Red Scarlet Announcement Info
- Thread starter Noel Evans
- Start date
bruceallen
Well-known member
I researched it when it came out. It's cool but the catch is that it can only record 4K JPEGS for a few seconds. Why the hell couldn't they have made a more expensive one which recorded for longer? The sign of the future though for sure.
Also, I remain fascinated by the name "Falconbrid".
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Well, quality isn't the only thing that's going to get you into a major film festival. If anything, quality comes second to knowing someone. You could probably get an "artistic dialogue on poop" into a major film festival if you know someone that owes someone.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
1/2.3" sensor and fixed lens!? ..... NEXT!!!!
simonpwood
Well-known member
I'l call that. Not wanting to dredge up this old chestnut, and not wanting to derail the thread; but the movie 28 Days Later (shot on an XL1) did very well in the cinemas. I don't know if anyone ever noticed the quality (and going back to it recently I noticed there are a lot of 'problems' with the footage). Certainly everyone in the cinema I was in didn't seem to notice it was shot on a relatively cheap video camera, with blown out highlights, some sort of over detailed fringing on the actors (CA?) very wide depth of field, and a noticeable loss of resolution on wide shots. But the look fit the style, and people were caught up in the story (the characters, and the overall production values; excellent locations, great music, good special effects) to notice this at least the first time round.
But back to the thread....
Yes, they did notice the quality. Just because no one said anything directly to the person sitting next to them before or after the movie doesn't mean it wasn't noticed.
Again, whether it matters or not is a different story. To think that an audience member who's seen hundreds upon hundreds of hours content shot on film or cinema-grade digital spanning commercials, music videos, feature films, television and even airplane instructional videos won't notice the cheap and fickle image quality of a sub professional cinema camera is silly.
They can't say why, they can't say how, but they notice, and you read about it more than ever on the internet, facebook conversations, so on and so forth.
It's already started online, you won't be safe on YouTube either.
Again, that shouldn't stop you from shooting on whatever you can afford, but you don't shoot it because "no one's going to notice", you shoot it because you have a story to tell and if anyone complains about it, then you didn't tell a strong enough story or execute according to a certain caliber.
DSLR's are wonderful liberating tools for low cost production. The real test is not how many DSLR films show up at festivals, but how many get significant distribution deals afterwards. Success requires appropriate quality throughout a production. What works for something like 28 Days would not work at all for say an elegant high brow comedy like Ms Pettigru Lives for a Day.
Production values are not something that one adds like a second coat of paint if one has the budget. They have to be an integral part of the film in a way that best serves the story. This speaks as much to what goes in front of the camera as to what camera is used. But a high quality professional production camera ultimately saves time and money that can be applied to other production elements. A cinematographer recently commented that having an Epic allowed them to blaze through 180 setups in one day due to its compact size, light weight, and exceptional performance.
Good professional tools are not cheap, especially in this industry. Given where most high quality production cameras have been priced for most of my life I have to smile at those who think of a $10k camera as expensive.
J Davis
Veteran
the quality of this film sucked and seeing it projected gave me a headache. When it switched to 35mm at the end it was like a breath of fresh air
I know this was intended but the difference was so great that those scenes was like a different film
mjmcneese
Veteran
Many of us don't make a living from screening films at festivals. We have clients with discerning abilities to know if something is high quality or not. Clients expect a certain level of production, and shortcuts and workarounds simply don't have the robustness that meets the level of work we are expected to deliver. I've tried it.
Yes, no doubt, DSLRs have been a wonderful thing for the low-budget filmmakers. I know that I could certainly fall victim to becoming completely immersed in a narrative film, the technicals just no longer have much bearing on my perception of the film. But, in the client-work realm, that's simply not the case. We have lots of eyeballs watching our work simply to find something wrong with it...as they should. And when they find rolling shutter, moire, un-sync'd audio, or clipped highlights, I have to provide an explanation or a fix for the problem. In the long run, I could argue that it's more affordable to own a proper piece of gear rather than to use sub-pro gear and fix the issue later...or avoid losing a client altogether.
That's why I'm intrigued by the news coming out tomorrow.
