Why you should shoot your project on an Arri Alexa or Red Epic

[roxics]

He seems to talk down about DSLRs in the post but embraces cheap camcorders for previs and learning and use later on for other things. Personally I think an inexpensive DSLR is better. It makes a great stills camera(dual purpose), better for previs as you can control DOF using a simialr sized sensor as a pro camera (maybe even the same glass) and it has limited record times per take like film cameras. So I don't understand the hate.

That said, his theory on scheduled obsolescence (which is nowhere near new) does seem to ring true in my opinion for certain camera manufacturers (Canon) but not for others (Panasonic).

 

[Surf it Mike]

Arri, Red, Sony workflows are understood in the industry (arri more so, Red less so, Sony maybe) .

Other workflows/cameras the pro's don't want to know......yet.

 

[Josh Bass]

My mistake about grips handling cameras, I was thinking of non-rigging scenarios where I see only DPs or ACs ever touch the cam.

Anyway, the point that those cameras do not REQUIRE a huge team to use still stands (I was recently on a shoot with a group using a Red Epic Dragon, and the DP pretty much handled every aspect of it single-handedly).

 

[morgan_moore]

The bloke is right.

Im (a producer) shooting something on an Epic/Alexa.

Am I going to

a) hire someone who has never used one
b) hire some who has a track record of using one.

??.. A

Unfortunately the world is full of injustice and 'shorthand' (has shot alexa is shorthand for 'competent')

Shooting a car ad?
a) this guy works for Audi
b) the guy pulled off some cool shots of his mums Mazda

Again, a gets the job 98% of the time even if b is better, more original more motivated

Employed to employ someone to shoot a car ad ? Its doubtful you will be fired for hiring the guy who shoots for Audi?

Even these producers are just trying to avoid losing their jobs.. so they keep SAFE.

Obviously there are exceptions - hired as 'whacky choices' Caisey Niestadt, camera nerds Vincent Laflora, etc, but such people have special skills or audience. (and mainly know how to surround them with pros that will keep them safe)

S

 

[CharlesPapert]

The concept is correct in that most of the time, a certain base level of experience is expected and desirable. However, judging that solely on the camera in use is dodgy. There were plenty of big productions using 5D's etc a few years ago, I shot a few of them myself (including three network pilots). Certainly we've moved on for the most part, however there are still tiny crews shooting with RED cameras (less so with Alexas). I work regularly with a chap who shot most of his previous oeuvre on an HVX200 before being hired to direct a legitimate TV series. It was his talent, personality and track record that got him the job.

More than anything else--I'm just not sure why it's relevant to take advice on how to get hired to direct from someone who, from all appearances, is not yet getting hired to direct (I see three self-produced spec spots on his site and no IMDB listing). But hey, that's the internet for you.

 

[Gillvane]

Using a DSLR doesn't mean you have a small crew and using a Red or Alexa doesn't mean you have a big crew. It also has no bearing on how well you interact with actors and that's make or break for a director. Do Red an Alexa carry more prestige than DSLRS? Yes, but again that has no bearing on what size crew you have. The TV show "Wilfred" shoots exclusively on DSLRs and I'd wager they have a bigger crew than what my buddy used when he shot a no-budget short on an Epic.

The blogger's premise is fundamentally flawed.

I think that's missing the point. What do the producers that are in charge of a multi-million dollar budget think?

The point is not, DSLR's are bad, people that shoot DSLR's sometimes have a HUGE crew, etc. and so forth.

The point is, I'm spending millions of dollars. I'm shooting on a Red or Alexa (ummm, yes if you're doing a feature with a decent budget, unless you're shooting film). If I have lots of people to choose from that are talented directors, and some have experience with Red or Alexa and some don't, I'm gonna pick on of the people with Red or Alexa experience. Seems like common sense.

 

[Liam Hall]

The bloke is right.

Im (a producer) shooting something on an Epic/Alexa.

Am I going to

a) hire someone who has never used one
b) hire some who has a track record of using one.

??.. A

Unfortunately the world is full of injustice and 'shorthand' (has shot alexa is shorthand for 'competent')

Shooting a car ad?
a) this guy works for Audi
b) the guy pulled off some cool shots of his mums Mazda

Again, a gets the job 98% of the time even if b is better, more original more motivated

Employed to employ someone to shoot a car ad ? Its doubtful you will be fired for hiring the guy who shoots for Audi?

Even these producers are just trying to avoid losing their jobs.. so they keep SAFE.

Obviously there are exceptions - hired as 'whacky choices' Caisey Niestadt, camera nerds Vincent Laflora, etc, but such people have special skills or audience. (and mainly know how to surround them with pros that will keep them safe)

S

Hmm...

When I was a commercials and music video editor I worked with lots of guys and a couple of girls who were hired to direct top line work, but had little or no experience working with top line gear or top line crew. Productions were carried by a good first AD and a good DoP. I often felt like I was educating these people as much as cutting for them. I'll never forget one particularly highly paid director who asked me if we had shot on film or video...

