RED Cameras?

[Barry_Green]

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.

THANKS FOR REMINDING ME! Heck yes, "My Date With Drew" was made with NO money. They "bought" a camcorder at Circuit City on a credit card, and budgeted themselves 30 days to make the film, because at the end of 30 days they had to return the camcorder under Circuit City's "no questions asked" return policy.

So they essentially "borrowed" a camcorder for 30 days for free.

And they got a nationwide theatrical release.

 

[Barry_Green]

Don't know; the IMDB data shows $85,000 for its opening weekend. I know that it also got a video deal, it certainly made its money back.

But what's the important factor? That Brian Herzlinger, star and director of that film, is now directing "Baby on Board" starring Heather Graham, Jerry O'Connell, John Corbett and Lara Flynn Boyle. The guy has now launched a career, having started with a cheapo analog video camera "borrowed" from Circuit City.

 

[Kholi]

Don't know; the IMDB data shows $85,000 for its opening weekend.

I dunno WHO told me that the movie made like 50k theatrically. I never went to look it up because it made me laugh so hard I wanted to remember it like that forever.

 

[karapetkov]

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.

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.

This post is, actually, an even bigger inspiration [no irony].

Hard work, without talent, will go a lot further than talent without hard work.

I knew it. I have a chance.

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.

But you can't deny that what the RED offers is sexy as hell.

I mean, what these guys are doing is ahead of its time.

I'm no expert, but in the last couple of years I've communicated with a number of competent people and most of them were expecting such thing to happen.. maybe 10 years from now... but the RED is here today.

Gotta respect the pioneers. :dankk2:

And I also have my eyes.

...

OK, I'm planning to shut the f**k up now and go develop some killer skills. rogar-Love(DBG):

 

[David Jimerson]

Looking forward to seeing some good stuff out of Bulgaria!

 

[Barry_Green]

But you can't deny that what the RED offers is sexy as hell.

Not only do I not deny it, but I've spent over $35,000 acquiring it. I'm a big fan of the Red One.

Gotta respect the pioneers. :dankk2:

Indeed. That's why I'm also a big fan of Panasonic; they pioneered 24p for the masses, and variable frame rates (and tapeless) for the masses. I'm a sucker for true breakthrough products. Not a big fan of evolutionary products, but true blockbuster breakthroughs? I'm all over that. :thumbsup:

 

[karapetkov]

Looking forward to seeing some good stuff out of Bulgaria!

Thanks. Me too. :cheesy:

 

[karapetkov]

Indeed. That's why I'm also a big fan of Panasonic; they pioneered 24p for the masses, and variable frame rates (and tapeless) for the masses. I'm a sucker for true breakthrough products. Not a big fan of evolutionary products, but true blockbuster breakthroughs? I'm all over that. :thumbsup:

Absolutely true. I love the HVX and I think we'll keep seeing very nice things from it and the DVX too, despite people saying that it's "old" and stuff.

It just looks good.

These cams opened new horizons and now the RED drives evolution even further.

I'll get one HVX second hand for myself, when I get the chance. It is my "first love" :love4:.

 

[SPZ]

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.

Barry, here's a different POV.

If I was the one that came up with a movie like "The Wedding Crashers"- a comercial romantic comedy, with a couple of unknown but good actors, and shot with an HVX and a 35mm adaptor, would I get distribution for it?

The problem is if one is going Independent and Low budget, you have to compromise and shoot according to your equipment limitations- you have to plan your story to work with them. Tell me (besides open water and documentaries) any movie that had distribution and commercial success shot INDEPENDENTLY that wasn't an "introspective piece", or arthouse- They should be very few. People expect picture quality in entertainment. Also, if one is planning broadcast distribution, signal to noise and certain quality is expected in terms of picture quality- specially in fiction.

When you talk about "The Departed", we both know what shot was the HVX used- and the "key" wasn't that well pulled, either.

We also know how much money in Da Vinci and Telecine the HVX footage had to go trough in a project like Cloverfield- even if its ment to look "amateur"- we'll see this in the upcoming DVD/Blu-ray release...

