RED thoughts

[joe 1008]

You must also consider that there are industries that are much smaller than Hollywood and they are working: In Germany, in Spain and also in the Dominican Republic for example there are film industries and especially in the case of Spain and Dominican Republic they work on a profit orientated base. I do´nt consider RED a thread to Hollywood but rather as a possibility for smaller industries, countries, communities to create movies. In the Dominican Republic they make about four or five movies each year. Most of them you would consider terribly bad. But people like them because they are THEIR movies. In a Hollywood movie you could save less than 1% of the budget with a RED but in other circumstances with digital equipment you can cut costs in more than 50%! And I am talking about projects that a thought to yield money - in their smaller context, of course. RED will be much more a third world revolution than a thread to Hollywood. It will make regional projects look much better and will make them more competitive. To what extend - I can´t say.

 

[im.thatoneguy]

The problem is so would everyone. Distribution companies absorb incredibly little risk in comparison to the filmmaker because you and 100 other filmmakers drop off your films every week. The distributor picks the ONE they think will be easiest to sell and can be had for the least amount of money.

That's true. I'm sorry I mistyped. When I was referring to a distributor I was intending studio. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you ask) we don't live in a studio world where you sign a contract and work for Universal or Paramount anymore, however to some degree as a free agent you still can work to some degree this way.

<dream>
This is what I would like to see happen again. Mini-studios where investors can congregate to finance smaller projects in an effort... to put it simply, make money. Instead of investing in independent projects, investors could invest in a diversified portfolio of films managed by a talented creative management team. The directors and production companies would be signed on and the risk would be better balanced.

To some degree I think this is already starting to happen as the large studios are trying to harness the profit potential of the independents.

Personally I would rather be making films day in and day out salaried than carrying out guerilla fundraising campaigns. Best of all, if you come to be a rising star in one of these mini studios, after your contract comes back up for renegotation, you very well could move on to Television or larger budget features.
</dream>

That right there is something that Red could help facilitate. Smaller, lighter and faster studios who need cheaper and more flexibile tools. Someone is going to make millions this way.. just you watch.

 

[Zig_Zigman]

There is already some attempts being made at alternative methods of distribution: Soderberg, et al. The "new distributors" will always be out there, just be prepared to ramp your budget way down and get much less money in return.

Lots of companies in the biz who make films for 30k to 100k. They sell these straight-to-vid films to distributors for just a touch over what they cost to make. Sometimes they have to sell them for less than what they cost to make. The filmmakers are still mostly broke, but for a while it's okay because at least they are "in the business".

 

[AshG]

I'm sorry but this is NOT true! I can't say the film will be dead in the same way you CANNOT say as definitive truth that the film will be king. As I posted:50% "just" 50%. It's not scientific but speaks some couple of months, being less than a year of personal observation, just since 2005 to 2006. And where hollywood has its hits (it isn't the typical movie house for indies).

I disagree. It's already open even before the DV: El Mariachi (1992), Blair Witch (1999), Tarnation (2003) and so on... Where have you been? Maybe not near your own business but there are other people out there. Fortunately. Wait and see. Stay tuned.

Uhhh... just because you say something does not make it fact. Poll the top 100 DP/Cinematographers and ask them what they want to shoot on over the next 10 years, most all will say film. You see, we hang out on a low-end digital forum, we know about the HD cams, new digital tech, etc. what you miss out on is all the tech happening with new film cameras and film stocks.

Again, because you CLAIM that 50% of films are shot on digital at your rental house does not make it true of the universe. Looking at narrative feature films that got distribution last year I bet that number is closer to 85% and even higher for theatrical releases.

Sorry but the door will NOT be more open because of the tech. You proved my point by saying it was open before... it will remain the same, not swing more open. There will always be some very talented directors break thru no matter what they shoot on. You just listed a handful of movies, lightning in a bottle is and always will be possible but again... no camera or technology alone makes this more possible.




ash =o)

 

[Gordon Prince]

Uhhh... just because you say something does not make it fact.

It seems we both agree. Fine.

Poll the top 100 DP/Cinematographers and ask them what they want to shoot on over the next 10 years, most all will say film. You see, we hang out on a low-end digital forum, we know about the HD cams, new digital tech, etc. what you miss out on is all the tech happening with new film cameras and film stocks.

There are different moviemaking environments indeed.

Again, because you CLAIM that 50% of films are shot on digital at your rental house does not make it true of the universe.

I said my personal enquire, not a scientific one. I was clear. But it speaks for itself. Street case study, do you know?

Sorry but the door will NOT be more open because of the tech. You proved my point by saying it was open before...