 

[adkimery]

I think that's missing the point. What do the producers that are in charge of a multi-million dollar budget think?

The point is not, DSLR's are bad, people that shoot DSLR's sometimes have a HUGE crew, etc. and so forth.

The point is, I'm spending millions of dollars. I'm shooting on a Red or Alexa (ummm, yes if you're doing a feature with a decent budget, unless you're shooting film). If I have lots of people to choose from that are talented directors, and some have experience with Red or Alexa and some don't, I'm gonna pick on of the people with Red or Alexa experience. Seems like common sense.

From the blog:

A reel that was shot exclusively with DSLR cameras does not provide evidence that the director has strong leadership skills. That is a problem.

Conversely, if the director’s reel was all shot with high-end movie cameras, it is an inescapable fact that this director must have worked with substantial film crews, because it’s the only way to shoot with those cameras, which need grips, focus pullers and all manner of other personnel to manage them. Hence that director has demonstrated talent as well as solid leadership and management skills – a winning combination.

If the blogger wants to argue a prestige/perception advantage, I can understand that. But arguing that Epics inherently require a larger crew which inherently means you have superior leadership skills as a director is just stupid.

Maybe being in LA taints my POV but I see craigslist ads looking for editors to cut no-budget music videos, short films, documentaries, and features shot on RED or Alexa on a weekly basis. Even the 'prestige' argument is losing steam as all these cameras are becoming affordable to shoot with (at least in LA). Just like when I first moved out here and the rip was that only people who couldn't afford Avid used FCP. Fast forward a number of years and that attitude changed.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I think that's missing the point. What do the producers that are in charge of a multi-million dollar budget think?

Producers most likely look at the performance of the candidate director's previous work. After "PI"(1998), shot on 'high contrast reversal film' -- at the time there was not the DSLR vs the High Class Digital Cameras... but I can tell you, 'reversal film' smacks of 'amateur'... in the Film film world... Reversal film bypasses the negative and the need for intermediate negs, etc. and all the clap trap of taking the camera negative to finished projection print. (Ok there may have an interneg for making release prints...).

What happened for his next film...

---
Aronofsky followed his debut ("PI") with "Requiem for a Dream"(2000), a film based on Hubert Selby, Jr.'s novel of the same name. He was paid $50,000, and worked for three years with nearly the same production team as his previous film.[20] Following the financial breakout of "Pi"(1998), he was capable of hiring established stars, including Ellen Burstyn and Jared Leto, and received a budget of $3,500,000 to produce the film.
---
(Quotes and release dates added by me...

Christopher Nolan's "Following"(1998) was shot on B&W 16mm stock. While still in the Film film world, one could ask if this guy could 'direct' a full film crew shooting on 'expensive' 35mm color stock...

Of course once one gets to the point were people are talking budgets that move 'camera' to 5% or less of the budget... then sure... get the 'best' that money can buy...

But just driving up in a Ferrari or the like, doesn't impress people, neither does the 'technical' aspects for most directors. This would be more of an issue for a DoP than the director.

 

[Gillvane]

Producers most likely look at the performance of the candidate director's previous work. After "PI"(1998), shot on 'high contrast reversal film' -- at the time there was not the DSLR vs the High Class Digital Cameras... but I can tell you, 'reversal film' smacks of 'amateur'... in the Film film world... Reversal film bypasses the negative and the need for intermediate negs, etc. and all the clap trap of taking the camera negative to finished projection print. (Ok there may have an interneg for making release prints...).

What happened for his next film...

---
Aronofsky followed his debut ("PI") with "Requiem for a Dream"(2000), a film based on Hubert Selby, Jr.'s novel of the same name. He was paid $50,000, and worked for three years with nearly the same production team as his previous film.[20] Following the financial breakout of "Pi"(1998), he was capable of hiring established stars, including Ellen Burstyn and Jared Leto, and received a budget of $3,500,000 to produce the film.
---
(Quotes and release dates added by me...

Christopher Nolan's "Following"(1998) was shot on B&W 16mm stock. While still in the Film film world, one could ask if this guy could 'direct' a full film crew shooting on 'expensive' 35mm color stock...

Of course once one gets to the point were people are talking budgets that move 'camera' to 5% or less of the budget... then sure... get the 'best' that money can buy...

But just driving up in a Ferrari or the like, doesn't impress people, neither does the 'technical' aspects for most directors. This would be more of an issue for a DoP than the director.

I don't think 1998 is relevant in 2014. Things change.

 

[Gillvane]

From the blog:


If the blogger wants to argue a prestige/perception advantage, I can understand that. But arguing that Epics inherently require a larger crew which inherently means you have superior leadership skills as a director is just stupid.

Maybe being in LA taints my POV but I see craigslist ads looking for editors to cut no-budget music videos, short films, documentaries, and features shot on RED or Alexa on a weekly basis. Even the 'prestige' argument is losing steam as all these cameras are becoming affordable to shoot with (at least in LA). Just like when I first moved out here and the rip was that only people who couldn't afford Avid used FCP. Fast forward a number of years and that attitude changed.

