Lets compare clips to be realistic.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Short Letter to the OP:
My name is Elijah Griffin- Long time lurker but a fan of this community here at DVXUser and the other extremely informative forums out there. I make a living and I have paid the majority of my undergrad ed working as an audio engineer and as a filmmaker. I have tracked several Grammy Nominated R&B and Pop artists and I have done a slew of work on filmsets for several years...

I am extremely young compared to a lot of my professional peers in our fields but never once has any single good quality microphone affect whether or not a vocalist would complete his/her song.
Never have I seen a DP or camera op blink about doing a lesser job provided they have any of their preferred tools.
Never has there been a true photographer that couldn't take a wonderful shot shot because they didn't have some snazzy cutting edge tech.
It has never been the paintbrush or the canvas that made the art one sees in a museum.
It is completely irrelevant what a sculptor uses to sculpt- If s/he is a true artist with talent tenacity, skill and diligence then they will still create something worth beyond its salt.
Get where this is going?

Barry has indicated numerous award winning films and projects shot with everything under the sun. I've recorded on everything between 2" analog tape on big $1 million + consoles in some of the finest studios around and also on systems with a hand built pc and a $300 protools Mbox. I've seen records from both ends of the spectrum go from scratch because that was all I had to use- %90 of these records are from people who have landed deals or already are on major labels and do very well. Not a single person after the records were released have ever approached me regarding the quality of tools necessary on any of them...

Talent is innate. Most people will want to make a film or do something at any given point in their lives. Just because one does something doesn't equate to them being "good" or they have the aesthetic sensibility and business wit to make a living- to most people all that won't even matter! The 7d is a wonderful camera, and all the hard work that is put in to all the others which the designers, architects, and engineers never are thanked for happen to also be equally good in their own way.
Let's remind ourselves that these are merely tools. If my plumber told me he couldn't plumb (lol) because he didn't have the newest wrench or whatever then he'd be outta here in a second- but any plumber half worth his salt knows it's he who is the plumber, not the tools.

A performer, recording engineer, producer, mixing and mastering engineers make a record- not just all the fancy mics, guitars, boards, whatever- a good record can nearly be made on anything created to do the job.

No need to say all that is required to make a watchable film is a vision and the tenacity required to make it- the tools all will merely be things that the filmmaker/artist will use interchangebly to realize what s/he is thinking- you will never need anything other than a brain to think/have a vision.

Much love to and yours but I leave saying that every single pro I know will choose a different tool or set thereof if given the same job- just because they can and it's not necessary to use only protools to record or 2" tape or Logic or whatever. It's not necessary to cut your film on avid or FCP if you love premiere. If you or anyone is an artist worth your salt then take whatever quality tools you have access to and make something. In the end all that matters is what you can see. Your audiences will hardly ever give you technical commentary but they will tell you if it sucked because thats the only thing that matters to a large degree.

Onto the Scarlet issue- no offense but a wiseman once said to me "don't place a bet outside the casino..." I literally said "wtf- that doesn't make sense... but I'll humor you so why such a statement?" he replied-"there are no tables..." The scarlet is a wonderful spec/measurbation piece but there are artists both neophyte and veteran that need to create freely- making films from a short to a full on feature is like gambling your time, money and life energy away... I don't think anyone wants to flush any of that on something that isn't here yet.

Even for those who would still say wait- why not simply have them both? I have 11 guitars in my house, 5 are mine and the remainder are either from friends or family; some are "better" than others but that is truly subjective as i can probably make a pleasing record with any of them and I can give them to any good recording artist to do the same. Please don't get so hung on "what the big deal is!?" and enjoy the fact that now there is a greater possibility that a guy or girl like you or me now has a little more potential to access to something similar to an experience that was truly only a privilege of the elite. According to moore's law, this arguement will be null and void when in ten years or so some enlightened manufacturer brings 4:4:4 Rec709 2k to a sub $1500 cam that has the worlds worst ergonomics...lol or maybe sooner like in january when one of these big manufacturers announce their "next big cam" at a lower price point with more features from their $100k cams and their is another forum where another version of this same "footage will suck from xxx cam vs xxx cam" discussion will show its head.

cameras have never made movies- its the people behind them and on the screen;-)

end rant
now let's make more films!
 