I thought you'd say this, before my post. Anyway, I posted it.

it will remain the same, not swing more open. There will always be some very talented directors break thru no matter what they shoot on. You just listed a handful of movies, lightning in a bottle is and always will be possible but again... no camera or technology alone makes this more possible.

It's your idea but as according your post:

Looking at narrative feature films that got distribution last year I bet that number is closer to 85% and even higher for theatrical releases.

Where? From hollywood? And did you do a try to follow what were the numbers for the previous years? On the other hand and because you didn't see any particular reason to figure out why I was referring from the 90's case study until now, do you know the style figure of foreshadowing? :beer:

 

[Gordon Prince]

Still about the movie business and your wrong idea that "no camera or technology makes this more possible", I'd say it's not only completely wrong because you add: "alone" on it. I'll add there isn't other art form so dependent from its medium as this one.

All of our work is what the medium's technology allows or not. And the financial resources around it. If it's necessary to go to the lab or if it's possible homemade etc etc etc. I believe, we believe, they believe if they're announcing what they are featuring: RED has a word on the subject and it's irrelevant to say the opposite. Against facts there aren't (any) arguments.

 

[im.thatoneguy]

I would say the most important technological aquisition medium in film is the microphone... but that's just me. Who cares what the resolution is, what are they saying?

 

[filmmaker1977]

well.. i'm out for some vacations.. i'm back and what i found? what a magnificent thread..

 

[Gordon Prince]

Be welcome here Signore Professore! Your healthy independent aproach is requested.

 

[im.thatoneguy]

Yeah we're kind of stagnating. We need some fresh disagreement.

 

[smelni]

the hvx is terrible and RED will be the worst camera ever rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[AshG]

Still about the movie business and your wrong idea that "no camera or technology makes this more possible", I'd say it's not only completely wrong because you add: "alone" on it. I'll add there isn't other art form so dependent from its medium as this one.

All of our work is what the medium's technology allows or not. And the financial resources around it. If it's necessary to go to the lab or if it's possible homemade etc etc etc. I believe, we believe, they believe if they're announcing what they are featuring: RED has a word on the subject and it's irrelevant to say the opposite. Against facts there aren't (any) arguments.

Again, look at everything posted on every internet forum and tell me how many would be more marketable, sell better, and be better movies simply by upgrading the camera.

It really boils down to one thing... how you define success. If you define success as making the movies you want to make, breaking even and keeping your day job...then sure, I think that door is open and has been. If you define success as making "b" movies that get small distribution deals and you make $30k to $50k per year then sure, I think RED can help that some just as ProTools has helped the indie band. My point is that neither of those things challenge Hollywood, it will still be lightning in a bottle if you have something outside the system take off and do well.

In the music business, where I have a LOT of experience, we have already seen the effects of technology. People like to harp on sales being down, etc. but all this really has done is help correct a broken system that only had 1 out of every 25 records released even make their recording budget back. Is there more indie music, YES, I believe about 30% of all record sales are from bands labeled as "indie" (including indie labels) buuuuuuuuuuut, many of those sales are from bands who went indie after major success and the rest is spread out over a LOT of artists. Most these guys that are "successful" are still making well under $50k per year but they get to do what they love. The other thing that technology has done in the music business, is flood the market with a lot of crappy terrible music. I firmly believe that the cream will always rise to the top but there sure is a lot more milk to rise above. As an indie band, you actually have MUCH more competition for concert and CD sales than a major label act.

The one area I think does have some serious opportunity is niche markets, but... this will still be going thru the Hollywood system. Movies marketed at an urban audience, a Christian audience, etc. could be digitally distributed just to the markets that will support the movie en masse. Tyler Perry has proved this. I talked to some people at Lions Gate and they were stunned, shocked and scratching their heads over how he has made these $5 million dollar movies that make $60 million at the box office. Simple, he built his audience by tourning churches, doing plays, etc. etc. He knows his audience and has catered to them brilliantly.

So... if you are saying that there will be more indie films in the future and more people making a living (if you call $30K to $50K a living) then I cannot disagree. If you are saying that somehow new camera and computer technology is a threat to Hollywood and we are going to start seeing movies from members of DVXuser on the big screen, then I say you just dont understand the reality of what is going on.

Like I said many times over, I see Hollywood following the music business where indie movies are merely a showcase for people to get deals in Hollywood, not indie movies themselves breaking into Hollywood.



ash =o)

 

[D_and_G]

From the New York Times article

The concern so far seems largely psychological, although many here predict dark days ahead. Movie-making is no longer a growth business, and has lost its luster among investors. Even the most well-run large movie studios often return only 5 percent to 7 percent annually. And other forms of entertainment — the Internet, sports and video games — are fiercely competing for consumers’ attention.

