RED Cameras?
- Thread starter NashvilleActors
- Start date
karapetkov
Well-known member
Blair Witch is a tutorial in suspense for me... tutorial!
Business of filmmaking. Very well, I do a Porn movie that's displayed in a couple of theatres, and it makes a fortune in DVD sales. I'm a successful filmmaker, since I made good business? I do a crappy movie. I market it ingeniously, it sucks in every level but, due to marketing, it makes millions, I'm a succesful Filmmaker? Economicaly speaking, yes. As a Filmmaker, or, in other words, a storyteller/artist? Not a chance.
Calling the "cinematography"in Blair Witch "Cinematography" is an insult to any hard working cinematographer out there, and even indies in general. The movie is "Cinema Verité" done in an amateur way. But everything is acceptable now. And it worked because people believed it was true. I still remember the shock when actors appeared in a talk show. They had non-disclosure agreements to avoid damaging the marketing hype...
In fact, attracting an audience with the morbid premise of finding a "real" tape of an incident where someone "died or disappeared"is not appelaing to film goers, but to voyeurs. It was actually a sick campaign, in my view- it just shows how our society is going.
Maybe I'm being harsh on the filmmakers. Maybe they didn't had any intention at all at selling it as a discovered tape, or as reality. Maybe they where just having fun. But the way I see it is, if you take out the element of surprise and the illusion of reality of the story, this movie is a mediocre attempt at horror and suspense.
As for the "meaning of the movie", which you said it had something to do as a character study on human reaction towards a crisis situation... We have to agree to disagree. The plot was so ridiculously developed with so many "duh"scenes of cinematic clichés of "do not go there"! "I'll go get something, ALONE, in the middle of the woods, after strange things happening around me." etc. Again, take out the element of "reality" of this, and you have yourself a story you've already seen hundreds of times before, but done worse. As for who was fooled, I certainly wasn't one of them, since by the time I saw the movie it was already well known it was a work of fiction. I went to see it for the indie blockbuster aspect of it. However, for the many that went to see the movie, thinking it was a real story from word of mouth or internet buzz, prior to the said talk show interviews, I believe they have something to say concerning the "fooled" part. And sincerely, Blair Witch 2 wasn't that terrible. But it got poor box office, nowhere near to the original one. Why? The first one worked because of its brutal marketing, pure and simple, and not by its own merits. If it had, you can be sure people would be lining up to see a sequel to something they liked, at least in similar numbers. That is how the sequel system works in Hollywood- you capitalize in the franchise's "pilot", capture an audience, than try to gain on that audience for the sequels. However, the audience has to like the pilot.
Meat Loaf Didn't sell Bat out of Hell as "a found disc from a group of talented Rock artists that were believed to have influenced The Rolling Stones, and who commited suicide while doing the album", or did he? I believe the music in Bat Out of Hell worked by its own merits. And Meat Loaf did came out with a succesful song a decade or two after- "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that" (If I remember correctly). A nice tune. Not as good as a "Bat out of Hell" good, but good.
Anyway, David, this is all my own opinion. I concede that Blair Witch has its merits. It is, economically speaking, an indie filmmakers dream. But, in my view. that's about it.
How about going back to the Red one camera?
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Hey, not bad. I would like to thank my family, friends, and my supporters out there. Will imrpove for the next ones, definetly
(putting on the Oscars- ok, Razzies- hat on )
Last edited:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
All this talk about cameras and the right tools.
There was a film last night that won an Oscar (albeit for Best Song) called ONCE
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/once/
Shot on a couple Z1 HD Camcorder's. Total unknowns; total indie.
The film was made for $160,000 and shot in 17 days. Sells for 6 Figures at Sundance, Grosses $10,000,000 in no more than 20 theatres in its widest release.
This conversation is moot. The reality is that the tools are in our hands NOW. Content is king, the camera wars are done. Democracy is here and now.
But we've already established this even though the debate continues to rage on; Pieces of April, Open Water, 28 Days Later and now
Once ....
No 35mm adapters, just a simple HD camcorder.
A quote from the DP:
"The progression to more solid and stable shooting comes from, monopods!, but should relate to the confidence arc of Guy's charachter more than anything else.
We had a tiny light package, 2 x pocket pars on battery, 1 x 575w HMI, 1 X 4bank 2ft kinoflo, and my usual package of diffusion, green and yellow gels. I have been surprised this format has held up so well, I used notions of silhouette and foreground and background single sources to place action in and went with trusting my instincts relative to the package.
Anyway hope this is of some use."
:cheesy: :kali: :nads: :2vrolijk_08:
There was a film last night that won an Oscar (albeit for Best Song) called ONCE
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/once/
Shot on a couple Z1 HD Camcorder's. Total unknowns; total indie.