Wow so why in hollywood they dont make films on cellphones if this philosophy is so right,why all those expensive cameras and expensive films if you can do it with your cellphone having the same script and crew ?
Imagine Iron Man 3 shot on Jon Favreau cellphone.
I dont buy this philosophy cause if i see certain look of the film after watching 5 seconds then i know that its film or just regular video and then i know that its serious production or amateur video.
Blair witch project was sucessfull but i didnt watched it to the end cause acting looked fake and i hated picture,prefered to watch transporter instead and i was happy again.I like how films look,im tired of watching regular video.
 
bwwd said:
Wow so why in hollywood they dont make films on cellphones if this philosophy is so right,why all those expensive cameras and expensive films if you can do it with your cellphone having the same script and crew ?
Imagine Iron Man 3 shot on Jon Favreau cellphone.
I dont buy this philosophy cause if i see certain look of the film after watching 5 seconds then i know that its film or just regular video and then i know that its serious production or amateur video.
Blair witch project was sucessfull but i didnt watched it to the end cause acting looked fake and i hated picture,prefered to watch transporter instead and i was happy again.I like how films look,im tired of watching regular video.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point- it is the artist not the tools that make the film.

There is kind of no real necessity to change their proprietary format in hollywood if it isn't broken or their is no superior replacement that is as consistent so they pretty much stick to 35mm and dip a little into the higher end digital cinema acquisition formats because they can afford to sink $150 mil into a picture shot on that or a viper and the like; as well as they have facilities out of the wazoo to accommodate those requirements- Not a single one of us even with the $150 mil cash on hand would do it easily because it's a lot more than just the money on that end to bring a big production like that to life on that scale- it's more than just filmmaking on the major studio level, unfortunately they are massive engines that propel films as their bread and butter industry.

Moot point being is that Matthew Libatique (DP for Iron Man 1+2) would probably choose anything to shoot it on that would meet the standard required for the films release- horses for courses... and a cellphone camera would be silly for the job as it'd be like bringing a Prius to the Indy 500.

Robert Downey Jr. sure as hell would appear to be amazing as an on camera talent even if shot on 8mm and projected via zeotrope because he is just that good at what he does... If you as an artist can afford the big boys toys then more power to you but snobbery will not help anyone get further in their craft but harnessing/creating more within your field is what makes someone better. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell whether or not something looks good but there are lots of clips shot on all types of lower end gear that have made it to places beyond the scope of the gear itself. No one can make the call whether some oddball iphone vid will be the next youtube or sundance megasmash but if there is a vid that does why should that change the fact that you can still shoot on something higher end if you had access: two way street there it seems.

Better tools help but like you said the Blair Witch project did suck but it was a cult hit for the time being, it is by no means an end-all be all (and that is a subjective opinion). Any person who makes a living in the industry will let you know that money made doesn't constitute good art/work directly; and an artist/technician must outlive these "hit and run" fads... If something is really well done then the cream will rise to the top, point blank... How it's done will always differ;-)
 
Last edited:
Any producer or distributor will want to know the budget.
That is where it all starts.
If it were shot on low end gear, the budget would reflect that, as would distribution.

The only way around that is if you pulled off something big at a film festival.
 
Johnny Cola said:
This is the asinine part of the whole premise. How many films actually get theatrical distribution? EVEN THE ONES SHOT ON FILM!!!! If anyone, as an up and coming filmmaker, is self-deluded enough to work under this premise... I don't know what to say, it's ridiculous and obtuse.
Click to expand...

You need distribution too have your work screened at film festivals..? news to me..

just saying there are other ways to show your work on a large screen..
 
For small indie films under $200k these cams are more than fine. I would rather use a 7D (with some really nice glass) and save the $30k a Red cost and put the extra money on the screen knowing it would be for dvd dist. That's just me though, the audience would notice the extra $30k on the screen more than they would the difference between a 7D and a Red (for dvd dist).
 
The arguments that are made for not buying the 7D and saving the money for a Scarlett are flawed. What the Scarlett is, isn't a small step in technology but the first time in the history of cinema I would argue that a camera that truely you can say is the same image and technology that the mainstreem Movie Industry use in Multimillion pound Production. Its being offered for the equivalent of half a cheap car.

