Why Red causes conflict, and the future of filmmaking

[Brian Drysdale]

You should spend the money on the movie, perhaps that's the reason why it doesn't sell well. Spend the money on the script, actors and production values not buying camera gear. The audience are buying into the film, not the camera.

[David Sweetman]

Son of a gun, I was just over at the Red site and they really are marketing it as a "REVOLUTION." When you sign up for the newsletter, you're asked to "join the rebellion." When you complete the application, you are told that "you are enlisted." Well that implies there's something wrong with the current workflow and the "new" one is better, and that it will replace the old one. The reality among professionals seems much less millitaristic. But I guess the bang-pow kind of marketing is what sells.

[Chris Kenny]

You should spend the money on the movie, perhaps that's the reason why it doesn't sell well. Spend the money on the script, actors and production values not buying camera gear. The audience are buying into the film, not the camera.

 

If you want to make one movie, yes. But the camera is a capital investment which can pay off over multiple projects; it doesn't necessarily make any sense to reallocate, say, $10K from your camera budget to the budget of one specific feature (which may or may not succeed).

 

This is particularly true if you plan to use the camera for things other than just features.

[Gary McClurg]

Chris... who's going to shoot your movie... do you have a dp... or you just going to set up your company as a rental only company...

 

Just wondering that's all...

Edited November 6, 2006 by Gary McClurg

[Chris Kenny]

Chris... who's going to shoot your movie... do you have a dp... or you just going to set up your company as a rental only company...

 

Just wondering that's all...

 

We're planning to shoot features once the Red arrives (we're #404). We're shooting various other things until then; there's currently a 16mm short in post-production and we're bidding for some industrials. We don't have much nailed down with respect to the first feature, as you might expect, given that the earliest Red shipments are probably 4-6 months off and there's no information about how many cameras they'll be shipping out per month.

[Stephen Williams]

But odds are nobody is going to lend you a 35mm camera for a few weeks for free.

 

Chris,

 

FWIW Richard Boddington made such an offer to Phil Rhodes a couple of weeks ago, getting a free film camera is not impossible.

 

Stephen

[Brian Drysdale]

If you want to make one movie, yes. But the camera is a capital investment which can pay off over multiple projects; it doesn't necessarily make any sense to reallocate, say, $10K from your camera budget to the budget of one specific feature (which may or may not succeed).

 

This is particularly true if you plan to use the camera for things other than just features.

 

This depends if you're a production company or a facility, although there is an element of cross over. If you're a primarily a production company the investment should be in future projects.

 

If the production company business plan is that the camera gear makes a profit on productions other than features that's fine. However, the in house "camera rental" should become part of a feature's budget (as an investment in the production) otherwise you can be fooling yourself regarding costs (even more so if the feature makes a sale).

 

Your comment on success underlines a problem quite a few indie features have. You're left wondering if there's an audience for quite a few of these films and a failure by the film makers to appreciate the importance of marketing the film. Although, perhaps some of the worst ones have better marketing than the good ones.

[jan von krogh]

Chris,

 

FWIW Richard Boddington made such an offer to Phil Rhodes a couple of weeks ago, getting a free film camera is not impossible.

 

Stephen

 

if we are interested in co-producing a movie, we usually offer 35mm & cinealta cameras, lenses, on-line edit, DI/grade and some more things. certainly never for free, but we always try to make a non-deniable deal for both sides.

 

however, that is if you are in Europe, and given the fact that you are going with red (and our 2 reds seem to be booked once, or if, they show up here) i wouldn´t recommend you camera rental as a co-production. also, the 35mm neg, lab & scan will easily cost you more than the red camera and a decent amount of drives.

 

however we could have zeiss primesets and angenieux zooms available in your shooting timeframe... if that is something you might be interested in just leave a PM here.

 

 

 

 

Your comment on success underlines a problem quite a few indie features have. You're left wondering if there's an audience for quite a few of these films and a failure by the film makers to appreciate the importance of marketing the film. Although, perhaps some of the worst ones have better marketing than the good ones.

 

100% yes - typical starter indy mistake.

 

blair witch project is a good example how it COULD be done, sonderberg, m. moore, rodriguez & von trier and heck yes, even lucas considers himself an independent filmmaker, they are some more advanced proofs of the power of good indy marketing.

 

ps. is it indie or indy in english slang?

[Chris Kenny]

Chris,

 

FWIW Richard Boddington made such an offer to Phil Rhodes a couple of weeks ago, getting a free film camera is not impossible.

