Is the RED Camera the Future of Independent Film?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its just that its defeats the point - i mean i was remarking about Red - of course its a great camera, and it will be one among many great cameras.

The joke is saying it represents the future of indy filmmaking - its hilarious to suggest that any mere machine represents the future of an industry, or an artistic movement.
 
you can be the move creative filmmakers out there if you don't have the proper tools then it doesnt matter

the future of Indie is the death of the studios, the only reason the studios remain iso large is the tech,

talent and I mean truly good talent can be found outside the studios,

distribution can be found outside the studios,

affordable tech however can't, film for example cost to much for most indi filmmakers to use, and if they can use it, they spend so much of there budget on the film they can't afford the other things they need, crew, actors, lights, food, sound,

cameras like the red bring that price down. the red is another step to an equil playing field.

you give Steven Spielberg an hvx, a the same budget you gave him for Schindlier's list, minus the camera budget, then I'm willing to bet he comes out with a product that rivels others on this board, and I can promise you no one in this board in their life times have made a film nearly as good as Schindler's List or Raiders of the Lost Ark

now same deal but give him a red. and he'll make another Schindler's List.

why because the red compeats with 35mm film, the HVX maybe rivels 16mm

and untill an indi can make films with the production value of Holywood we haven't reached our future.

better image for less money, that is the future. the HVX is a step in that future. and many are doing great things with it, but no one has made a film with the hvx that looks as good as studio films shot on 35mm.

the closest I've seen is Brandon Rice with his have and sgpro DPing No Greater Love, at least from what I've seen from the Trailer.

cameras are a lot like race cars,

you put JR. in an outlaw, and I'd kick his as with a 73 buick skylark. does that mean I'm a better driver than him, hell no, give us both tskylarks and he'll not only leave me in the dust, he'll put me in the dirt.

the red is a nascar, the hvx is a very nice suped up buick. or maybe one of thos japaness drifting cars. but not a nascar,

and the 35mm format is still formula one. and like a formula one, you have to know how to drive it. some wil drive it better than others, but as long as you dont crash it, you're still going to beat the buick, but the nascar with a great driver could beat a formulaone with a so so driver.
 
Okay lets summarise a bit what your saying eh Jason....

For a start silly metaphors about cars has nothing to do with cameras, and if you think its 'camera equipment' that keeps studios ahead - then your sorely mistaken. The nature of business goes quite a bit further - i suggest you check Robstars thread in the Business sub forum http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=83958 there you will find that 'equipment' is hardly the top priority for any successful business or business enterprise such as a film.

Your wettings your pants about the idea of competing with hollywood because some company (RED) says its producing a camera with so many megapixels...

If Spielberg had used an HVX200 guess what... his film would still look great, and would still almost 99% lol be very succesful. It would not look as pretty as 35mm would make it - but then again with his budget, and crew expertise and post production it would probably look INCREDIBLE anyway. Remember a Canon XL was good enough for 28 Days Later...

Of course you still need a good story, good characters, for it to be shot to tell the story effectively. Thats it...

Now these irrelevant metaphors you give HD/film are pointless. It is not the camera that dictates how a film looks - and definately NOT how good it looks.

Guy Madden's - 'The Saddest Music in the World' looks great... so does IMAX cam shot scenes of 'Dark Knight.'

I suggest you also check the Corrado thread in the user film section to see just how irrelevant these petty tech specs are.

The best story with the best cinematography with the best 'suited' camera is all thats required. There is no 'best' camera that just makes you look more Hollywood than others... its a ridiculous notion to think that microbudget/very low budget filmmakers are going to square up to hollywood production value. Those are utterly commercial mainstream products with craploads of $$$ poured into them. Its a joke when companies sell the idea of hollywood production value just because their chip has this many lightbulbs... its the epitome of naivity.

Jason - A challenge for you... Find one film that failed to meet its great success just because the camera chosen was not a high enough resolution...
 
Last edited:
In fact - just to be more amusing...

Indy Film noob walks into a cam lot, he's greeted by a camera salesman (sports jacket, elbow patches etc...) Noob stops by a Red. Salesman rushes over...

"Oh yeah baby, she was maaaade for you! You know... there ain't nothing that makes the ladies wet like a Red..." Nudge... nudge...

