A more realistic view of RED

[David Mullen ASC]

And yes of course a good script and talent will be required but are people really going to take you seriously if you cannot produce the image quality that rivals the big boys ?

 

Well, there have been plenty of vanity projects shot in 35mm by people with some money that didn't gain them any respect, and many movies shot in small formats that have garnered a lot of respect for the filmmaker.

 

That said, image quality certainly can fool prospective distributors into thinking that you spent more money than you actually did -- however, a good camera or format is only one aspect of achieving good image quality. Incompetent lighting and bad sound, for example, can make 35mm movie seem amatuerish.

[Michael Nash]

Not trying to play devils advocate here Michael but, 'only'? I think that on its own accounts for quite a lot.

 

And there's also the cost of the camera to consider.

 

I was pointing out that the RED doesn't democratize feature filmmaking costs any more than current systems like the F900 or even the Viper, and we all seem in agreement that HD movies are viable in theaters. As for costs, I don't know the full breakdown but I wouldn't expect a fully-loaded RED package to be significantly less expensive to rent than a comparable F900 package. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way it's not cheap, not like an HVX or something.

 

Beyond that it comes down to how important a 4K image with 35mm optics is over systems like the Viper, and until we see 4K in theaters the RED is only an incremental jump in savings/quality to low-budget filmmakers. Significantly cheaper than 35mm, but only a bit better than 1080 by the time it hits the screen.

[Nathan Milford]

But the fact is that if movie theatres want people to get away form their HDTV's they are going to have to go 65mm film or digital 4k projection.

 

I'd go more often if they could get the people in front of me to stop glancing at their cell phones or texting every minute or two. Some of those cell phone screens are brighter than the projector and are absolutely blinding in a dark theater.

[Robert Houllahan]

The fact of the matter is that 720p or even 1080p may be okay for todays theatres considering that by the time a 35mm print goes through generational losses and is projected you are only going to see 700 lines of resolution.

 

Last Wednesday I went to a nice private pre-show of Mike Corrente's new anamorphic 35mm film "Brooklyn Rules" this was a wet gate answer print (No Di) on a nice big screen and a very fresh print. I have to say that there is something soo much more to a good 35mm print than the supposed 700 lines of resolution, which is a somewhat arbitrary number to me. Every 1080p film I have ever seen in 35mm print form has looked soft.

 

-Rob-

[Michael Nash]

Well to be fair, a fresh print of 35mm anamorphic with good projection is about as good as it ever gets in general release. Sadly, it usually only goes downhill from there. 2K DI's look soft to me too. Zodiac looked as sharp to me as most 2K DI's I've seen.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Last Wednesday I went to a nice private pre-show of Mike Corrente's new anamorphic 35mm film "Brooklyn Rules" this was a wet gate answer print (No Di) on a nice big screen and a very fresh print. I have to say that there is something soo much more to a good 35mm print than the supposed 700 lines of resolution, which is a somewhat arbitrary number to me. Every 1080p film I have ever seen in 35mm print form has looked soft.

 

-Rob-

 

And a 4k output to film will look much better too. I remember seeing Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and it was the clearest I've ever noticed the difference between the straight film, and stuff that had CGI effects... you could tell when a visual effect was coming up, because the shots were suddenly a slightly different colour, and slightly softer. That was 2k, I presume.

 

I Directed a short recently(ish), that was shot 35mm anamorphic, and finished at 1080p from HDCAM source. It looked really goddamn soft to me. Hdcam really was a shitty format - I'll never use it again (It's only 1440x1080 resolution/8 bit colour). The film was shown at a festival screening right before a short shot on utterly pristene 35mm, and it was night and day how crisp and clear the 35mm print was - easily 3.5k, if not 4k worth of info, to judge by naked eye...

 

The more generations it goes through, obviously the softer it gets, but you are fu**ed if work with a shitty image to start with, or have one part of your pipeline that let's the quality down. fu**in' HDcam. GRrrrrr.