 

Sure, it's not impossible, it's just unlikely for most people. And the camera is cheap compared with the film stock, processing, etc. anyway.

[Paul Bruening]

Hey all,

 

Isn't Red trafficing on our hopes that some piece of technology will give us that shot at the BIGS? It's a locked-down industry. It doesn't matter what you shoot on. It will show because someone in at the reigns put a big chunk of cheese into it and says it will show. I don't mean to be a synical bastard but format has always been a minor issue as to whether anyone will ever even see a movie.

 

Paul

[Chris Kenny]

Hey all,

 

Isn't Red trafficing on our hopes that some piece of technology will give us that shot at the BIGS? It's a locked-down industry. It doesn't matter what you shoot on. It will show because someone in at the reigns put a big chunk of cheese into it and says it will show. I don't mean to be a synical bastard but format has always been a minor issue as to whether anyone will ever even see a movie.

 

To some extent, new models enabled by digital theatrical distribution may change this. That's probably 10 years out, though.

 

Today... yes, you're probably not going to get anywhere unless you get a large distributor interested, and there's much more involved than just format. But if you're in the wrong format, you might not even get in the door. If you look at the few cases were, for instance, DV movies have actually gotten theatrical distribution, they tend to be movies where the DV look fits with the subject matter. People don't want their subject choice dictated by what camera they can afford to shoot with; they want to shoot in a format good enough that format just isn't an issue.

[jan von krogh]

To some extent, new models enabled by digital theatrical distribution may change this. That's probably 10 years out, though.

 

4000 screens to go digital alone @ christie... within the next 18 months...

http://www.carmikedigital.com/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...17/ai_n15693886

 

 

 

Hey all,

Isn't Red trafficing on our hopes that some piece of technology will give us that shot at the BIGS? It's a locked-down industry. It doesn't matter what you shoot on. It will show because someone in at the reigns put a big chunk of cheese into it and says it will show. I don't mean to be a synical bastard but format has always been a minor issue as to whether anyone will ever even see a movie.

Paul

 

agreed. on the other hand, image quality is something which always added to a movie success...

 

... right now, a soccer doc is #1 on the german cinemas... its DV...

[Chris Kenny]

4000 screens to go digital alone @ christie... within the next 18 months...

http://www.carmikedigital.com/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...17/ai_n15693886

 

Yeah, the technology rollout is starting to pick up steam, but business models will take a long time to catch up. Maybe 10 years is too pessimistic, but I'd be surprised to see much of a shakeup within the next five.

 

Hope I'm wrong, though.

[jan von krogh]

Yeah, the technology rollout is starting to pick up steam, but business models will take a long time to catch up. Maybe 10 years is too pessimistic, but I'd be surprised to see much of a shakeup within the next five.

 

Hope I'm wrong, though.

 

i agree.

[Paul Bruening]

Hello Jan, et al,

 

We seem to have shifted topics. Yet, I am compelled to follow the new direction.

 

Here goes: If all of these theaters are going digital projection, how are they getting their data and in what formats and resolutions?

 

Can they just download it?

 

If not, what device of storage does a distributor ship it to them on?

 

Can it compete with 2K film projection?

 

If not, I'd rather sit at home and see it on my movie-wall from my $800.00, remannned, InFocus projector and my surround sound.

 

So far, my experience with digital projection involves my local "MALCOntent" theater chain and the DAMN ADVERTISING that I have to put up with before the "REAL" 35mm projected movie begins.

 

Thanks in advance for your answers,

 

Paul

[Chris Kenny]

Hello Jan, et al,

 

We seem to have shifted topics. Yet, I am compelled to follow the new direction.

 

Here goes: If all of these theaters are going digital projection, how are they getting their data and in what formats and resolutions?

 

Can they just download it?

 

If not, what device of storage does a distributor ship it to them on?

 

My understanding is that today, the most common method is to physically deliver a hard drive. The DCI spec lays out the compression format, etc. A feature will fit quite comfortably on a hard drive costing a few hundred bucks, and the drive can even be returned the distributor afterwards.

 

Internet and satellite-based systems are being tested. There's some discussion of eventually broadcasting live events into theaters (concerts, major sporting events, etc.).

 

Can it compete with 2K film projection?

 

If not, I'd rather sit at home and see it on my movie-wall from my $800.00, remannned, InFocus projector and my surround sound.

 

So far, my experience with digital projection involves my local "MALCOntent" theater chain and the DAMN ADVERTISING that I have to put up with before the "REAL" 35mm projected movie begins.