Film noob goes, "Yeah I guess... thing is i just want you know..." Sales man nods...

"Yah, to be a reaaal filmmaker, well without a BIG *grunt* camera, then your just playing with a toy"

Film noob cringes "A toy!"

Salesman nods soberly "Yep and real men need full res for REAL movies, juuust like Hollywood..."

Film noob wonders... "So this will make me a real man right? Will make the ladies hot? Make my films just like hollywoods!"

Salesman grins "Oooh yeah - just sign the noob dotted line...'

---------

In case it sounds like im picking on Red - i dont intend too, its tech specs are useful for exactly those who need it - those who just want it for abstract glory and supposed 'qualification' in the eyes of their own egoes are in my eyes, gimpy noobs who need to smell the coffee ;)

Okay, there you go - a mini script full of sarcasm! Think 'True Lies', the car salesman... hehe.
 
well first I'm going to take your script and shoot it because like many indie filmmaker you didn't copywrite it, lol

and no one disagrees that the filmmaker makes the film, great caprender can make a shack with a hammer and nailes, but give him some power tools and he can build a nice home, ad yes one one can build a house, my dad used to do it for a living.

my point is if you have skills, then the better your tools, the better your film, fact of the matter is, if you don't have skills, still be better your tools the better your product. that goofball who just bought the red will make better films than if he has bought a vhs camera.

while you may make a better film with vhs than he did with the red, but if you had the red, your film would be better than the film you made with the vhs.

the better your tools the better you can use your skills, and the better your skills the better you can use our tools. they complement each other. If you improve both every chance you get, then your films get much better.
 
Wow thats amazing...

I guess you could simplify your great theory further and say something like...

'the better it is the better it will be'

//

Okay joking aside - your point placed waaay disproportionate value on the technology of the camera - its just meaningless really - how HD does your low budget (and/or first) movie have to be to impress an indifferent audience? Read the corrado thread, check out the threads about distributers at sites like www.filmspecific.com Even my experience as a business owner and producer (my company uses hpx500s and hvx200s) has never wrought success through technology alone but by new ideas on product creation and marketing.

I know what its like to be a tech geek - but its no magic solution. Now go make coffee and haaaang your head in shame for ever thinking such a silly thing.

"Why my old papa used to say a dooog with two heads izt smaarter than a dog with one!" Noooo
 
ohhh I just love these debates regarding pixels, there was an intresting thread here a long long time ago about a user of the this forum that started making music videos that looked very very good, if I recall correctly he used an xl2 for a couple of the music videos he made but after everything was set and done the final product looked as good as a 35mm video that you see on MTV, after a while the user stoped posing on here someone close to him said that he was picked up by a big production company to direct high budget main stream music videos, now if he pushed the envelope with an xl2 image what he's doing now that he shoots 35mm, the thing to lean from the story is that the better equipment you have access to well the better it will look, but you cannot buy talent by buying the newest camera that shoots a trillion megapixels
 
AAlleexx, I agree 100%

It is Talent plus tools, I'm not even saying its a 50/50 split, but its at least a 60/40, which is way higher than the 99.9/.1 that you would have us believe Lawriejaffa
 
Okay Jason here is some instruction in the art of debate.

First you cannot disagree and agree at the same time.

Me and Alex both provide examples of comparitively primitive technology acceptably competing with superior technology due to the merits of creative ideas. We also agree in principle that better technology does result in better products but that it does not supercede the superiority of better ideas and other elements that go towards better products/films.

So dont argue with me for the sake of it and don't try to distort my point lol, note i said both imax and guy madden produced beautiful and acceptable cinematic images (their technological gulf could not be wider - i certainly did not discredit the value of technology full stop.)


Um Alex has made pretty much the same point as me, even citing the same types of camera in his examples, that Canon Xls can produce better films than 35mm films with poor ideas. If you agree with that then why all the ridiculous metaphors about um cars... and tools being the be and end all - even worse (not your point) is any silly notion of Red being the future of Indy film? Hmmmmm

Can you hear the sceptism in my hmmm - for emphasis - HMMMMMMMM?

Your point overstated the importance of Red/ and technology to the future of indy films too, likening the idea that indy filmmakers can use technology to match Hollywood, that it can give films credibility - make them 'real movies.'