 

R.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Then again there is also the green screen movie like the 300. Get actors willing to work odd schedules on a greenscreen. Keep the crew small. Spend 5 years fleshing out the VFX in your freetime and you can probably make a feature for less than a DV feature. And with a nice clean 4k image you'll spend far less time keying.

 

One of the challenges of film making is that in order to use a really great capture format you need to invest some serious $$ which means you effectively have to make money on the gig. There are a lot of ideas I have bouncing around in my head I want to shoot, just because I want to see them get made and I'm willing to fund them myself with absolutely no hope of ever seeing the money again. Now I can either realize one 35mm short, 1.5 16mm or HD short or maybe 2 RED shorts. Or for the price of lab and scanning, I could rent a red package for two extra days. With a two day shoot. That's a full extra project. Twice as much film making goodness! Personally I would rather produce one all around great project than 2 mediocre ones so I'll just take the money I'm saving on a processing and DI to grab a better light kit and more food. VFX are cheap when you don't value your time ;) I did more than $40,000 of free work this winter for myself.

 

(Through a pure coincidence Ruairi is exactly the type of individual whose ambitious style I admire the most. Get a good idea. Shoot it as best you can and then lock yourself in a closet for the next 3 years. It was worth it by the way! ...and good to hear about the HDCam, I am still working out the details on something I was planning on shooting on 35mm this spring and trying to get my post workflow figured out. They were pushing for an HDCAM DI and I just wasn't convinced by the quality, I'll stay away from that for sure now.)

 

Anyway... the point of my long ramble is. Everybody is looking at the RED camera in terms of FEATURE length expenses. Don't forget there are a lot of commercial/music video/short film people out there who don't really have any present ambitions for a feature. Down in the sub 10,000 budget ranges processing can eat you alive, especially if it's VFX intensive.

[Tom York]

Yes, I agree that Ruairi is on to something and that 300 is a sign of things to come.

 

So, Ruairi, as probably the only Oscar nominated person on this board, and as someone who is forward-thinking in the aproach to movie-making, I am especially interested in your opinion about the potential of the Red One to your style of work. I have seen several of your shorts and I think that people like you are the furure of our industry: Highly knowleable people dominating several traits to put out a cohesive works. Sure, one will always need to work with others to get a film done... but I think the days of large crews are numbered. I think the economics are completely changing on us under our feet wether we like it or not. There is a reason George Lucas has gotten out of the feature film business (except obviously for his Indie 4). I think that the industry is going to be in for some serious economic readgusting in the next few years. The music industry was the canary in the mine.

[David Mullen ASC]

The size of the crew is not going to be affected by the camera you pick.

 

If you have to rig a giant greenscreen stage and 200 space lights, etc. for a movie like "300", you'd have the same crew size if you were shooting on a cheap consumer DV camera. The size of the production crew is determined by the complexity of the work you demand from them in the time you need the work done, so the only way to lower the size of a crew is to lower the amount of work demanded from them, or give fewer people more time to do the same amount of work. The camera format is a minor issue in regards to crew size, so the RED camera is not going to have any affect in that aspect.

 

If you're talking about a move towards virtual sets and heavily post-created environments, that's just a different kind of movie and won't necessarily replace movies shot on locations with actors talking. It would be silly to make a movie like Ridley Scott's "A Good Year" on a greenscreen stage, let alone an indie film about teenage streetlife in Detroit, let's say.

 

You can look at a chart of production costs of feature films made in Hollywood over the past twenty years and see that below-the-line shooting costs have remained stagnant more or less -- most of the increase in costs have been due to above-the-line (star actors mainly) and also in the amount of visual effects employed in big-budget movies. So you're barking up the wrong tree if you think that the problem in Hollywood with rising budgets is with the size and cost of a typical production crew, nor would switching camera formats have any significant affect on the overall cost of movies, not in Hollywood.