IMO the argument has nothing to do with "prestige". It's just what are features usually shot on, have you worked with those cameras or not?

 

[DBP]

hahaha, hop on over to reduser and read some of the threads complaining about people renting out their epic/scarlet packages for bargain basement prices. I see Red shot no budget film ads on craigslist all the time.

To me, crews and budget = high end, not the camera. At least not any more. While I am (sadly) not one of them, tons of joe blows seem to have Red cameras.

But maybe the blogger has a point, producers might see it that way. What do I know?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I don't think 1998 is relevant in 2014. Things change.

Not really... technology may change, but not how a success is perceived. There is a 'world' of difference, just as much as shooting on a DSLR, between 16mm, limited editing, limited post, to shooting a 35mm full blown 'major motion picture'.

The difference range from the director 'manhandling' the camera themself, even loading, and running the cans to the lab, and getting a full crew organized, focused, and on schedule.

In most cases, the 'director' doesn't manage the camera once the 'major motion picture' transition has been made. It could be as simple as 'union' issues, or more 'management' as the camera is one aspect of the over all project.

Where this may make a difference is in shooting 'commercials'... 'corporate' videos and wanting to move up to say a GM ad campaign vs. local dealership shoots.

In the Wife's wedding business if some prospective customer really 'worried' about the fact that she had a Hasselblad, vs. a Mamiya for medium format, I'd begin to worry about what type of customer this would turn out to be. We had a few, and it was not pleasant as the customer would 'second guess' items that really should not have been their concern.

 

[adkimery]

IMO the argument has nothing to do with "prestige". It's just what are features usually shot on, have you worked with those cameras or not?

That's not the blogger's rationale and it's the blogger's rationale that I disagree with.

 

[Gillvane]

hahaha, hop on over to reduser and read some of the threads complaining about people renting out their epic/scarlet packages for bargain basement prices. I see Red shot no budget film ads on craigslist all the time.

To me, crews and budget = high end, not the camera. At least not any more. While I am (sadly) not one of them, tons of joe blows seem to have Red cameras.

But maybe the blogger has a point, producers might see it that way. What do I know?

So he isn't saying you'll get director jobs because you used a Red or Arria Alexa and made some crappy short films. He's saying if you have gorgeous reel, and or very successful reel (made lots of money or won lots of festival awards), and the other guy has the same thing, but only one of you has experience shooting with Red or Alexa and this is going to be a Red or Alexa shoot, the producer would be a dummy not to go with the guy that already has experience shooting with that camera.

 

[Scott F]

It's just what are features usually shot on, have you worked with those cameras or not?

im gonna flip the question & call you out since you're so inquisitive about other poster's cameras/experience.

you post a lot on dvx user, but what exactly do you do for work? I'm just curious.

 

[David Jimerson]

Gillvane didn't ask anyone what they've worked on directly. He was paraphrasing what he read the author as saying.

This is getting heated enough without getting personal, so let's not go there.

 

[hscully]

In most cases, the 'director' doesn't manage the camera once the 'major motion picture' transition has been made. It could be as simple as 'union' issues, or more 'management' as the camera is one aspect of the over all project.

I agree with this. The premise that a reel is going to make or break your chances of getting a job as a director doesn't ring true to me. A reel indicates competency and artistry in capture and by it's nature is a snippet. If the director is directing the type of camera used on the shoot doesn't really reflect on their contribution and neither does the reel.

The scope of the director's work, and success, is measured in other ways better seen in the whole work. I would be surprised if any director was ever hired based on a reel, but rather through referral and experience working with people. Most directors I know have worked their way up from camera ops and DPs. The people who hire them know their work pretty well.

 

[Gillvane]

im gonna flip the question & call you out since you're so inquisitive about other poster's cameras/experience.

you post a lot on dvx user, but what exactly do you do for work? I'm just curious.

I will tell you this. I've never produced a mulltimillion dollar feature film, which would include hiring someone to direct it. So I can't say if the article is correct or not from experience. I was just expressing my opinion about the article. I would say that unless you have produced a feature film, and we're talking a multimillion dollar budget, then we're all just speculating.

 

[Gillvane]

I agree with this. The premise that a reel is going to make or break your chances of getting a job as a director doesn't ring true to me. A reel indicates competency and artistry in capture and by it's nature is a snippet. If the director is directing the type of camera used on the shoot doesn't really reflect on their contribution and neither does the reel.

The scope of the director's work, and success, is measured in other ways better seen in the whole work. I would be surprised if any director was ever hired based on a reel, but rather through referral and experience working with people. Most directors I know have worked their way up from camera ops and DPs. The people who hire them know their work pretty well.

What are they directing? Feature films, national commercials like for Ford or Coke, stuff like that?

I don't see how the advice of getting experience shooting with a Red or Alexa could possibly be hurtful, if you can manage to do it.