The Studios and Red

G

goldyprog

Active member
How long does everyone think it may take for the studios to get acclamated to using Red, at least for one feature film intended for theaters?

A substantially high number of theatrical releases were shot digitally this year, particularly with Panavision's Genesis camera. It really makes me wonder how fast Red is going to enfuse major motion picture production, given its specs and applications.
 
I don't think the issue is the studios getting acclimated to using Red cameras.

Studios have to get acclimated to shooting and releasing their movies in digital. Every digital cinema camera company are in the same basket.

Releasing in digital is going to be hard, but like you said more and more movies are being shot digitally.
 
DrizztG said:
I don't think the issue is the studios getting acclimated to using Red cameras.

Studios have to get acclimated to shooting and releasing their movies in digital. Every digital cinema camera company are in the same basket.

Releasing in digital is going to be hard, but like you said more and more movies are being shot digitally.
Click to expand...


I disagree. Nonetheless, it depends on how one assesses the overhaul of analogue to digital, which is such a big topic amongst exhibitors today. It can be one year, or it can be twenty years. Needless to say, Red is coming out next year, which will have a tremendous impact on the industry-- what's shifting is the acquisition technology moreso than the output. Indeed, exhibitors have considered an amortization schedule for accomodating such a costly overhaul, but thus far it has not been implemented yet, at least on a major scale.

Red-to-negative film is likely to be a proponent for now, if studios decide to shoot a film on Red. On the other hand, a zero-budget indie can shoot Red, and display off an all-digital 2K or 4K projector. On a massive-budgeted film, though, which may be a perfect application for Red given its more-than-phenomenal specs, a studio wants to get the film out there. Therefore, if theatrical, Red-to-negative I think will be a workflow that will be used for now, until d-cinema makes that big transition. I brought this topic up to see what people think the first wave of Red is going to be like in the studio circuit-- used a lot, used a little, etc....
 
Well, studios are pretty gung ho about digital distribution. It's going to save them a fortune on film prints, and let them scale movies that do well up to more screens much faster. It's the theater owners who don't like digital distribution so much, because it requires them to buy lots of pricey equipment. There are some new deals being worked out where studios could pay part of that cost, though.

As far as shooting digitally, it's not really the studio suits you need to sell, for that to start happening more. It's directors and cinematographers. Some have come around, but frankly I think we can expect it to take a while. Film has a hundred years of experience behind it, after all. Still, as the best of the current "MiniDV kids" (the oft-heard professional cinematographer term for anyone shooting a digital movie for less than a few hundred thousand bucks) hit it big and move to Hollywood, a lot of them will probably bring their pro-digital outlooks with them. Some of them will even bring their RED cameras.
 
Read this...
BBC said:
March 2005
Ireland is set to become the world's first country to have digital film in every cinema.All movie houses in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are to have their traditional 35mm film projectors replaced.

Ireland was picked as the first region to get the full digital cinema treatment because it is a manageable size and it has the second-highest level of cinema attendance in Europe
Click to expand...
I dont know how the change over is going at this stage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4365875.stm
 
It would help to think about just what a company like Panavision provides to the studios. Panavision is as much about service as hardware.

When you've got a major shoot going, thousands of dollars a day on the line, and the camera malfunctions, Panavision gets you another one. Fast. They have alot of equipment on hand. If you are in the same city as one of their international offices you might get a replacement camera/lens/part within the hour. Overnight to more distant locals. That is why Panavision only RENTS their equipment. They are a service organization to the feature film industry.

This is what studios, completion guarantors, insurance companies want to when the clock is ticking.

It will be a while before there are enough Red's out there in the hands of service companies to provide that. Right now Red is aimed at the individual shooter/small production company. There is a limit on how many you can reserve. A studio feature is not going to kludge several Red's from different individuals. Especially as the cost of camera is a small part of the overall budget for a film.

Down the road, when more Red's (and spare parts) are in the field it may be different.

Indies, yeah.

You will see the same television shows that have been seen trying the HVX or HDV giving it a shot right next to whatever their standard camera setup is.
 
Last edited:
Chris Kenny said:
Well, studios are pretty gung ho about digital distribution. It's going to save them a fortune on film prints, and let them scale movies that do well up to more screens much faster. It's the theater owners who don't like digital distribution so much, because it requires them to buy lots of pricey equipment. There are some new deals being worked out where studios could pay part of that cost, though.

As far as shooting digitally, it's not really the studio suits you need to sell, for that to start happening more. It's directors and cinematographers. Some have come around, but frankly I think we can expect it to take a while.
Click to expand...