 

Thanks in advance for your answers,

 

Paul

 

Release prints aren't really 2K resolution. This study suggests they're considerably lower.

 

Digital projection also does better on most other characteristics. There's absolutely no flicker or jitter. There's no grain. There are no scratches. There are no reel change warning dots. The projector doesn't vibrate, so it doesn't slowly lose focus the way film projectors do.

 

It's really very impressive.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ask someone to project your movie on one of those fancy digital projectors though. It won't happen, they have to stream it from corporate via sattelite.

[jan von krogh]

Ask someone to project your movie on one of those fancy digital projectors though. It won't happen, they have to stream it from corporate via sattelite.

 

FYI:

http://www.carmikedigital.com/

http://www.dcimovies.com/

[Max Jacoby]

4000 screens to go digital alone @ christie... within the next 18 months...

But that does not mean that everything will be projected digitally. In Luxembourg there are a dozen 2K digital projectors installed already (out of roughly 25 screens total), but the number of digitally projected films is very low. For instance I'm told that UIP never provide digital copies of their films, which is why 'Miami Vice' got shown on a film print.

 

To get back to the topic though, digital projectors will not be the great equilizer that some people hope for. Theatres are still mostly governed by financial considerations and they show films that guarantee them the highest number of audience (and thereby profit). If they have the choice between a Hollywood blockbuster with Tom Cruise or someone's no budget film starring friends and family, there won't be much discussion which one will get shown.

[Adam White]

If they have the choice between a Hollywood blockbuster with Tom Cruise or someone's no budget film starring friends and family, there won't be much discussion which one will get shown.

 

If they filmed my friends and family, no-one would believe it was real!! too crazy.

 

What sort of timeframe would people suggest for cinemas to be projecting digitally as standad? Would they ever work to a single format? And if so, then would it be easier for people to show HD "homemade movies" on them?

 

I realise studios and distributors have control of how this developes but it would be beneficial for smaller, independant screens, no?

[Brian Drysdale]

It's important to remember that there is an economics to running a cinema. The film must have an investment in marketing to attract the audiences and for the average cinema owner there's more profit in the popcorn than the seats.

 

Using the studio model, at the very least the film must have at least the production budget invested in marketing the film. This is something that most indie (UK spelling) productions won't have.

 

The best that most indie films can hope for are showcase theatrical screenings in art houses, but the hard economic returns are on the DVD market where word of mouth can develop.

[jan von krogh]

It's important to remember that there is an economics to running a cinema. The film must have an investment in marketing to attract the audiences and for the average cinema owner there's more profit in the popcorn than the seats.

Using the studio model, at the very least the film must have at least the production budget invested in marketing the film. This is something that most indie (UK spelling) productions won't have.

the best that most indie films can hope for are showcase theatrical screenings in art houses, but the hard economic returns are on the DVD market where word of mouth can develop.

 

zea, peter jackson and david fincher should watch this thread :)

 

as well as warner bros.

 

amazing, so may insights never told in the public before....

[Brian Drysdale]

zea, peter jackson and david fincher should watch this thread :)

 

as well as warner bros.

 

amazing, so may insights never told in the public before....

 

They don't need to know, however, some people seem that believe that owning a RED is their calling card into making theatrical feature films.

 

Just because people are giving input doesn't mean they plan to shoot with the camera. Most studios don't force the DP to use a particular camera, that's up to each production to decide.

 

RED is a camera, nothing more. When it comes out it'll have it's niche. However, just shooting a production with a RED won't mean you'll automatically have successful film, those business/creative problems remain the same. What it does mean that films that in the past might have been shot with a SD broadcast camera should have HD cameras like the RED and SI in their budget range.

 

Is RED revolutionary? No, it's evolutionary. Interesting marketing though.

[Max Jacoby]

Just because people are giving input doesn't mean they plan to shoot with the camera.

Quite right. David Fincher is looking into 4k acquisition for his next film, so I would expect him to look into the Red as well. So far there have been no idependent test of the Red and until someone has really put it through the paces to find out where its limitations are and compares it to other cameras, any speculation as to who is shooting what with it are completely useless.

[Arni Heimir]

I read that Panavision is going to double its Genesis inventory by September 2007. Why would panavision be producing expensive cameras if the competition is producing the next best thing.

 

The problem with some digital cameras is that they aren't as fast as high speed stock. The D-20 are designed for ISO 400.