buy the camera, you have something you can use with very few ongoing expenses. Buying a Red package isn't like dropping $40K of your own money on a single movie that might never sell. It gives you a piece of equipment that a creative business can use to generate revenue in many ways; making and trying to sell features can be part of a more diverse and sustainable business model.

 

[HKSC 2007]

Standing at the crossroads, trying to listen below songs :

I don't like Monday ( Nov., 13 ) ---Boom town rats's song
R Tuesday ( Nov., 14 ) ------ Rolling Stones
New Years Day ---------- U2

RGB ( R=SUN G=Grass B=Baby )

 

[Homersapien]

Standing at the crossroads, trying to listen below songs :

I don't like Monday ( Nov., 13 ) ---Boom town rats's song
R Tuesday ( Nov., 14 ) ------ Rolling Stones
New Years Day ---------- U2

RGB ( R=SUN G=Grass B=Baby )

Shoooooom (The noise of it flying over my head :huh

 

[donatello]

the topic has come up before and it belongs on another thread ..
this is a thread on the RED camera.

IMO bottom line for ALL movies ... will your movie put paying butts in the movie theater seats. thumbs up/down, good, bad , excellent ,sucks are for reviews ... we've all seen movies get bad reviews and fill the theaters.
a distributor buying a indie movie bottom line is can they make $$$$$$$ ( profit) off your movie - they do not want to loose or break even.

distribrutors will always ask indie's what was it shot on( if you are a nobody) - however they do not ask David Lynch what he shot his movie on ... if you say DV then they usually say we don't distribute DV etc - again note they don't ask Steven S ( ocean elevens) what he shot on ...

as was noted Sundance receives a couple 1000 entry's ( over 1/2 are DV) for approx 140 screening slots .. at the same time the Slamdance festival at park city receives about the same number for approx 50 screenings.
i don't recall the 2004 figures but i believe 70% of films accepted to Sundance did not find a release ...

not everybody buying new technology camera's are using them to make a feature - i would guess that more are buying them for other type projects and features are towards the end of the line ...

guessing in the future there will be more professional looking movies at the festivals from indie's - whether they are "better" ( as a whole) then current crop ?
as i've said in the past nobody sets out to make a bad movie .. we all think our idea/story will be the one that breaks thru ...

when you make your feature/short/project you have many choices ..
i think Super 16 has been choosen for poster's project - and if they felt 35mm/HD was too "whatever" it's valid for their choice/project ...
i've shot film for many years and i wouldn't call it bug free - you do have several unknowns till film is processed and telecined AND a few unknowns after that ) - i assume with hi 6 fig budget you will get Neg insurance.

"open your eyes and stop wasting money to try and fix your hopes and dreams"

we all wish YOU the best on your project .. it's up to each to decide what is wasted $$ .. most here are spending their own $$ on their projects and they have choices where/what is bought/rented ... just like you decided to shoot on a ARRI 416 over Aaton/Arri srIII ( same image from all camera's - but i agree with you the 416 is cool) ..

what you're currently doing is nothing new - persons "developing" 6 fig or several mil " budgets in LA are a dime a dozen... go out to any indie set and i'd guess 30% of the crew is developing a project/budget .. another 35% has a script/idea they are working on etc ... finding investors is very difficult - many persons decide to put up their own $$ - so please the next time you're on a set go up to each crew member -tell them to open their eyes & stop wasting their $$ on camera's for their own projects etc ....

i would have preferred that you shared the in's and out's of what makes a workable film - it would be a much better topic & it still would not be listed under RED camera ...

 

[jenningsp]

what's wrong with fight club? leave fight club out of this

 

[Filament]

There is another crowd very interested in what the Red camera has to offer - documentary film makers.

So many docs that I'm interested in often involve months to years of on-and-off production, shoot when something important is happening. These types of projects are often a gamble, if everything comes together you have great doc with a powerful ending, if things just fizzle then you have doc with a tepid ending and one that may be difficult to sell.

For docs the camera is often one of the biggest expenses, because the subject is often life as it happens and the crew may be 2-3 people, so many great low budget docs have often been shot on 1/3rd inch chip cameras (and will continue to be). I'm personally increadibly excited about getting a shallow depth of field and 10 stops of latitude in a camera that is cheap enough to own. In the doc world this camera changes a lot.

Add in the potential for widespread digital distribution (because the film print is often more then the entire cost of the doc) and the change is profound.

 

[laboprod]

Elo lovedvx,

I won't be long on this one,

Do you know how little the film and camera rental is of a real film budget?

just wanted to know your definition of "real film"?
It will be interesting if I get one well thought-out response to this.

antoine