The film was made for $160,000 and shot in 17 days. Sells for 6 Figures at Sundance, Grosses $10,000,000 in no more than 20 theatres in its widest release.
This conversation is moot. The reality is that the tools are in our hands NOW. Content is king, the camera wars are done. Democracy is here and now.
But we've already established this even though the debate continues to rage on; Pieces of April, Open Water, 28 Days Later and now
Once ....
No 35mm adapters, just a simple HD camcorder.
A quote from the DP:
"The progression to more solid and stable shooting comes from, monopods!, but should relate to the confidence arc of Guy's charachter more than anything else.
We had a tiny light package, 2 x pocket pars on battery, 1 x 575w HMI, 1 X 4bank 2ft kinoflo, and my usual package of diffusion, green and yellow gels. I have been surprised this format has held up so well, I used notions of silhouette and foreground and background single sources to place action in and went with trusting my instincts relative to the package.
Anyway hope this is of some use."
:cheesy: :kali: :nads: :2vrolijk_08:
Definitely. The tools exist today.
The concern here is not that the tools that are available at our price range aren't capable of letting us tell a good a story. They are.
I ask you to think of one thing. How many Oscar Nominated, or Cannes nominated movies shot on sub 10k gear WEREN'T handheld, Dogma esque in their presentation? DO you think this was for aesthetical reasons? No. Its because the people at the helm knew their cameras couldn't compete in STRAIGHTS (read my former posts), so they had to go to doing twists and turns, where they can compete.
Believe me, I know what I can do with my gear in order for it to compete with the big guys. However, I also know where it CAN'T go.
Obviously, the day of total democracy is coming near. However, its not here quite yet. Not when there's no way you can compete in the same visual form as the opposition.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Barry_Green
Moderator
I don't understand this. Movies cost money to make. If you want to look like a $10,000,000 movie, spend the money. If you can't spend the money, don't expect it to look like that. That's pretty simple.
The question we've been debating here is: are the existing products good enough such that a theatrical audience won't really care? Films like "Once" prove that yeah, they are.
Are they a match for 35mm? No. Does shooting on 35mm cost an enormous amount more than shooting on an XHA1? Of course. Ergo, what was the question again? Spend more = get more. You don't get something for nothing.
Well, we can ask for it
Red is indeed a revolution. They created a camera that competes for $35 000 with $250 000 dollars cameras.
Now, can't this revolution go even further? Can't we see a camera that, for 10 000, competes with these beasts?
Glass will always be expensive, due to heavy quality control and the manufacturing process. This is something I can't see going down in price, but camera bodies? With better Functions, bigger sensor size, resolution and color space? This can be achievable. Like I said before, give me a camera that can keep up on the straights, and I'll smoke them on the turns!
This doesn't mean someone shouldn't be shooting now, going for the dream now, and they aren't going to make it. This is not what I'm saying, far from it! What I'm saying is that now, if you have a bellow 10k camera, you really are working on a very limiting capture device that CAN compete with the big boys, but only in very limiting circunstances. Democracy will be the day when we have a camera capable to keep up with the big boys, and be able to stand on its own shooting in every style. Of course, actors, lighting, support gear, a talented team will always do or break your movie, and that requires budget and it will hardly go down in price. But if the capture device is "democracized", at least it will have to be the talent that will do or break the movie- the cinematography, the script, the acting, the editing, the directing, etc. It would certainly mean the fall of a great big wall. (Political pun)
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I do think of Oscar nominated (and other high profile festivals) films on low end cameras; it's already happening before our eyes. This is just the beginning.
Like BG says 'If you want Lawrence of Arabia' ....
then again, these days ... hmmmmmmmm.
Babel could have been done on low end equipment. Sideways could have.
Considering what they did with Cloverfield; I bet an indie could have pulled that off; with some miracles and dedication.
Now I haven't been debating VISUAL form at all. Going back to Lawrence; I bet that story could be told in todays formats; not in David Lean fashion visually
But the content, the story, the talent.
(paraphrasing)
RR said it best 'Digital imagery will never get worse, it'll only get better', and it's already here and now, competing with the big boys !
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, they have.
But that has almost nothing to do with indie moviemaking. It has to do with medium-sized production houses now being able to afford a "big dog" camera for 1/8 the price. And that is revolutionary.
Point being, it's not the camera...
With all due respect, I do quite beg to differ. Have you seen what Macgregor can do on a $3,000 Canon XHA1? We're already there, my friend.
Filmmaking is not now, nor has it ever been, dependent on the camera. 16mm cameras have been available since the 1930's or 1940's, don't remember right offhand.
That wall fell, officially, in 2002 when the DVX hit the market. That wall's been down a long, long time. We've got a DVXUser member who's been nominated for two Oscars already.
Yes. But nominated for documentary.