I'm not bashing my HVX. Actually, just finished my short film with it, and did many succesfull international Destination promotional videos with it. But did I have to compromise when shooting those? Of course.

My short Film was ambitious, and entirely shot at night, full of Neons and Dramatic/romantic scenery. How frustrated I was with the lack of dinamic range and low ligh capability of the HVX. It is, of course, a lot better than the competition, no doubt, and the movie could only be done for the budget with the HVX- But wouldn't I love to not have those limitations? Those limitations came from the technical side. WIth a RED, or an HPX, even, I could've gotten a much better picture and wouldn't require so much artificial lighting...

This sounds like a rant, and it is, but I long for a day when I wouldn't need to compromise this much in picture quality.

28 Days Later was indeed shot with an XL-1. But how much was the budget for lighting, FX, Lenses and 35 MM adaptor and Post-Production?

"El Mariachi" looks good, not only because it had top Post production (on the version we see in DVD and Broadcast), but also because it was shot on FILM. The dinamic range, interchangeable lenses and DOF just make it look good.

Digitaly, we can still only get this close from a budget above 20 000.

It is, still, a sport of Kings- at least for the mainstream movie.

EDIT- I long for a day that people can actually look at a film shot independently and not notice it was shot in lower end gear- without compromises:

Jackass 2 is an amateur handheld shot reality approach. They could've done that with a Sony Hc1.

The Oscar nominated features are Documentaries. (in the Departed the HVX was used for 1 shot)

Again, I just ask you guys to look at "My Blueberry Nights". Its a simple movie with relative low budget, and a cinematic masterpiece. This film and its look could only be achieved in FILM and above 30k cameras. Technicaly, due to the dinamic range, the DOF and the color in low end Digital gear (sub 10k), achieving such shots is just impossible in that price range. And this just p*sses me of. Because not only do I have to compromise on the actors (due to limited range of amateurs/ newcomers), on the lighting (There's only so much I can afford) and the support gear- steadicams, tripods, dollys, microfones, etc- and TEAM, but also have to compromise my cinematic vision due to camera limitations.

Of course, If I was a "King"(following John's nice quote) this wouldn't be a problem. But I'm not. So I need to go compromise, and write/direct taking into account all these factors.

 

[Barry_Green]

If I was the one that came up with a movie like "The Wedding Crashers"- a comercial romantic comedy, with a couple of unknow but good actors, and shot with an HVX and a 35mm adaptor, would I get distribution for it?

You'd have exactly the same chance at distribution with an HVX, as you would with a Red, and the same chance you'd have with film: no chance. With no known actors, romantic comedy is DEATH to the indie filmmaker. You cannot do it, you cannot succeed. Hollywood does romantic comedies, and Hollywood has Reese Witherspoon and Anne Hathaway and Hugh Grant and $20m to $60m budgets. Don't go up against Hollywood with what they do best.

Instead, try something like Juno. Juno's a fairly low budget ($7.5m) independent film and was nominated for an Oscar for best picture. And, get this: it's done bigger box-office business than all the other best-picture nominees! Even so, they had a bunch of recognizable TV stars like Jason Bateman and Allison Janney and Jennifer Garner.

The Wedding Crashers, by the way, featured Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Christopher Walken, Rachel McAdams, Jane Seymour, Dwight Yoakam, Rebecca De Mornay, and lots more... do you think people went to see it for the story or for the cinematography? Look at the IMDB star ratings for these actors. At the time this film came out:
Owen Wilson, #14. That means he was the 14th-highest-rated actor in the world at that time. That means he was expensive.
Vince Vaughn, #7
Christopher Walken, #80
Rachel McAdams, #2
Jane Seymour, #74
Dwight Yoakam, #816
Rebecca De Mornay, #357

That film cost $40,000,000 to make. If you made it yourself, same script, no-name actors, it would have done nowhere near as well as it did. Even if it was shot on a Red, even if it was shot on 35mm film. In fact, I'd dare to say that whether you shot it on a Red or 35mm film or an HVX would have had little to no impact whatsoever on its ultimate marketability.

The problem is if one is going Independent and Low budget, you have to compromise and shoot according to your equipment limitations- you have to plan your story to work with them.