This arguement about tools and the artist being the most important I 100% percent agree with. My point is seperate. Look, a few years ago the revolution sterted with digital cinema with mainstream Movies being shot by Viper cameras etc, They were way out of the league of the average no budget indie-fimaker, even the Red is a bit pricey. So here we are after 100 years plus of cinema history at this point and the argument that we are making a small incremental step in technology 'availibility' is not the case, trying to relate to the step from even say SD to HD is in my honest opinion way off, they were just steps up this major point in time.

Now I do think the DSLR's are a big step but I believe they are not the huge step (3k,4k,close to film dynamic range) RED is offering properly to filmakers, and my whole reason for starting this thread is to compare footage to clarify the point that maybe you guys deserve better than just good video, but a fully equiped mini movie making camera in similar form and price, don't forget the fixed lens Scarlett will be around 4,000 dollars, less than a 5D.

I like to think to think as this thread has been read by thousands of people, that there are some readers now think yeah he's right I think I will wait for the Scarlett. Only those who are fueled to negate an arguement are posting. At least it would be useful to see my point and admit it 'might' be better for some people to prepare for the Scarlett and practice the workflow etc.

Please if you disagree with my argument I would like to hear it. But don't disagree with what I'm not saying.

I was last night looking at some original footage form RED One and amazed at the detail and filmlike characteristics, with a flat image perfect for grading any way you want, then I looked at some 5D and 7D original files form Vimeo and I just thought great video, but contrasty HD video all the same. If we have original files shown properly I personally think we wouldn't waste our time in this conversation quite honestly and no Youtube clip is going to clarify the difference I am trying to work out for myself and clarify to you guys.IMHO.
 
Well James I appreciate you restating your argument in a much less condecending tone, whether you ment it that way or not is another argument, but obviously it was easily interpreted that way. And to be honest, WE the collective indie-filmmakers have BEEN WAITING on Scarlet. Had this come out anywhere close to the planned date(s) we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. Asking us to save up for something that has been proven to NOT be faithful to a release date, NOT be commited to any date, past, present or future BY COMPANY POLICY is unapreciable at this point in time. I hope the Scarlet comes out, but I also hope I win the lotto, get a magic pill that makes me thinner, taller and unbelieveably charismatic and if I could have one more wish... ok feed the all the hungry people...
At the moment I personally have no interest in waiting on anything when the 7D, GH1 and 5Dmkii are soooo damn close to the image quailty we have been striving for with 1/3'' 3ccd and lens adapters (actually surpassed).
When the Scarlet comes out I will happily find a way to buy one if it is what it's supposed to be.

I buy gear to make movies, I don't make movies to buy gear (although sometimes it may feel that way)
 
ditto Johnny Cola

James:
when the scarlett comes out then I've got the cash ready to go(actually a swipe of the ol' visa) but first I'll get my 7d a lil after it comes out and I think you have a point which I also sorta hit on- The tech is rapidly approaching a place now where before it was merely an elite experience to produce a film with true 35mm dof, 444 colorspace, 24p with real 180º shutter capability to get the frame cadence right and all that candy. However the 5d, 7d, and gh1 are here today and the 7d with ship en mass soon whereas we are yet to get any real hard delivery on the scarlett- none of us here can shoot our projects on what is essential vaporware but on something that is here and now readily available. I don't think anyone is arguing that scarlett won't be great and exceed these HDSLRs as it will be a proper modular camcorder, we are kinda arguing for scarlett to hurry up and come on out!

We already have to labor day and night in life to make our precious films- why introduce another degree of uncertainty to our world when we have to deal with a world of it ourselves from the start of a film?

Once scarlett is here then it'd still be a different discussion btw as the package will definitely put itself in a slightly different price tier for the camera and then other expenditures may be required to accommodate the 3k RAW footage- apples to oranges it becomes at that point I believe.
 
Last edited:
jamesmallonuk said:
The arguments that are made for not buying the 7D and saving the money for a Scarlett are flawed. What the Scarlett is, isn't a small step in technology but the first time in the history of cinema I would argue that a camera that truely you can say is the same image and technology that the mainstreem Movie Industry use in Multimillion pound Production. Its being offered for the equivalent of half a cheap car.
Click to expand...