Yes, no doubt, DSLRs have been a wonderful thing for the low-budget filmmakers. I know that I could certainly fall victim to becoming completely immersed in a narrative film, the technicals just no longer have much bearing on my perception of the film. But, in the client-work realm, that's simply not the case. We have lots of eyeballs watching our work simply to find something wrong with it...as they should. And when they find rolling shutter, moire, un-sync'd audio, or clipped highlights, I have to provide an explanation or a fix for the problem. In the long run, I could argue that it's more affordable to own a proper piece of gear rather than to use sub-pro gear and fix the issue later...or avoid losing a client altogether.
That's why I'm intrigued by the news coming out tomorrow.
If you have unsynced audio in the end result, you definitely need to explain it
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
I, I'm sorry, I just have to address the 28 days later thing... don't worry it will be on topic after the rant.
$82,719,885.00.
Total box office.
Danny Boyle made a choice to use a camera system that best served the film's style and the style of shooting that he wanted to employ (blazing fast). When are we going to stop the pretentious and frankly insulting practice of judging a film based on the imager and the film stock? C'mon people, I've got students who read these boards, read your comments, your speculations, and your prejudices, and because you post count is high, your word is sacrosanct to them. Don't lead people to believe that any audience will judge a movie by the camera used just because you do, that's not fair... that takes away from the movie experience. How can you suspend your disbelief if you are worried about the director's choice of camera because it was bad mouthed on a trusted forum by the only person who, when they actually go to the movies and not just bad mouth them because of the crew, is the only jaded curmudgeon in the entire theatre who can calculate the entire pixel count of the sensor used in one shot 3 minutes in to the 2nd act? OK! You know there's no Santa Claus... stop running around ruining Christmas for all the other kids.
Really?
Now, what does this have to do with tomorrow?
Ok, If you have a story or a project that can benefit from the power, or versatility, or whatever amazing abilities the camera announced will afford you then by all means use them. Guessing about it, dreaming about it, all of that is good and helps to define the camera's use for you and your projects. I am super excited to hear tomorrow's announcement, but more for what it may do for my ability to tell a story and that's it. See, tomorrow I get to be more like Danny Boyle... I get to be in the place where the tool palette expands and I get more of a choice in the pens, the paper, the brushes, etc. best suited to tell my story and paint my pictures; It's a place that use to be exclusive to the upper crust, but not anymore.
That's just, well, it's just awesome...
/rant
$82,719,885.00.
Total box office.
Danny Boyle made a choice to use a camera system that best served the film's style and the style of shooting that he wanted to employ (blazing fast). When are we going to stop the pretentious and frankly insulting practice of judging a film based on the imager and the film stock? C'mon people, I've got students who read these boards, read your comments, your speculations, and your prejudices, and because you post count is high, your word is sacrosanct to them. Don't lead people to believe that any audience will judge a movie by the camera used just because you do, that's not fair... that takes away from the movie experience. How can you suspend your disbelief if you are worried about the director's choice of camera because it was bad mouthed on a trusted forum by the only person who, when they actually go to the movies and not just bad mouth them because of the crew, is the only jaded curmudgeon in the entire theatre who can calculate the entire pixel count of the sensor used in one shot 3 minutes in to the 2nd act? OK! You know there's no Santa Claus... stop running around ruining Christmas for all the other kids.
Really?
Now, what does this have to do with tomorrow?
Ok, If you have a story or a project that can benefit from the power, or versatility, or whatever amazing abilities the camera announced will afford you then by all means use them. Guessing about it, dreaming about it, all of that is good and helps to define the camera's use for you and your projects. I am super excited to hear tomorrow's announcement, but more for what it may do for my ability to tell a story and that's it. See, tomorrow I get to be more like Danny Boyle... I get to be in the place where the tool palette expands and I get more of a choice in the pens, the paper, the brushes, etc. best suited to tell my story and paint my pictures; It's a place that use to be exclusive to the upper crust, but not anymore.
That's just, well, it's just awesome...
/rant
Last edited:
john flores
Member
simonpwood
Well-known member
Errrr....but that was actually my point, and that was the reason I brought it up. Most people watching that movie the 1st time around did not notice the fact it was filmed on a prosumer camcorder.