Well, sure -- so tell me why you want to compromise yourself $40,000 further, and end up with a camera that is going to limit you substantially more in what you can do because it's bigger, heavier, slower, can't be taken in as many places, etc...

Tell me (besides open water and documentaries) any movie that had distribution and commercial success shot INDEPENDENTLY that wasn't an "introspective piece", or arthouse- They should be very few.

Independently of... what? Of studios? A *huge* percentage of films every year are produced independent of studios! If you're asking for breakthroughs those'll be Napoleon Dynamite or Blair Witch or El Mariachi, none of which are "introspective" or "arthouse". "The Apostle" was done entirely independently because Robert Duvall couldn't get a studio to back him, so he bankrolled it himself (and ended up winning a Best Actor Oscar for it).

Now, are you talking "independent of actually having financing"? That number is extraordinarily small. $100,000 pictures that go on to any measure of success are extremely rare, and it ISN'T because of what camera they shot on! "The Signal", made on an XLH1 and sold for $1.5 million? There's exceptions. Even Napoleon Dynamite was a $400,000 budget.

People expect picture quality in entertainment.

People expect quality in their entertainment, yes. Let me turn it around and ask you: how many films are made on 35mm which absolutely stink? Baby Geniuses 2, perhaps? There's millions of 'em.

Format is nearly irrelevant in determining whether a picture become successful. The ONLY thing format will get you is more access to the type of distributor who'll buy your film sight unseen to package it to sell it to Taiwan or Scandinavia. And, hey, there are those out there... if that's your business plan, it can be done, but you'd have to keep your costs extraordinarily low to survive on that. Which would be hard to do if you spent $25,000 or more on a camera package.

Also, if one is planning broadcast distribution, signal to noise and certain quality is expected in terms of picture quality- specially in fiction.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this. I've seen so many 35mm films in the theater that are way, way, way grainier than ANY HVX footage that's ever been shot. Are you trying to say that a little noise in the image is going to keep you out of theaters? Shall I point out that the HVX is way less noisy than the DVX, yet the DVX has had several theatrical releases.

I think you're trying to justify a position without actually doing enough research here.

We also know how much money in Da Vinci and Telecine the HVX footage had to go trough in a project like Cloverfield- even if its ment to look "amateur"- we'll see this in the upcoming DVD/Blu-ray release...

Yes, and "El Mariachi" was made for $7,000 but the final release you saw in the theaters had at least $100,000 and perhaps as much as $1m spent on it to "clean it up". The point being?

Look, if you want to see the inside of a theater, you're either going to have to rent the theater yourself, or have a film so amazing that a distributor will front the $30,000,000 it takes to launch a national marketing/advertising campaign and make up release prints and ship them nationwide. Do you honestly think that the difference between getting that commitment, and not getting that commitment, is going to be whether you shot on an HVX or on a Red? Either you're going to have the elements in your film that make it saleable (great script, great known actors, great director, great production value) and that's all going to cost money (at which point you could afford a properly-equipped Red package), so your budget is going to be $2m or above... OR you're going to have something phenomenal REGARDLESS of known actors, and the camera in that case will be *irrelevant*. Case in point being things like "Blair Witch" or "Napoleon Dynamite" (which, even though it was shot on 35mm film, would have been every bit as successful had it been shot on a DVX).

But wouldn't I love to not have those limitations?

Sure, we all would. And you can get a Red if you want. Just understand it's going to take $35,000 or more to get a decent shooting package. Or you could use what you've already got, for zero additional dollars. Wouldn't you find that not having $35,000 available is going to make you compromise here and there?

This sounds like a rant, and it is, but I long for a day when I wouldn't need to compromise this much in picture quality.

Easy then. Spend the bucks and do it right. But if you think you had to compromise before, I would really like to see how much you enjoy shooting a film on a $20,000 Red package... I think you perhaps don't realize what the base level package is missing.