(Nothing wrong with documentary. I'm focusing my line of tought on fiction. And obviously picture quality is much more tolerated in documentaries.).
Tell me a fiction movie, shot in a non-Dogma way (no hand-held "realistic" approach), that got recognition and distribution worldwide, shot with sub 10k cameras. As far as I know, the only one was "28 Days Later.". What does this mean?
EDIT- John, I can't agree with you. Babel couldn't be done with current sub 10k cameras.
Jared Meyer
Veteran
Most of these used the dvx or pd-150. I.e., not only did it not matter that they were "cheap" prosumer cameras but it didn't even matter that they were shot in SD.
Once
He Was a Quiet Man
The Puffy Chair
Open Water
Pieces of April
Waking Life
A Scanner Darkly
November
Lonesome Jim
Sorry, Haters
Tadpole
Land of Plenty
The Anniversary Party
And those are just off the top of my head. I'll add more as I think of them. Point is, you just need to think outside the box. It really isn't about the camera. Well, I'll amend that - unless you're making Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, or Titanic, it's not about the camera. :thumbsup:
Last edited:
Haven't seen a single one of them. Since I'm on the other end of the World, its probably understandable.
I remember the talk about November and how it won best cinematography in Sundance...
I agree with everyone on this: It shouldn't be about the camera, but the content. And we can produce great content for theatrical distribution with the current batch of sub 10k cameras. The current batch of Handheld pro HD cameras, like the HVX and the Sony EX, are capable of results we wouldn't have dreamt of 5 years ago on the price range.
Almost 3 years have passed since the announcement of the HVX. With this camera I've faced giants, broken barriers and created my first serious attempt at filmmaking.
I want to see what the next step is, and what doors it will open. The EX is a glimpse of that, and The RED is still several doors away.
Untill then, I'll keep going for the curves, and avoid the straights whenever I can.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
With all due respect, I find that extremely short sighted. In fact, any film Inarritu has done to date (21 Grams, Amores perros) could have been shot in that fashion. I'm positive even if of my own discern !
My god; the world is flat I'm telling you. :badputer:
and Pieces of April, and Once, and Open Water, and and and ........
Aren't those fiction ?
My lord SPZ. Dogma or not. What does that have to do with what we're discussing ?
How much of a camera do you want that will stand up to EVERY SHOOTING STYLE AND CONDITION ? Better asked, how inexpensive does it have to be before it's considered democrasized by you ? $10,000 ? $5,000 ?
Some people aren't blinking an eye at the cost of the RED while others are taking out 2nd mortgages.
Who cares if they're hand-held ? The French New Wave essentially invented the cinema verite and approach that is so prevalent in todays films !
Jared Meyer
Veteran
Ah, John I forgot about Open Water. Good one.
SPZ: Nothing wrong with being excited about the next great camera - and the fact that "it" will be cheaper than ever before. I know a part of me is anxiously anticipating the next big thing in the camera world. Obviously the flip-side is that nothing is more deadly for inspiration and creativity than waiting paralyzed for better equipment.
SPZ: Nothing wrong with being excited about the next great camera - and the fact that "it" will be cheaper than ever before. I know a part of me is anxiously anticipating the next big thing in the camera world. Obviously the flip-side is that nothing is more deadly for inspiration and creativity than waiting paralyzed for better equipment.
Last edited:
John, of course this is all a subjective rant from a particular shooter- me.
I want better dinamic range- dinamic range that is possible on the price range. I want bigger CCD's- which are possible in the price range. I want an uncompromising, professional codec- which is possible in the price range. And I want a decent lens, nothing fancy, or utterly spectacular, but capable of resolving my camera's resolution with few chromatic aberrations and barrel distortion.
Its just a very small step, compared to the step done in the mini-dv revolution.
Had I got 1,5 extra stops of light sensitivity in my short, I could've captured spectacularly the natural exterior environment where the action was taking place. had I got 2 more stops of dinamic range, I wouldn't have needed artificial lighting in certain neon scenes. If I had bigger sensors, I wouldn't need to compromise on sharpness by having my lens full open and being so far away from my actors in order to get a decent DOF effect. (No adaptor at the time)
Without adaptors its a titanic achievement to get a decent medium shot with a blurred background. At least its incredibly hard for me.
So all conception of the story, the framing, timing, etc. had to take into consideration the limitations of the camera. It had to capitalize on what the camera did best.
Jared, of course. Always waiting leads to nowhere. I bought the HVX the day it came out over here- was practicaly Beta tester. It was the best camera purchase I ever did. But now is the time to close the gap even more.
I want better dinamic range- dinamic range that is possible on the price range. I want bigger CCD's- which are possible in the price range. I want an uncompromising, professional codec- which is possible in the price range. And I want a decent lens, nothing fancy, or utterly spectacular, but capable of resolving my camera's resolution with few chromatic aberrations and barrel distortion.