 

You've always been able to make movies with tiny crews, even back in the 1960's with the French New Wave for example. In 35mm.

 

And despite using digital cameras on the last two Star Wars films, it's not like George Lucas was able to work with a small production and post-production team for those movies. It's the complexity and ambition of the production that determine how many people you need to realize your ideas.

 

People talk and talk about Hollywood having to make smaller movies with smaller crews but the truth is that blockbusters like "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Spider-Man" are what gets these major media companies excited, and their shareholders, and Wall Street in general.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I agree. And I don't want to be misunderstood when I reference green screen movies for the smaller guys. The big movies are going to cost what they cost, because quite frankly they're too ambitious to be done on a small budget. The difference though is for the "break-in" costs. Green screen, like animated films, allow significant amounts of the cost to be transferred to non-material goods and HR.

 

For a spec commercial I might be able to persuade a great DP to work for free or deferred payment. I might be able to barter a few cases of beer for a favor from a rental house. But in the end a 2x4 costs what it is. Being on location in the Cascade Mountains requires gas, transportation and lodging. There is a reason so many independent film locations look earliy like apartments and dorm rooms. ;) A sufficiently talented compositor can create just about anything that his imagination can conjure with no resources beyond time. I love working in a crew setting, it's what I love most about film making, the collaborative process that emerges when talented people come together with a common goal. But 2x4s and sheetrock don't volunteer their time, compositors do.

 

Even then I don't think this is a good permanent solution. Film making should be expensive. Most of the money goes into HR and rightfully so, talented individuals deserve a good wage for hard work, but we've all taken financial sacrifices in the past whether it be the student film or the internship at a post house in order to advance. I think no-cost green screen movies are a viable method for those who are not interested in shooting 'noir dorm room dramas'. A chance to express their preferred styles of film making. DV in this respect just doesn't cut it. The better the "unimportant technical specifications" often the easier the composite and the cleaner the matte. HD is good, Film is better and in my opinion 4k 4:4:4 digital is the best even if the deliverable is SD.

 

Take a simple example: A car crash. If you want to tell a story with a car crash in it, it's probably 'cheapest' to crash a car. Building a CG model and delivering a photoreal result will cost more than just smashing a car into a post. But if time is of no consequence to you, it's free. I think that's going to be the economics of independant production in the future.

 

Not to mention despite all of the spouting to the contrary in these forums. I know if I just point my film camera at a scene and take a photo, the result is going to be far more appealing than a cheap $100 point and shoot. The quality of the aquisition format is huge in the final result. Good lighting is good lighting, but a crappy sensor is a crappy sensor.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gavin Greenwalt

[David Mullen ASC]

You can't have a long-term career in filmmaking using free labor, whether in production or post-production. It tends to be a one-time solution of expedience. It's not a practical business model. "The independent films of the future will be made by free labor" -- sorry, only some can be made that way.

 

An efx-heavy movie with a lot of environments to create in post can quickly become a more expensive way to make movies as soon as some efx artist and compositor starts to want to get paid for their time and expertise. And why shouldn't they? Is it so wrong to make a living at one's career choice?

 

Suddenly you're going to feel foolish for not paying for that 2x4 or driving out to the Cascades when you discover that you can't finish your greenscreen movie without forking over money to expert efx people. Of course, you could hire amatuer efx people... but you may not get a realistic recreation of the Cascades or even a 2x4, unless your intent is to make "painted" movies in unreal animated settings. Creating photo-real efx takes real time & skill -- how many independent filmmakers have those skills?

 

Look at the video gaming industry -- do you think these entirely post-created projects are lower in budget than many feature films? You think a grip is expensive to hire for a few weeks -- how about a CGI artist for six months?

 

Certain aspects of independent moviemaking will be made easier thanks to digital post, but it's not a cure-all and often doing it for real in-camera will be the cheapest and simplest method.

[Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC]

I don't know what its like else where but I've never heard of an instance where a VFX artist has worked for free. My brother is a VFX and animation teacher at Vancouver Film School and the first thing they teach their students is to never work for free, it sets a bad precedence within their community.

[Tom York]

The size of the crew is not going to be affected by the camera you pick.

 

David, I think you are right (as always). I realised when reading one of your other posts that I too may be falling under the winning-the-super-bowl syndrome. To me one of the great expenses in a modest feature is not the equipment... but getting the right people involved. My excitement with Red is that it could theoretically allow me to have more money left over to pay for better crew and actors. But anyhow... in the end I think I agree with you that all this 'future-speculation', although fun, is a big exercise in nothingness.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I often work for free within small teams of close acquaintances in my free time. But I agree and I had hoped that I had made that clear, that free labor is not a solution, it's the limited case. I even mentioned it's actually cheaper to do most things practically.

 

I believe those who are willing to work for free undercut the industry. It's frustrating to see the value of work get dictated by some kid in his parent's basement running pirated software. They usually get what they pay for but the allure of cheap can sometimes be too strong and that kid's rates can be leveraged against legitimate studios. There is this idea in the public mindset that because artists love what they do they should do it for free and that their work has no value. They'll pay their plumber $100 an hour and then nickle and dime an artist with just as many years of experience and education.

 

However. If you have no money but you have an idea. An unprofitable idea. You won't find any funding. Film funding is notorious for not necessarily being based on merit so much as profit and return. A system I wouldn't have any other way. The way the system should operate. It shouldn't be a charity. But if you want to make something that's not going to make money, expect to pay to for it yourself.

 

Let's take VFS as an example. Let's say you have a group of students with a short they want to make but none of them have significant money to invest. It's going to be little more than a portfolio piece for all involved with no hope of making it marketable. The 'director' isn't going to pay his fellow 'comrades in arms' to help realise their own dreams.

 

I know a number of vfx artists who can create photorealistic vfx whom I consider friends. Many of whom are very interested in getting their hands dirty on one of their own projects. It's one of the curses of being a professional comper. Always the bride's maid but never the bride. James Cameron used to be a matte painter. There is a long history of vfx artists who get together to try and become more than the guys who solve other people's problems.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gavin Greenwalt

[David Mullen ASC]

Having crawled out of low-budget independent production... the model of young people working for free or peanuts is certainly a valuable aspect of this business because it serves as a training ground and a way for some people to get their movies made. So I don't have a problem with it necessarily because we've sort of lost a lot of the traditional apprenticeship systems that used to exist.

 

But it's not a sort of business model you can plan a lifetime career as a filmmaker around. Eventually you will decide that you are a professional filmmaker and should be able to earn a middle-class income as skilled labor -- that it's not a weekend hobby. Every no-budget indie filmmaker eventually tries to find more and more money to make their movies with because they can't stand the freebie model of moviemaking, they want to pay themselves or at least guarantee some return for their time and effort, and eventually they get tired of the inexperienced crew people that they have to work with.

[Brian Drysdale]

What can be more important is having a good producer who can bring in funding. This is an area that seems to get ignored and some producers seem to use the willingness of others to work for next to nothing to cover a lack of skills and contacts to get a film production off the ground.

 

Part of producer's skill is to select projects that they like and know can get funding. There are a range of different markets that have different budget bands, but as David said, making films without paying people isn't a sustainable business. BTW You can take deferred payments as not paying people most of the time.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Yes, I agree that Ruairi is on to something and that 300 is a sign of things to come.

 

So, Ruairi, as probably the only Oscar nominated person on this board, and as someone who is forward-thinking in the aproach to movie-making, I am especially interested in your opinion about the potential of the Red One to your style of work. I have seen several of your shorts and I think that people like you are the furure of our industry: Highly knowleable people dominating several traits to put out a cohesive works. Sure, one will always need to work with others to get a film done... but I think the days of large crews are numbered. I think the economics are completely changing on us under our feet wether we like it or not. There is a reason George Lucas has gotten out of the feature film business (except obviously for his Indie 4). I think that the industry is going to be in for some serious economic readgusting in the next few years. The music industry was the canary in the mine.