Look, I shoot films. I've got a Red. I've got an HVX. And I'm telling you the way things are. You don't want to hear it, and I understand that -- lots of times people don't want to hear the truth if it "gets in the way of their dream." But that doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

You want no compromises? Spend $50,000 to $60,000 on your Red package, and hire two extra guys to wrangle the equipment, and you'll have no compromises. Except, of course, that you compromised on budget at that point. See, there's ALWAYS a compromise. For commercial success I can flat out tell you this: you'll probably have a much more saleable project if you put that $50,000 into a screenwriter and actors and shot on a DVX, than if you spent it all on a camera package!

28 Days Later was indeed shot with an XL-1. But how much was the budget for lighting, FX, Lenses and 35 MM adaptor and Post-Production?

The same as it is for ANY good film!

"El Mariachi" looks good, not only of because it had top Post production (on the version we see in DVD and Broadcast), but also because it was shot on FILM.

Okay, serious question: have you SEEN it recently? The HVX blows the doors off of the "film" that El Mariachi was shot on. Seriously, watch it. It was made on 1980's film stock, and standard 16mm at that. Shot on a borrowed Arri 16S. This isn't Vision 3 in Super16 we're talking about, this is old, grainy, nasty, soft stuff in standard 16, cropped down to 1.85. There's probably no more dynamic range in that film stock, and the HVX is a lot sharper than El Mariachi.

Digitaly, we can still only get this close from a budget above 20 000.

Really? Did you see "The Unawakening" or "Little Mouth To Feed"? I think we got a look there that far surpasses the El Mariachi look.

It is, still, a sport of Kings- at least for the mainstream movie.

Absolutely true. So don't try to go head-to-head with the kings. Find your own way. Trying to make a romantic comedy without Jennifer Lopez or Reese Witherspoon is a recipe for disaster, and trying to tell the distributor "but... but... we shot it on a Red!" isn't going to get you any further.

Have you ever seen a movie where you've said to yourself "man, if they'd just have shot this on a Red I'd like it so much better?" I know I haven't. In fact, if the audience is thinking about the format at all, that's proof positive that you didn't make a good-enough film!

EDIT- I long for a day that people can actually look at a film shot independently and not notice it was shot in lower end gear- without compromises:

People do it all the time. They just get budgets. So I guess what I'm asking is: what do you mean by "independently"? If you're talking $5,000 then I can't fathom how you wouldn't see that there are *enormous* compromises involved in trying to pull that off, even if you got a Red for free...

Again, I just ask you guys to look at "My Blueberry Nights".

That's a $10,000,000 budget. Where do you think that money all went? Film stock and processing and camera rental probably didn't account for more than, say, 3% of the total budget. The other 97%? That's why the film looks the way it does! And yes they could have made it look exactly the same, and done exactly as well, on a Red.

So I'm left struggling as to what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to make a movie on no money, why spend 5x as much as you need to when the camera itself is going to have little to no impact on the ultimate marketability of your product?

I'm not telling you not to go Red. I went Red, it's a great place to go. But I am saying this flat out: if you can't do it right, you shouldn't do it at all. You need to have a fully equipped, workable package. That's all. If you can afford it, and you think it's the best way to spend your money and that what you're trying to accomplish will show up on the screen best from buying a better camera package, well, by all means go right ahead. But I could afford it. If you can afford to plunk down $35,000 to $50,000 for a camera package, and you have a solid business plan for how owning that package will generate more money than it cost, then of course get it. It's always great to have the best.

But why let that stop you from going ahead right now, today? It's extremely difficult, and practically impossible, to get a film theatrically released that has less than, say, a million dollar budget (other than a documentary). You'll see one or two show up maybe every two or three years or so. With about 400 films theatrically released each year, that means that you're looking at a 1-in-1200 chance of getting on the big screen with less than a million dollar budget. And if you had a million dollars, why would you limit yourself to a handheld camcorder to shoot your picture? You see how this works? If you had a million, you could easily afford a Red. If you don't have a million, you're not going theatrical anyway, so why not put your money into the areas that will help you the most to sell your picture (mainly, screenplay, actors, and marketing). If you don't have at least a million bucks in your budget, that means the simple unavoidable truth is you're not going theatrical, you're going DVD. Blu-Ray is such a tiny percentage of the market it's practically irrelevant. Even HD broadcast is fairly tiny. Are you trying to say that you don't think your current camera would hold up for HD broadcast or DVD release?