John Pytlak of Kodak recently brought up the fact that it costs about $5.00 or less per showing of a 35mm print. The cost of a film print circumvents around # of reels and length. Also taken into consideration is the commodities' value of silver, which right now is very high, and has escalated in double points over the past six years.

Digital is certainly a valid proposition, but just like the dye processes of films 60 years + ago, it will have a lifeline, and fixed. Irregardless, it is certainly more accessible, as video and now Red is proving. It may take time, though, at least in my opinion, and has been mentioned in one of the previous postings, for studios to acclamate. It may just be the 'film' mentality, whatever that means.

But it would be cool for a first-time shooter to be using the same camera that a seasoned ASC member is using for a major film. That's what I'm assessing of Red when it comes out. That itself is pretty amazing, when you think about it.
 
If you break anything down enough you can make pretty much anything sound cheap. The budget on my 7-minute pitch-reel demo was $50,000. Sound expensive? It's only $4.96 per frame. A bargain. ;)
 
Chris Kenny said:
It's the theater owners who don't like digital distribution so much, because it requires them to buy lots of pricey equipment. There are some new deals being worked out where studios could pay part of that cost, though.
Click to expand...

What is the cost of the digital projector. You got to think of it this way there are a lot of mom and pop or smaller market movie houses out there who are still using 20 year old projectors and to drop $100,000 into a new digital projector and who knows how long it'll last.

I think its coming but of course its a slow process.
 
Robert Sanders said:
If you break anything down enough you can make pretty much anything sound cheap. The budget on my 7-minute pitch-reel demo was $50,000. Sound expensive? It's only $4.96 per frame. A bargain. ;)
Click to expand...

As long as it looks good .... ;)

OK, so you are spending close to $5.00 per frame. Do you think a studio is spending that amount, especially when they are running over 50 million feet per feature? (and that's on the short end). The point is that a one-time, 7-minute reel is an entirely different undertaking than a continuous, 24-7 process of producing thousands of bulk prints, and as a result this drives down the costs that studios have found amenable for quite some time-- it's second nature to them, and part of the process of distribution outlay.
 
I think the issue here is that with 35mm prints, the print is expensive but paid for by the studio, maintinance and exhibition costs are much lower for the theatre owner.

With the Digital Projection model, the studio virtually eliminates it's "per print" costs but the theatre's maintinance and exhibition costs rise significantly. Not to mention the initial investment which is currently way too costly for wide adoption.

Also, who's going to be calibrating, maintaining and changing the lamp on those digital projectors? That guy that at my local multiplex that currently can't get the simple framing and focus adjustments on a film projector right? I'd say unless something changes, get ready for some really awful digital projections when it first goes widespread.

For the studios to shoot on RED all you need is a tried and tested workflow, great rental companies with several cameras at hand and DPs that think it's the best camera for the job. It's not really going to be a rental cost issue of Genesis vs RED for big studios. This is more of an independent's tool at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Im the biggest advocate of digital film making. But Im going to go out and say that Im not completely supportive of all out digital projection in every theatre. The reason being is that 35mm celluloid still does have a certain aesthetic (even as a print out from digital) which I would still like take advantage of 20 years down the track. Digital projection is great for most films. But there will certain types or genre of film which I'll sill want to see projected from film.

But in the end, $$ is king. And when studios realise that they can save 20 million dollars on release prints by just "beaming" out the movie via internet backbone, film will indeed meet its maker.

My biggest fear is that I'll be going to the Cinema to watch TV.
 
Or instead, you could watch the cinema in your home. I don't like to go out to the cinema - noisey, crap projection, kids, popcorn and all that rubbish. At home I can drink a whisky and pause the movie :-)

Graeme
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Or instead, you could watch the cinema in your home. I don't like to go out to the cinema - noisey, crap projection, kids, popcorn and all that rubbish. At home I can drink a whisky and pause the movie :-)

Graeme
Click to expand...

I toast to that! :)
(Lagavulin in the glass)

Regards
Hans
 
Well, I do indulge in Glenfiddich and the odd Glenmorangie too, but to me, Whisky should have a very strong, distinctive flavour, for the most part, and I really like the richness and long-lasting smoky flavour.
 
recommendation

recommendation

Graeme...you need to try the Glenlivet Nadurra Cask Strength. It's strong, distinct and has such wonderful taste, afternotes reminiscent of pears. It's a delight and would look as good as it tastes if it were shot on Red with a good Cooke macro...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top