To some extent I find this true, but also realize that it has its holes. The same "image and technology" used by the "mainstream Movie Industry" at this time is, by and large...film. It is certainly changing, and RED has definitely made big pushes in that direction. It is, however, definitely not the industry standard.

Keep in mind that shooting with a Scarlet (or RED ONE) carries with it the burden of a continually evolving workflow and post-process that, again, is far from industry standard (currently). This, in my opinion, is the greatest barrier of entry to shooting RED.

To be more specific to digital acquisition, RED ONE and RED Scarlet do/will offer a lower cost entry point to the "industry standard". But the industry standard is not always best when there isn't a million pound budget. As an analogy: Having a Formula One car would be a real thrill, and it would undoubtedly perform extremely well. I, however, lack both the understanding and the finances to properly maintain the vehicle. I don't have a track to drive it on, and I haven't the skills to really use the majority of its power. Really, its no better than a decent coupe - it just costs more and I can brag about owning it.

For small independent producers, having the industry standard camera may become a hindrance as more money is diverted into the industry standard elements one is obligated to use in order to really make use of it - storage, lenses, monitoring, workstations, editing suites, etc.

jamesmallonuk said:
This arguement about tools and the artist being the most important I 100% percent agree with. My point is seperate. Look, a few years ago the revolution sterted with digital cinema with mainstream Movies being shot by Viper cameras etc, They were way out of the league of the average no budget indie-fimaker, even the Red is a bit pricey. So here we are after 100 years plus of cinema history at this point and the argument that we are making a small incremental step in technology 'availibility' is not the case, trying to relate to the step from even say SD to HD is in my honest opinion way off, they were just steps up this major point in time.
Click to expand...

If I understand what you are saying here, I am inclined to agree: there is a whole lot that seems like it will change in a relatively short span of time.

jamesmallonuk said:
Now I do think the DSLR's are a big step but I believe they are not the huge step (3k,4k,close to film dynamic range) RED is offering properly to filmakers, and my whole reason for starting this thread is to compare footage to clarify the point that maybe you guys deserve better than just good video, but a fully equiped mini movie making camera in similar form and price, don't forget the fixed lens Scarlett will be around 4,000 dollars, less than a 5D.
Click to expand...

There are a number of costs associated with shooting RED, as illustrated before, that haven't been realized here. For example...

Storing data is significantly more expensive than a 5D - $500 for a 16GB RED CF card or $900 for the 640GB RED RAID. When shooting 5D/7D/GH-1/etc. one need not spend more than that for all of their storage.

Editing has also proven difficult, with workstations that have previously been acceptable editing 720p or 1080p ProRes struggling with the large 3K/4K REDRAW files. There are definitely solutions (RED Rocket, upgrading the workstations, external post house), but these cost thousands.

jamesmallonuk said:
I like to think to think as this thread has been read by thousands of people, that there are some readers now think yeah he's right I think I will wait for the Scarlett. Only those who are fueled to negate an arguement are posting. At least it would be useful to see my point and admit it 'might' be better for some people to prepare for the Scarlett and practice the workflow etc.
Click to expand...

I definitely want a Scarlet. If RED sold them right now I would be on the pre-order list. However, I think the user-base requires some consideration. Many individuals looking into these DSLRs are looking for their first camera. By purchasing a DSLR now, learning to use it properly, and working, they will easily pay it off. Further earnings are simply profit which may go towards the purchase of the Scarlet when it becomes available. Had they simply waited, these individuals would have gained little to no experience and done nothing to enhance their financial situation.


jamesmallonuk said:
I was last night looking at some original footage form RED One and amazed at the detail and filmlike characteristics, with a flat image perfect for grading any way you want, then I looked at some 5D and 7D original files form Vimeo and I just thought great video, but contrasty HD video all the same. If we have original files shown properly I personally think we wouldn't waste our time in this conversation quite honestly and no Youtube clip is going to clarify the difference I am trying to work out for myself and clarify to you guys.IMHO.
Click to expand...