Watch the trailer for "The Men Who Fell" and tell me if you think they accomplished "the look." Or any of our better fest entries. Watch any of the Macgregor films, or JDS stuff, or Starway Pictures stuff. There's an incredible amount you can accomplish on a "prosumer" camcorder and, since the odds are so astronomical against getting any sort of theatrical distribution anyway, that's why I say that these existing tools are "good enough". And if you DO get a theatrical release? Watch some HVX footage in a theater, like Kholi did, and you'll see that it's plenty good enough. Or if you need more pixels, consider an EX1 or something like that. But if you're sweating the difference between a $25,000 minimalist Red and a $50,000 properly-equipped Red, then the truth is you shouldn't probably be considering either at this time.

When the camcorder is the thing that's holding you back, that's the time to go to the next level.

 

[ddp]

Compromising starts the minute you wake up.
What a endless argument......

 

[Kholi]

Watch the trailer for "The Men Who Fell" and tell me if you think they accomplished "the look." Or any of our better fest entries. Watch any of the Macgregor films, or JDS stuff, or Starway Pictures stuff. There's an incredible amount you can accomplish on a "prosumer" camcorder and, since the odds are so astronomical against getting any sort of theatrical distribution anyway, that's why I say that these existing tools are "good enough". And if you DO get a theatrical release? Watch some HVX footage in a theater, like Kholi did, and you'll see that it's plenty good enough. Or if you need more pixels, consider an EX1 or something like that. But if you're sweating the difference between a $25,000 minimalist Red and a $50,000 properly-equipped Red, then the truth is you shouldn't probably be considering either at this time.

When the camcorder is the thing that's holding you back, that's the time to go to the next level.

Better listen to this man. Granted, I'll pixel trip all the time, but I still know that in my head an HVX + 35mm Adapter in the hands of someone that has had AMPLE time to test, play, mess up, mess up again, play and more is incredible @ 60Feet.

I've seen my own amateur footage projected in the Kodak Theater and it's infreakincredible.

Cloverfield looks nothing like the HVX footage I saw. It's a bad example as far as I'm concerned and apparently SARAH LANDON is as well.

I only wish you guys could see what HVX + M2 done right looks like projected. It wouldn't stop the pixel tripping and want for better Dynamic Range, light sensitivity, etc. But, you would never think that the current crop of cameras are holding you back from actually makin' something worthy of theatrical release. It won't be the camera.

 

[ugafan]

has anyone watched "the puffy chair"? it was shot on a dvx, with no name actors, a fairly boring story, and 1/3 of it is out of focus. yet somehow it made it into sundance and got released on dvd. now these guys got a second film in sundance, baghead, and are working on some other projects.

bottom line: you don't need expensive equipment or a good story. you just need to make a deal with the devil. :evil:

 

[Kholi]

has anyone watched "the puffy chair"? it was shot on a dvx, with no name actors, a fairly boring story, and 1/3 of it is out of focus. yet somehow it made it into sundance and got released on dvd. now these guys got a second film in sundance, baghead, and are working on some other projects.

bottom line: you don't need expensive equipment or a good story. you just need to make a deal with the devil. :evil:

You make me miss Georgia every time you post.

 

[SPZ]

Change my example of the "Wedding Crashers" to Juno. Do you think Juno, shot with an HVX, would get the attention it has now?

If I did a "Juno" with an HVX, and a fellow brought out a similar movie but shot on 35mm or Red, which one would be picked for distribution? Which one would be looked at more seriously?

Look, Barry, as you know, I'm also a professional shooter/director/producer over here. I'm not saying this to show off, or to prove anything. But in this particular place, the reality is much different to what you have in the United States.

I made my name in this place by using low end mini-dv (by low end I'm saying first with a sony TRV900 and later with a DVX100- loved them-and still keep them! No insult intended) gear to produce material which blew away Betacam SP/Digibeta material produced by local "professionals"in the broadcast world. This happened because the local industry lacked post production knowledge and cinematography and narrative sensibility. Suffice to say, my talent was recognized and now I supervise, but still shoot and direct TVC and overal video campaigns for my current local high profile employer- which I do not want to discuss here.