Its just a very small step, compared to the step done in the mini-dv revolution.
Had I got 1,5 extra stops of light sensitivity in my short, I could've captured spectacularly the natural exterior environment where the action was taking place. had I got 2 more stops of dinamic range, I wouldn't have needed artificial lighting in certain neon scenes. If I had bigger sensors, I wouldn't need to compromise on sharpness by having my lens full open and being so far away from my actors in order to get a decent DOF effect. (No adaptor at the time)
Without adaptors its a titanic achievement to get a decent medium shot with a blurred background. At least its incredibly hard for me.
So all conception of the story, the framing, timing, etc. had to take into consideration the limitations of the camera. It had to capitalize on what the camera did best.
Jared, of course. Always waiting leads to nowhere. I bought the HVX the day it came out over here- was practicaly Beta tester. It was the best camera purchase I ever did. But now is the time to close the gap even more.
Last edited:
Loki
Veteran
I stopped reading at page 11... the circle comes to mind..
After having shot my last film on Super 16... is it wrong that I want to shoot on film again for my next project?
Thing is, if I want to shoot film, this is going to force me to go out and get the money I need to do it right.
I think I am one of the few people.. regressing and wanting to shoot film instead... lol..
I must be odd..
but i dunno.. it was quite an experience to shoot on film.. everything just felt slightly elevated. Then again I was shooting with film stock I had won in a competition, and when all is said an done I will have spent nearly $8000 on this film. And this is a 9 minute short film... and I made this on the smallest budget I could get away with.. I got a camera package for well... lets just say I got an ARRI SR3 Advanced for next to nothing.. with a nice set of primes.. matte box... follow focus.. etc etc...
something I've never understood about a lot of people on this site, or people in general is that they think they can somehow make a feature film for $10 000 and get it shown theatrically.. to me.. that is just a waste of money. All this talk of the Red camera has been really funny to listen to and read; its like people somehow think that because the camera is much cheaper than the competitors that it is suddenly going to level the playing field.. but production value is production value... a camera adds a bit to that.. but its everything else that makes it worthwhile.. actors.. wardrobe... sound... art direction.. etc.
I have 1 short film on the XL1s (We don't talk about this film), 2 on the DVX, and now one on Super 16. I'd be lying if i said that my films shot digitally wouldn't have benefited in some way having shot them all on film, but I don't think having shot on the DVX hindered my story telling in any way (Barry might disagree a bit here... lol.. :happy: ); my DP and I had to come up some compromises but in the end those worked nicely given our limitations visually.
At this level limitations are everywhere and you either work with em and get your work shot or sit n mope on a forum about better dynamic range.
SPZ it sounds like you want to own a top end camera... to make your stuff... instead of making your stuff with a top end camera..
I'll gladly take that HVX off your hands...
ok i;ve stoppped making sense at 3am... time for
/rant
After having shot my last film on Super 16... is it wrong that I want to shoot on film again for my next project?
Thing is, if I want to shoot film, this is going to force me to go out and get the money I need to do it right.
I think I am one of the few people.. regressing and wanting to shoot film instead... lol..
I must be odd..
but i dunno.. it was quite an experience to shoot on film.. everything just felt slightly elevated. Then again I was shooting with film stock I had won in a competition, and when all is said an done I will have spent nearly $8000 on this film. And this is a 9 minute short film... and I made this on the smallest budget I could get away with.. I got a camera package for well... lets just say I got an ARRI SR3 Advanced for next to nothing.. with a nice set of primes.. matte box... follow focus.. etc etc...
something I've never understood about a lot of people on this site, or people in general is that they think they can somehow make a feature film for $10 000 and get it shown theatrically.. to me.. that is just a waste of money. All this talk of the Red camera has been really funny to listen to and read; its like people somehow think that because the camera is much cheaper than the competitors that it is suddenly going to level the playing field.. but production value is production value... a camera adds a bit to that.. but its everything else that makes it worthwhile.. actors.. wardrobe... sound... art direction.. etc.
I have 1 short film on the XL1s (We don't talk about this film), 2 on the DVX, and now one on Super 16. I'd be lying if i said that my films shot digitally wouldn't have benefited in some way having shot them all on film, but I don't think having shot on the DVX hindered my story telling in any way (Barry might disagree a bit here... lol.. :happy: ); my DP and I had to come up some compromises but in the end those worked nicely given our limitations visually.
At this level limitations are everywhere and you either work with em and get your work shot or sit n mope on a forum about better dynamic range.
SPZ it sounds like you want to own a top end camera... to make your stuff... instead of making your stuff with a top end camera..
I'll gladly take that HVX off your hands...
ok i;ve stoppped making sense at 3am... time for
/rant