Slow-growing movie studios are wilting under Wall Street’s demands to deliver a box-office hit like the “X-Men” series or “Pirates” every time out. Executives say the decline in DVD sales, which began in early 2005, is taking a toll on budgets. And to complicate matters, studios have not figured out a money-making digital strategy to deflect piracy while, at the same time, appeasing fickle consumers who want movies online.

Pretty much what I said pages ago.

Even Tom Cruise's renogotiations were stormy, partly because of his taking a cut in DVD sales - the Studios cocaine habit.

The point is, the niche markets MAY get larger, with more $5-10 milllion pictures, there MAY be a kind of a minors or farm team as joel said (copying me), and if you want to deliver your product then instead of one possibility there MAY be dozens (ipod, HD streaming, internet tv, cheap digital screening events). All of that could happen, or happen in degrees.

As to success ? Well, that's everyones own definition, I guess. But, I know from sitting in distributors meetings that (at least in a small percent way) its easier to sell with a better image. And that's not small potatoes.

Putting the opportunity for 35mm quality-image characteristics, in the hands of those who couldn't afford the 100K's for it in the past has never been done before. Some will Rock n' Roll with it, and some won't. What I don't get, is the people who say that there won't be more opportunities for making a decent living (not 10's but 100's of thousands -corporate work, commercials, ENG, etc... ) and/or making a more marketable product (as in image quality) to be picked up for distribution of some kind - whatever the field may look like.

RED won't change Hollywood. That's true. But, if you can't acknowledge the benefits of putting an amazing tool in the hands of creative individuals then why bother make better cameras ?

Yeah, for some there will be a lot better looking crappy movies, and that's probably true. But, if you think that image quality has no impact on possible distribution (not mainstream theatrical) then I think you're wrong. Maybe, because I'm an entrepreneur, I look at the possibilities to make money and get my product out there, and maybe because I'm an artist, I look at the possibilities of putting poetry into light.

Maybe, that's why I like Jim so much. :beer:

RED # wish I was higher

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

Just wanted to chime in here real quick and make a statement . . .

**RED does NOT equal "better" image quality**

If you want the "slick" Hollywood look, be prepared to spend big bucks renting the same lighting gear they rent, and spend the time to meticulously craft your scenes the way master cinematographers do. RED won't help you in that department.

I don't care how "sensitive" RED is to light, great ISO does not make for great cinematography with no lights. And "great" dynamic range makes for wonderfully flat, muddy scenes if you didn't put the contrast into the scene initially with the lighting and production design.

RED will only make a GOOD scene look BETTER, it will not make a mediocre scene any less mediocre . . . crap will still remain crap.

So if you don't light and design your films properly, RED isn't going to help you, just as 16mm hasn't helped a number of low-budget films out there look any better over some really nicely lit and designed HD/DV films.

If what's in front of the lens doesn't look good, RED won't help you out . . . and also keep in mind that the price of making what's in front of the lens look like "Hollywood" hasn't gotten any cheaper . . . maybe RED will come out with their own line of $100-per-fixture 1K HMI's and flourescent lamp kits! Now THAT would really make things interesting

 

[D_and_G]

Just wanted to chime in here real quick and make a statement . . .

**RED does NOT equal "better" image quality**

If you want the "slick" Hollywood look, be prepared to spend big bucks renting the same lighting gear they rent, and spend the time to meticulously craft your scenes the way master cinematographers do. RED won't help you in that department.

I don't care how "sensitive" RED is to light, great ISO does not make for great cinematography with no lights. And "great" dynamic range makes for wonderfully flat, muddy scenes if you didn't put the contrast into the scene initially with the lighting and production design.

RED will only make a GOOD scene look BETTER, it will not make a mediocre scene any less mediocre . . . crap will still remain crap.

So if you don't light and design your films properly, RED isn't going to help you, just as 16mm hasn't helped a number of low-budget films out there look any better over some really nicely lit and designed HD/DV films.

If what's in front of the lens doesn't look good, RED won't help you out . . . and also keep in mind that the price of making what's in front of the lens look like "Hollywood" hasn't gotten any cheaper . . . maybe RED will come out with their own line of $100-per-fixture 1K HMI's and flourescent lamp kits! Now THAT would really make things interesting

Lol Jason.

I think when most people mention image quality they are assuming you have all the other aspects covered. The dynamic range, resolution, 35mm charactersitics and on and on will give you a better result, but won't create the result.
You might need a smaller lighting package, though, depending on real world applications.