Like I said in a post before, I was "driving in mountain roads with Fiats vs Ferraris"- but those Ferraris were being driven by poor drivers. This was, of course, for SD Television.

I could, however, see the difference the Digibetas and even Beta SP's brought in quality to the captured footage. Those lenses and 2/3ccds captured much solid and noise free footage than my mini-dv gear- but they just didn't know how to use it/control it.

The first oportunity I had with a Digibeta and a proper lens, I was blown away: The quality of the image was spectacular- it was interlaced, which I particularly don't like, but even after De-interlacing the footage was better than bare DVX- except, of course, for the Panasonic color bias, that I also have and love. With color correction/grading, DIgibeta can look stellar. But its, of course price prohibitive for ownership. Then came the HVX.

The HVX was the first camera I owned that I felt confident to trully be able to use in a conventional narrative driven TVC. It trully is a great camera. I used it for 4 International TVC's until now, and am amazed at what it can do. (with proper grading) . However, it still loses to Digibeta in places - not because of the recording, but because of the small CCD's and built in Lens. The gap, however, is much, much smaler.

The HVX is also the camera that I felt confident to trully go and make a serious local short film, which I'm finishing currently . It is a camera that is portable, light, allows for inexpensive support gear, ownable, has excelent color reproduction and gamma, as well as acceptable resolution and dinamic range. I have my own personal HVX, with 2 others on my job which were bought after I extensively used my HVX for tests. These 2 HVX's were used for shooting the before mentioned TVC's as well as other particular broadcasted events.

Back to my short film, shooting it with limited ressources meant having to struggle with the camera limitations all the time: low light capabilities, Dinamic range (the best at the price point in the time of shooting) where my main concerns, and of course, DOF- I received my Brevis 2/3 after the movie completion, and saw how nearly impossible it was to focus in exterior nightime situations with the internal LCD. And I know how much of the natural city detail I lost due to the poor light performance- if the camera was 1 and a half stops brighter, I could've gotten a brilliant looking film. For now, its underexposed in some areas. It still looks good, but could've looked a lot better weren't there these limitations- which I think that, nowadays, with the likes of RED, don't make sense anymore.

In other words, What I'm pushing for (and I know you get me here ) is for the real next generation Indie Filmmaker camera. We don't need 4:4:4, or 4k for the matter. Give us a camera where we can shine in Cinematography- Expensive glass will always be expensive glass. The cameras, however, can be much cheaper! Give us a 4:2:2, Full Frame interchangeable lens camera with variable frame rates and 10/11 stops of dinamic range at below 10k. Heck, Give us a 4:2:2, 1080p, 2/3 interchangeable/fixed lens camera with 10/11 stops of dinamic range for below 10k! In a portable, handheld form!

This is what I want.

PS-The Blair Whitch Project is terrible- This is not a "film"worth mentioning, in my book, because you can't call that movie as something with even acceptable cinematography, or cinematic composition. The proof to that is that I can't remember anyone that remembers this movie if not for the massive online viral marketing and its "shacky cam"- no one remembers it for its fantastic story, or acting, or cinematography. Its a piece of cinema history for its marketing success. El Mariachi was an action blockbuster geniously executed with practicaly no budget.

EDIT- And I know I'll probably get my short film some exposure not because of its technical quality but because of the subject matter. This is normaly how independent films get attention- but, as an aspiring fiilmmaker, or a cinematographer, with current bellow 10k cameras, its frustrating that you still need to be fairly wealthy to allow yourself the ability to explore the visual art of your film- at least in a conventional sense...

 

[Kholi]

NAB is right around the corner. ¡¡¡ Keep hopin' that Scarlet has interchangeable Nikon and PL mounts?!!! Pretty sure you can count on all those other tid bits from the RED TEAM.

 

[SPZ]

NAB is right around the corner. ¡¡¡ Keep hopin' that Scarlet has interchangeable Nikon and PL mounts?!!! Pretty sure you can count on all those other tid bits from the RED TEAM.

Fingers crossed here... But I'm also keeping my eye for the next HVX... I still remember that post Jan replied to you, Kholi: "Good things come to those who wait"...