This is interesting to me, as well. Many people shooting RED are certainly shooting it so as to create the flat image to allow grading. After all, that's one of the many beauties of REDRAW. Users of the DSLRs, however, may not all have access to editing suites allowing them to grade and so forth, forcing them to bake in their desired contrast. Others may simply not have the time in to post all of their footage due to shooting schedules, requiring the looks to be acquired mostly in camera Of course, that leads to the punchier visuals. Some of the cameras, through customizable image settings, can definitely capture fairly flat images very suitable to grading. No doubt not as suitable as a 4K REDRAW file, but very workable nonetheless.

I feel that, excepting the folks who believe that no future RED product will ever see market, the majority feel rather similarly on this issue.
  • That DSLRs are moving in a very interesting direction and are contributing to the overall awareness of digital as a pervasive viable means of image acquisition.
  • That current DSLRs offer seemingly exceptional benefits for their cost.
  • That current DSLRs are somewhat developmental in their nature and are all, in one way or another, affected with some form of artifact whether it be rolling shutter, time limits, moire, aliasing, codec, or framerate problems.
  • That current DSRLs are primarily photographic tools and lack many of the features of dedicated video equipment: XLR audio, exposure or focus aids, etc.
  • That RED will undoubtedly produce a great product with image quality at least on par with current DSLRs.
  • That the costs associated with shooting RED need to be 1) fleshed out because, lets be honest, the cameras just aren't there yet and 2) considered versus the alternative.
  • That, bearing all of this in mind and despite its potentially excellent capabilities, shooting RED may not be the best nor most cost-effective solution for every small-budget or independent filmmaker.

With that all said...here's hoping RED completely smashes all expectations and gives us an absolutely wicked camera. :beer:
 
Last edited:
Everyone should by a GH1 a 7D and a 5D MKII. Shoot, have fun, then when the scarlet comes out you ebay all the cams and you've got money for the scarlet. Everyones happy.
 
Something that I believe has been missing from this conversation.

I had a meeting with a Canon rep recently and he talked about meeting with Rodney Charters about using the 5d mark II on a new show. The rep told a story about bringing the camera to set for tests. All the rep knew was that Rodney was going to test the camera against other cameras.

The rep sets the camera up. Puts it on a tripod, follow focus and all. Looks at Rodney to see where he wants the camera. Rodney smiles and says "already ready?" Rep says, "Yeah, why?" Rodney says, "The Genesis is just pulling up." He points to the huge camera truck driving up to park.

There are definitely work arounds to shoot on DSLRs, but there have always been issues with shooting with cameras that deliver top tier quality. The main issue that has existed until VDSLR cinematography has been the size of the gear.

You can shoot with these cameras anywhere. Sure, your main shots will still have the standard gear related to any film set worth its salt, but things like B unit footage has never been using. Stunt footage - never easier.
 
Ryan, you're right. Those issues, however, aren't really issues and keep a lot of people employed. As well, this industry as enormous as it is.

The good thing is that the top tier will probably always use the best tool for the job and will have the top tier money to allow people to create or sustain life-long careers out of this. It isn't a hobby for me, I don't have a nine-to-five.
 
Thanks Michael for explaining clearly your thoughts.


I do disagree with price though, The fixed lenses was at last check less than 4000 dollars and is ready to shot, stick a mic on it and you good to go. And people ARE editing Red footage on the new Macbooks and new Final cut which now handles RED better also my guess is a likely new imac with the new snow leopard should work great.

I also think while not an 'industry standard' as yet, its been and is being used by enough hollywood directors in big budget films to not he regarded as acceptable Industry level standard.

I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

Ps Did I mention the guy from Red who said we will 'see' if everthing goes to plan a Scarlett by late Novemeber.
 
jamesmallonuk said:
I maintain my point the 7D looks too video like to waste time on if someone is planning a low budget short anytime in the next 3-6 months.

Ps Did I mention the guy from Red who said we will 'see' if everthing goes to plan a Scarlett by late Novemeber.
Click to expand...

3-6 months? How are you arriving at this? And it's still not soon enough not to buy anything.

Late November? Um obviously this is prototype territory at best... right?

EDIT: You have been making unqualified statements, in other words you keep saying things about Scarlet and Red as if they were facts... so this really has me curious.
1) Do you work for Red?
2) Do you have inside sources at Red?
Since you extol unrelentingly the superiority of Red cameras and systems in a Canon forum, and champion their cause, obviously you have 1st hand experience with Red in some way
3) Where can we see something you have shot, directed or edited using Red products?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top