A good idea will go to theatrical distribution regardless of the aqusition equipment, as there is no 'better' equipment, only tools more appropriate for that particular type of production. How useful would 35mm be for blair witch... or an hv20 for lord of the rings. Red will fit in somewhere... but it will be no magic want for wannabe directors hoping to match hollywood (and what a soulless superficial dream that is...)

So change your position now if you like Jason, but don't distort mine to make yours sound more moderate... It was a geeky techy fanfest type notion and thats why i posted, probably is why Alex posted to make the same point I did.

So in case you got lost Jason, here was your point...

My point is if you do not adapt to the tech you'll be left with a few art house showings,
Click to expand...
(I cut it off there)

Mines is - that technology at this point will not become obsolete for creating marketable films - HD upwards will retain acceptable useage for probably decades, just as 8mm is still used in some projects despite being ugh nearly a century old. If a discernable and attractive theatrical print could be drawn from mini dv then obviously human eyes can 'deal with it' and camera improvements good though they are in the digital realm (inferior though they be to 35mm) are but a pleasing vanity unto ourselves and not a desperate market requirement...
 
Last edited:
guys guys easy its xmassss!!!! come on where is the spirit and I dont mean the movie hahah
anyway jason as far as 20/? splits I dont think those terms apply in a professional production
take any major motion picture for example, the aquisition of the film is just one aspect of the technical requirerments that come into play, you will never hear a director telling the dp "hey I want you to light using only arris this time" I think that once you reach the top of the industry there is only so many choices for your camera options, something like the DP saying " hey director whats up, so what are we shooting this time? do you want to go with what we used on that last commercial which was the viper or do you want to shoot the standard 35mm or maybe we can shoot on the red camera because we can use those extra dollars so we can afford george bush to come out in the movie"

director says " yeah lets shoot with the red because I really want to use W on the film plus I know it transfer well to film so we can save some bucks and maybe have enough left for some bruskies"

the point here is that at a professional level, the camera debate is just like any debate in regards to the technical requirerments of the film, in the story above you can tell that both the dp and the director have shoot digital and film so most likely they are going to do a good job regardless what you give them to shoot with :)
 
Indeed it is mon amie (and for the record as terrifying as my posts might sound they are meant in good humour - like an old woman with large bosoms hugging one gently.)
 
actually AAlleexx'x point was he did so well with the xl2, that when he moved to 35mm he did much better, try learning to read he was agreeing that tools are important.

I argue with you because you are wrong!! the tools an artist use are important. further more, i your life time you have produced nothing to prove that wrong, there for if your are correct, then you're waisting your time in this industry.

Image quality matters.

to say that how much HD do you really need? come on get a clue, HD 1920/1080 is no where near film the red is.

by your argument that the camera doesn't matter, and that is 100% your argument, I should be able to produce just as good films with my old rca vhs camera I started with years ago, as I could with the XL1 I moved up to, and there for just as good as my HVX.
 
AAlleexx true he/she will probably never say this time lets use arri over moles however there came a time for all of us when we said lets get some arris or moles, and stop using out home depote lights.

the red being a mole, 35mm being an arri, the hvx being home depote, and your standard handicam being a house light.
 
aalleexx I wasn't telling you to learn to read, I'm sorry if it came out that way, I was telling Lawrijaffa to, as he misread your post and tied to make it seem as you said something you didn't say, I had no idea english wasn't your first language, I have to say that as an ESL your writing is pretty good.

Zak nikon really? why would you use a nikon when you can get a pentax lol
 
Oh Jason stop being silly... instead of squabbling about how much % i am or am not in agreement with someone else just look at what we're saying. Here is my position - reiterated - why not base your response on that - i certainly based mine on your own words...

The future of indy film does not lie with us chasing hollywoods technological coat-tails. Your position Jason is that it is - at least thats what your quote.

Incidentally Alex made a point that an XL could compete with 35mm - at least because that XL was used for a purpose (music videos) that saw it look good.

Now Jason... guess what tools are important... duh! I mean who the hell doesnt think they are lol, point you were making is that indy filmmakers have to keep updating technology in some eternal tech war to be 'real' filmmakers. Typical to how Red tries to base its ego-centric marketing.