 

[Kholi]

Yeah, I keep thinkin' about it to. =B I sure as hell don't expect the next HVX to have interchangeable lenses, though.

Seriously?

1) Full 1080p
2) Interchangeable Nikon, Canon, PL, Oct-19
3) Great Light Sensitivity
4) CCD

Perfection

By the way, SPZ: It's valuable, sometimes, to just do something before telling anyone you're gonna do it. That way nobody can stop you, and, you can say nobody told you that you couldn't. I do that quite often, but I'm drastic.

 

[SPZ]

Yeah, I keep thinkin' about it to. =B I sure as hell don't expect the next HVX to have interchangeable lenses, though.

Seriously?

1) Full 1080p
2) Interchangeable Nikon, Canon, PL, Oct-19
3) Great Light Sensitivity
4) CCD

Perfection

By the way, SPZ: It's valuable, sometimes, to just do something before telling anyone you're gonna do it. That way nobody can stop you, and, you can say nobody told you that you couldn't. I do that quite often, but I'm drastic.

You don't know how much I identify with that line of thinking, Kholi . In fact, it was with that attitude that I got my current job and portfolio. The whole "world"over here kept saying it couldn't be done, and I always asked "why not?".

Here's an interesting story.

When I was working on the local Broadcaster, I was telling the staff that "things could be done." It wouldn't need expensive support gear, lots of personel, lighting, etc, to achieve a good promotional piece. No one listened, and I was laughed at (moviesque scenario- but true!). What I did? I knew someone which was the producer of the local "arts magazine"show. I proposed to do some clips of local events. He just needed to put it on the air. He accepted. What I did was that I shot those local events in Mini-dv (Trv900), edited them in an exciting MTV fashion and color corrected them- back then, in Premiere 6.5, I believe. In order for no one to know how the video was shot, I had to go to the broadcaster at 1 a.m to an old Betacam SP deck that had S-Video in. This is hilarious, I know. I would secretly go there and copy my footage to Beta SP. The audio I would insert later in a audio mix table. Suffice to say, the picture while lower res, for local TV, blew away everything they came up with. And I kept producing more, and everyone keep talking "Who shot this"? How was this done?

This made many people upset, by the way.

My current short film is 100% shot. Will it win any awards? I don't know, and that wasn't the point. It was shot with my own financing, and with passionate people. It will most certainly not be the best looking independent film ever, or have the best story, either. But, damn it, I'm proud of it, and the rest of the team too.

We did it. But I want to go one better. This is a very modest first attempt at a short. I know that If I want to go Cannes, Berlin, Venice, or Tokyo, I need better- and since I really want to tell stories that are perceptive to a wide audience, and entertaining, I know I need a camera that gives me the guarantee that people at least will not have it as an excuse to bash it. I want a camera that doesn't limit my creativity.

Kholi, its all about doing it. You're right. But seeing how many talented people are in this forum, for example, I believe that we all, independent of budget, deserve a chance to be able to put our cinematic vision as we want it on the canvas- or on the film.

Imagine a day were the camera is like a brush for a Painter, and it ends up not being about the brush, but about the skill of the painter. Nowadays, as we are poor, we just end up painting with a pencil, were others are using Brushes with expensive colors- And all our stories end up limited by it. You can say this stimulates our creativity, but I'm sure every one of us, if it had the oportunity to use a brush, is confident to pull something better than 80% of the crap done by the "painters"out there.

PS- edited my posts- I see that I got too excited with my short film's description there... Thanks for the heads up!

 

[FREUDENBERG_FILMS]

Nice read Sérgio Perez,

One thing though I must say. Interchangeable lens..... I asked a Panasonic rep once why they didn't opt to have an interchangeable lens on the HVX like the canon xl1zs.

He said if you ask a Canon XLS1 owner if they ever have bought a interchangeable lens for there camera to replace the one that came in the box 98% would say they haven't.

Makes sense since most lenses cost half if not the same price as the camera itself.

But at the end of the day as you stated. Its not the camera since its just a tool but more the artist and the more growing technology that is backing his or her films to get it out into the public domain.

Michael Freudenberg