Once you actually start looking at it again, yes, you can see some flags that point out what it was filmed on (if you're looking that is, but most people probably wouldn't bother unless they are somehow involved in the industry). No doubt your students will be in the same boat; when they start looking at movies with a critical eye they will automatically start making assumptions about how it was done, what they used etc, right?
I was not arguing that using a HDSLR would automatically make your film look good. Clearly, things like acting, lighting and set design will go a long way to making it look as good as a Hollywood production. I've seen 5D2 blown up and I can tell you that 99% of the people out there won't notice any issues with the image quality. It's the STORY that is the overwhelming factor, which is why I don't get bummed if the price of a certain camera is above what I'm willing to pay. I much rather use that extra money on things that really matter on a production.
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
Yeah, they are beginning to now, but they do it for the experience, for the excitement of understanding the process and realizing that their knowledge base is expanding, not to pick apart the picture and find flags. I'm trying to keep them there. Hell, I'm watching with them trying to get back to that place myself.
I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I do want to point out that the choice was based on mostly artistic not practical reasons (although it was necessary for the empty London shots for practical reasons). If it were a romantic comedy, it would probably be very noticeable because it doesn't lend itself well to the style of the movie. 28 Days Later also required extensive sky replacement to mask the low dynamic range of the camera. Apparently it also needed a lot of fixes in Inferno and Flame, soooo...not exactly something accesible to low budget filmmakers. In fact if anything it highlights the importance of using a better camera, since you don't have all those resources in post.
J Davis
Veteran
heh ... don't get me started on story for 28 days later ...
John Wyndham, 1951, post apocalyptic London "The narrative begins with Bill Masen in hospital"
"After unbandaging his eyes, he wanders through an anarchic London full of almost entirely sightless inhabitants, and witnesses civilization collapsing around him"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids
edit:
my gripe is not with the argument of story over production value - story wins every time.
Its the choice of film to exemplify this - 28 days later. Yes it hurt to watch projected, shutter angle so high it strobed
and the story didn't make up for it.
John Wyndham, 1951, post apocalyptic London "The narrative begins with Bill Masen in hospital"
"After unbandaging his eyes, he wanders through an anarchic London full of almost entirely sightless inhabitants, and witnesses civilization collapsing around him"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids
edit:
my gripe is not with the argument of story over production value - story wins every time.
Its the choice of film to exemplify this - 28 days later. Yes it hurt to watch projected, shutter angle so high it strobed
and the story didn't make up for it.
Last edited:
aguia
Active member
I don't care how good a camera is (and I'm not sure what this has to do with a shooting schedule) 180 setups in one day is nothing to aspire to. It strains credulity since we are talking about. . .oh. . .15 setups per hour? (it would be almost 12 an hour for a 16 hour day)
I'm trying not to be offensive but...
Let me bold this for those that didn't get it the first three times: the audience will notice, even if they can't say why, how, etc is not a factor. WHETHER IT MATTERS OR NOT IS A DIFFERENT STORY.
85M says that, for 28 Days Later, IT DIDN'T MATTER
57M for Paranormal Activity 3 in 3 days, IT DIDN'T MATTER
I sincerely hope that stuck this time.
People act like there's some veil of ignorance over the audience's mind. This is 2011 going-into 2012, this stuff isn't magic, it's basic math until you get to stuff like the Hallway Scene in INCEPTION.
A camera isn't gonna make or break you if you can be "made" to begin with. If we get on the topic of "upper crusts" and important things, it isn't anything being regularly discussed on this forum. The prime topic would be about how to use Jedi Mind Tricks on gatekeepers with money, power and/or favors.
Last edited:
J Davis
Veteran
Actually we're starting to touch on a topic that is very relevant. There are two types of audiences that make up different markets.
There are those that go specifically for the special effects and 'gloss' and they are not film maker types. Avatar being a great example.
Then there is the audience who are going for story.
There are those that go specifically for the special effects and 'gloss' and they are not film maker types. Avatar being a great example.
Then there is the audience who are going for story.