Anyway those are your words below... and sorry but its not the typical and sympathetic argument that cameras are just tools - each with its own purpose for the right job lol... That is my point, and if you believe that now and not the sentiments of your OWN WORDS below then great ;) Of course we can also agree to disagree.

But don't distort my position in an attempt to sound moderate - i am not anti-tech. My company actually specialises in Post Production FX and for production we shoot on HPX500s,200s. We did this to meet conforming tech expectations of clients, broadcasters etc and to meet a profficient tech standard - i didn't spend the $$$ on that gear because i thought i could do just as well with a pretty arty vintage Bolex. OBVIOUSLY!

I just know from film threads about distributers (like corrado) or the starting a business thread (like robstars) that those issues, and not predominately 'the gear' is the most important thing for an indy film.

Let's get this in perspective - just how many filmmakers wee their pants on this forum about what camera they have instead of what film they make? Think about it Jason, so much time is wasted arguing about mega pixels.

Zak - im pleased your making your movie, but robust debate about the future of indy filmmaking isnt a waste - we're certainly not debating megapixels on a camera.

see I think ignoring the tech behind it is forgetting history,

Johny Cage, Sadie Benning, Yoko Ono, were all "filmmakers" in the 60-80s, there were probably th most famous indies out there, ever here of them? with the exception of Yoko, probably not unless you took tones of art history classes. All there "films" were interesting, all could hold attention, and yet you haven't heard of them why? because the video equipment they used was sub par, but back then all video was sub par.

now granted they were not really story tellers, but that time had a lot of story tellers outside of hollywood who were lost in time because of tech issues.

My point is if you do not adapt to the tech you'll be left with a few art house showings,

"hey Joe lets go watch the latest holomovie at the holocinima"

"no Caral, I have a better Idea, lets go to the firehouse tonight I here lawriejaffa made a film on an hvx200 and they will actually be projecting it on a screen"

"on a screen? eww, and whats an hvx?"

"oh its an old video camera, recorded in a formatt called HD, I used to have one but I gave it to my grandson as a toy"
Click to expand...

So Jason, are you bothered or not whether your cameras become toys? Why ever speculate such a concern can exist when award winning films can be made on just about any professional technology regardless of date.

All of us who work professionally are aware of the conforming technology that distributers (to an extent) and broadcasters certainly expect. But i doubt they pee their pants about megapixels like half the would be penniless indies on this board.
 
lol, my hvx will become a toy, just has my rca vhs, my sony 8mm, my sony hi 8, and my canon xl1, all toys now, my hvx will be a toy in a few year, i knew that when I bought it.

and no the future isn't chasing their coat tails, its coming up behind them, grabbing the collars of their coats, throwing their asses to the ground, aking sure they brake their hips as the fall, and running past them. that is the future of indi film, destroying and replacing holywood, this is where cameras like the red come in. this is where cameras like the varicam gave us hope.

my point is, all things being equel, and lets face it the only filmmaker who is your equel is you, and the only filmmaker my equel is me,

so you can make better films with a red than you can with an hvx.
as can I
as can anyone. this is my point,

Alex said one man with the xl made videos that looked like 35, but he also said that when that man moved to 35, it looked better than anyone else with a 35. in other words, one artist whos work improved when his equipment improved.

now I'm glad to see you're not a technophobe, good on you,

and you have to face that the future of indie film relys on new improved lower cost equipment.

the xl1 and vx1000 were huge because they put affodable broadcast quality cameras in the hands of people who other wise would never have had a chance to make films. then came the dvx, and 24fps, then Lucus shot starwars on hd, and video became a fighter in the world of feature film, the only good that came out of starwars with hd lol, then sony and cannon came out with hdv and we were all sad, but low and behold panisonic like a shining star gave us the hvx, and we saw it and knew it was good. then came the hpx, and now the red a low cost camera with better resolution then film, and each of these cameras had a greater impact on the world of indi film then any one filmmaker on earth.


now I never said the skill of the artist wasn't important, we can all agree on that, I'm just saying without the tools that skill is worthless, and since these tools are made so cheaply and are so wide spread they have infact become the backbone the indie world is based on.

but sure we can agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top