RED Cameras?

It applies to a certain degree, but not to an F23 haha. There's obviously people with various stations in life that can achieve different things, but some have responsibilities that they can't exactly bypass for things they WANT, so much as things they NEED.

-Kegan
 
Well, how can someone else tell another person what they can afford? 30k might sound like a small amount to someone else... but to another it's basically being "rich".

Get me? Just cause one person can even afford to break their spine for a 30k setup doesn't mean someone else can.
 
I completely understand what you were trying to get across. I was agreeing with you. I think craig was saying that if we really want something, there's always loans and grants that we can pursue.

Of course, you and I both know that those types of things aren't as readily accessible to the everyday person and might not even be a wise investment considering certain stations in life. In Toronto, $30k is a downpayment on a condo or house. It's definitely not a drop in the bucket.

-Kegan
 
Direct ownership - not for me.

My personal plan is: loan->rental->repay loan.

Of course, people mainly want to shoot their own stuff with the RED. So do I.

The quality is astonishing and the price point is killer in relation to that quality, even with all the accessories and hidden expenses.
 
I completely get your position, Barry . Its just that I'm tired of compromises. I look at a movie like Wong Kar Wai's "My Blueberry Nights", and I know I will not be able to match its cinematic brilliance, not because of my actors, or lighting, etc, or my own cinematic vision, but because I just cant get technically similar results from my camera setup. Yes, we have 35mm adaptors, but its nowhere comparable to bigger chips with primes/digiprimes...And dinamic range...

Times are better now, no question, with the new generation HD prosumer cameras, but I would really like to have a camera that didn't compromise in picture quality for guerrilla filmmaking. Not compromising is not having 4k, or ":4:4:4, but having something similar in spec to, say, a Sony f900 in a handheld affordable setup...

EDIT- We are still very much limited by budget. If we are talented, we are still going to lose to a less talented individual with a better setup.

Its like we are driving a Fiat against someone driving a Ferrari. Either we always go to mountain roads and outskill the Ferrari driver (and our skill difference must be high in order to pull this off), or we get smoked in straights by the lesser driver.

I don't want a Ferrari, just something that lets me keep up with it in straights, and let my skill outclass it in the curves...
 
Last edited:
You're comparing a 35mm feature, loaded with A-List talent in front of and behind the camera to HD adapter projects? Wong didn't agonize over owning a 35mm system before he started writing and crafting Nights.

The camera follows the script. Too many here put too much importance on it. Get the right project, actors and technical talent and the rest will follow.

e
 
Talent will allways beat out nice equipment! 100%. Just not maybe in the short term. If you have good stories to tell then people will watch, no matter what remember that it's the story rather than the camera which makes a movie good or bad. It's the person behind the camera and not the camera. Don't think about it as I don't have the money for the best equipment think about it as what can I make with the equipment that I have and how can I best create the world I'm trying to with what I can obtain? I spend hours and hours obsessing over the best equipment on these boards, but I also shoot with my set up which doesn't have an external monitor, no ff, and 2 4gig P2 cards and feel like every once in awhile I get something right. Film making is a process that you have to fail at many times before you can get to where the people you look up to are at... A RED camera will not make you Peter Jackson.
 
Talent will allways beat out nice equipment! 100%.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

My mantra always goes back to the XL1s's 28 Days Later

If anyone of us pulled that film off here, on these boards, we'd be living legends. To this day, 28 Days Later is my inpiration for digital filmmaking. The cameras have gotten better, DVX100, HVX, HPX, The new Sony ...

Funny. The Red can be outfitted at roughly $35,000, I think they used $50,000 in lenses on the XL1 for Boyles film.

Talent. That's it.

-
 
The time has come for the indie-dream.

The new toys allow creative freedom and high quality on a much lower budget than ever before.

Talent can shine unobstructed now, regardless of $$ and fame.

I'm so excited to see the under-1 mln.$ or even ~100 000 $ gems that are going to make it big.

In my country, one can make a feature film just from the savings from not shooting on film.

As wiser members of this forum have said, big studios are losing control of what is being made, but they still have control over what is being distributed.

Internet might change that, but even if it doesn't - a studio may choose to purchase and distribute a good low-budget indie film. I can't see a reason why they won't. If it can give them profit, why not? They're businessmen, after all.

Yeah, they'll lose some of the control they have, but it's already lost, IMO.

Jazz do it, guys! :)

Talent and determination, that's all it takes.

Coppola's vision is coming true, aided by digital cinema prophets like Mr. Jannard and his deadly toy.

Let the good times roll.
 
SPZ said:
EDIT- We are still very much limited by budget. If we are talented, we are still going to lose to a less talented individual with a better setup.
Click to expand...
I absolutely, positively, categorically reject this statement.

Equipment does not make for success, talent does. As long as the equipment meets a basic, minimum level, that is all you need. Should I go through the list again? James Longley has been nominated for TWO OSCARS for work he's done on a standard-def, $2600 DVX100. Murderball was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary, shot on a DVX100. SuperSize Me was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary, shot on a VX2000 (not even 24p!) An Inconvenient Truth WON the Oscar for best documentary, and it was shot about half on a JVC HD100.