Give someone a Super 35 camera decked out in the finest gear, and if they don't put the craft into the result, then you'll get bupkiss. Same with RED.

Maybe i should try and preface the image quality comments? First, i'm no expert DP, and second, I assume everyone is putting in the requisite work to get the best possible image in all departments.

Glad you said something, in case someone thought otherwise. Although, to tell you the truth, I don't know anyone who would be buying an 18K camera thinking that you could turn it on, and you'd get Gorddon Willis, Harry Savides, or Bruno Debonnel type images without a lot of work to get there.


RED # wish I was higher

 

[mike the beginner]

Glad you said something, in case someone thought otherwise. Although, to tell you the truth, I don't know anyone who would be buying an 18K camera thinking that you could turn it on, and you'd get Gorddon Willis, Harry Savides, or Bruno Debonnel type images without a lot of work to get there.

I like that quote D and G. I wonder though, just how many people who have reserved a Red One believe that once they settle down with the Red camera their project/film etc will not look significantly better (all things being equal) compared to the camera they are currently using/renting etc.

My gut feeling is that both Jason and ash have made good points. But if you do not believe (in yourself or your ability) to improve/overcome certain aspects of your existing camera by using the Red one then, "there is no hope". Without hope where does that leave us? I can always laugh it all off if i fail to make my project. Can others do the same?

What percentage of those who purchase a Red One will make it pay for itself over and above what their existing camera can already do, I wonder?

Michael

 

[Poi Boy]

This thread just keeps going round and round. I seem to remember more or less the same arguments before the hvx 200 came out. Everybody knows that talent is talent, weather shooting a pin hole camera or panavision; that will never change. Red looks like it is going to be incredible and hack Dps as well as talented Dps will benefit.
Aloha
-A

 

[deadmike]

my primary artform is painting. movie making is my new hobby, and im taking what knowledge of painting i have and applying towards video work. composition, light, form, and movement are all things that should be understood before one lays their paintbrush on the canvas (this is not to say one doesnt learn more about these things as they paint). now if i painted two pictures of the same thing, with the same understanding of the above elements, and one is done with student quality paint and broken brushes on an 8x10'' piece of canvas board, and another on an 8x10' canvas with quality brushes and high grade oil paint, you could guess which would get more attention.
I agree that content is king, but without the image, there is no way to display the content. and if the content can only be received through the image, why not aspire to the best possible image. i have made some nice paintings with garbage materials, as many of you have made beautiful movies with dv cameras, but the equipment makes a huge difference in what one is able to achieve.
when i watch a low budget feature with beautiful composition and lighting, but shot low resolution, i wonder what it could have been shot on 35mm. when i look at a small painting with a strong concept and understanding of the human figure, i wonder what it would look like life size. when i looked at the last judgement in person, my mind was blown, but part me still wondered what it would look like in motion.
all im trying to say is there is no reason to be ever be satisfied with one's own abilities, or with the capabilites of their equipment. otherwise we might as well have quit while we were cave men.

 

[joe 1008]

Recently I've seen some great works from some cuban film students realized with some old and crappy Betacams. Greatly lit (though with some flaws in the script). I wonder what those guys would have been able to make with a RED. There is a lot of talent out of Hollywood and their products have a market. With RED you can make better movies for small communities and you can earn a living that way, just like all those small and independent theaters that survive with creativity AND their own earnings.

 

[joelnet]

Maybe, because I'm an entrepreneur, I look at the possibilities to make money and get my product out there, and maybe because I'm an artist, I look at the possibilities of putting poetry into light.

Hey, when you get your Red and I get my Red let's go make a movie.

I was reading my Millimeter Magazine that came today and David Fincher was talking about the first tapeless/filmless movie he just finished. Among many other things he said that people were saying "this is going to cut out a lot of jobs, that's not good" and he replied - "you guys don't get it, you're going to make MORE movies. You can give people a shot you never would have before."

Let's hope he's right. That article has a pretty detailed pipeline breakdown for the film er... movie. One idea that may have been discussed in the Red idea thread that I just LOVED was Fincher's insistance on creating a digital slate. They used no physical slate - the data capture person marked an individual frame digitally with scene/take info for every take.

Now THAT should be built into RED. Have an autoincrement digital slate built in. I'd waste a few buttons on the the side of the camera for that. Set up the scene info and then every press of the record button advances the take number and prints it on frame 1 of the take. kewl.

Fincher said that feature alone saved at least 1/2 hour a day. Are you listening Jim?

Red #141 (so glad I'm in)