The most successful indie film of all time, the Blair Witch Project, was shot on a $300 RCA 8mm camcorder and a $1,000 CP16.

Open Water received a nationwide theatrical release, and it was shot on a PD150 (again, not even 24p, that's a 60i-only, 4:3-only $3,000 video camera.)

Are you seriously going to try to tell me that it's a lack of equipment that's stopping you from achieving success?

SPZ, you've already got an HVX. Cloverfield made extensive use of an HVX200, as did Diary of the Dead. Most of "Jackass 2" was shot on an HVX. These are all wide theatrical releases.

Are you *seriously* going to try to tell me that the equipment is in *any way* holding you back? Better equipment is, of course, better, no argument. But we've LONG since passed the threshhold when we could say, confidently, that the tools we had aren't "good enough." If an HVX200 is good enough for Scorcese to use it in a shot in the Oscar-winning film "The Departed" then isn't that proof positive that it's "good enough"?

Red's better, no doubt about it. Way, way better, in many ways. Most ways. Not all ways, but most ways. Obviously. No argument. But put your energy into upping your skills rather than into going into debt, because the equipment will NOT be what makes or breaks your filmmaking debut.
 
karapetkov said:
The new toys allow creative freedom and high quality on a much lower budget than ever before.
Click to expand...
No they don't. Mark Pirro made over $500,000 from "Polish Vampire in Burbank", back in 1985 (before there really even *was* a video industry). He shot it on Super 8, probably spent less on his camera, film and processing all together, combined, than most of us spend on a single prosumer video camera.

The dream's always been possible. Only thing missing has been the skills.

a studio may choose to purchase and distribute a good low-budget indie film. I can't see a reason why they won't. If it can give them profit, why not? They're businessmen, after all.
Click to expand...
That's always been the case. When Miramax bought "Saving Grace" for $4,000,000 at Sundance, they explained it simply like this: if we'd made that film, we'd have spent $12,000,000 to make it. Buying it at $4m is a great business move.

Talent and determination, that's all it takes.
Click to expand...
Talent and determination help, but hard work is what really makes it happen. Hard work, without talent, will go a lot further than talent without hard work.

Coppola's vision is coming true, aided by digital cinema prophets like Mr. Jannard and his deadly toy.
Click to expand...
Jannard has given us a 35mm replacement at a much lower cost. The HVX is a Super16mm replacement at much lower cost. The DVX is almost a 16mm replacement at even much lower cost. The tools are there already, folks. If James Longley can get two Oscar nominations for work done on a standard-def DVX, then I'd say the existing tools are "good enough" already.
 
And, before anyone gets me wrong, I'm not knocking the Red at all. I think it's an utterly brilliant product, and I've spent upwards of $35,000 on one already. I got it for specific purposes. I am in no way under any illusions that the Red is going to now empower me to make a movie. It will empower me to compete for 35mm film jobs such as high-end television commercials and such, without having to spend to rent that equipment, etc. That's a totally different business model.

I love the Red. It's genius, sheer genius. But it is not a product for DIY/indie/guerilla filmmakers aspiring to make their breakthrough movie on no budget. It's a 35mm film camera for businessmen to use to make high-budget productions with. (as always, there will be exceptions, but banking on being the exception has always seemed to me to be a silly plan.)
 
Barry_Green said:
I absolutely, positively, categorically reject this statement.

James Longley has been nominated for TWO OSCARS for work he's done on a standard-def, $2600 DVX100. Murderball was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary, shot on a DVX100. SuperSize Me was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary, shot on a VX2000 (not even 24p!) An Inconvenient Truth WON the Oscar for best documentary, and it was shot about half on a JVC HD100.

The most successful indie film of all time, the Blair Witch Project, was shot on a $300 RCA 8mm camcorder and a $1,000 CP16.

Open Water received a nationwide theatrical release, and it was shot on a PD150 (again, not even 24p, that's a 60i-only, 4:3-only $3,000 video camera.)


Cloverfield made extensive use of an HVX200, as did Diary of the Dead. Most of "Jackass 2" was shot on an HVX. These are all wide theatrical releases.


Red's better, no doubt about it. Way, way better, in many ways. Most ways. Not all ways, but most ways. Obviously. No argument. But put your energy into upping your skills rather than into going into debt, because the equipment will NOT be what makes or breaks your filmmaking debut.
Click to expand...

Cloverfield's not a great example of big screen image from the HVX200, although I know the point is "it's good enough".

Sarah Landon wasn't a good example, either.

I wish someone who's lived off of the HVX200 and an adapter would get a distro deal so that everyone could see what I saw projected.

However, check out the success story behind THE SIGNAL. Another testament to gear being good enough.

XL-H1 + 35mm Adapter = 1.5 Million Dollar Sale to Magnolia Pictures.
 
Preach it Barry...


Also anyone seen My Date With Drew...Nation wide theatrical release shot on a little 3 chip dv cam that they returned to Circuit City after 30 days.
 
Man, this is total "here say": did that movie really only make 50k worldwide in box offices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top