 

Heh cheers.

 

Here's what I think (I'm a reservation folder, btw)

 

If this is for real, on projects of the scale I've been doing up to now, i.e. small, self funded, or low budet, this thing will be a Godsend. Not for the shoot itself, it really makes little difference to the actual shoot. You still need to light properly, and you still need to employ a focus puller. All that stuff.

 

BUT, it's all the stuff around the shoot that has potential to become more efficient. No more stock and development costs, no more telecine costs, maybe even no more film out costs. No more chemical baths, and grading, and *hoping* it turns out right the next day. If you have no money, but want to shoot film, that's a LOT of favours you have to choreograph, and a lot of elements you have to hope line up at the right time around filming, and if you can't PAY for it, you can't guarantee it.

 

On my last short there was one shot I wished I'd had time to get on the shoot, but time limits and all that. Anyway, I had the choice between shooting that shot on greenscreen, on film, with an actor - it would have taken about 2 weeks to arrange, and cost a couple of grand. For one bloody shot. I'd have to pay for stock, camera, lenses, and a whole chain of favours getting these cheap (and running out of favour "credits") and then somehow slot in a telecine session too - just to SEE the damn footage. For one bloody shot.

 

In the end what I decided to do was: tentatively organize the shoot, but spend the two weeks working on it to see if I can do the shot completely in CG. So the CG shot is what's in the film. And I could afford to pay my rent, AND eat :)

 

If at that point I'd had a red camera, I could have got the actor that same day, arranged a mobile greenscreen, shot the thing in my back garden, and walked upstairs and plugged the drive into my computer and started editing.

 

If people can't see the advantage to this they are fu**ing NUTS.

 

But a lot of the time DP's don't really have to deal with the stuff before and after the shoot, so this really is no advantage to them - they just go from job to job and deal with the shoot at hand. They don't even always stay around for telecine to make sure the thing is graded right - so why should they care if that process is cheaper? it's no better for what they have to do!

 

I should note how FEW people are good colourists, and I mean skipping telecine, not skipping grading/DI. That's an important skill that contributes greatly to the image - but overnight baths... well. It's important they don't fu** UP. I can live without ever having to deal with some of these processes again.

 

So yeah, I'm close to sold on red. At the moment, if I was shooting a commercial, I would never use HD for anything involving food, or lighting that has to be... graceful. Maybe red will change this. Look forward to seeing what the exposure lattitude turns out to be like...

 

I wish you could use anamorphic lenses properly though. It's my major gripe. If I was to shoot a big movie now (indulge me) the cost considerations would be pretty much moot. It would all come down to image quality - even before ease of use. Nobody uses anamorphic lenses because they are the more flexible lenses out there, or because they are fantastic in low light - they use them for the look. So right now, if the choice came down to red vs film, and all other considerations aside, the only difference was shooting scope, I'd be very tempted to shoot scope. I like the look.

 

Cheers,

R.

[Mark Williams]

Heh cheers.

 

Here's what I think (I'm a reservation folder, btw)

 

If this is for real, on projects of the scale I've been doing up to now, i.e. small, self funded, or low budet, this thing will be a Godsend. Not for the shoot itself, it really makes little difference to the actual shoot. You still need to light properly, and you still need to employ a focus puller. All that stuff.

 

BUT, it's all the stuff around the shoot that has potential to become more efficient. No more stock and development costs, no more telecine costs, maybe even no more film out costs. No more chemical baths, and grading, and *hoping* it turns out right the next day. If you have no money, but want to shoot film, that's a LOT of favours you have to choreograph, and a lot of elements you have to hope line up at the right time around filming, and if you can't PAY for it, you can't guarantee it.

 

On my last short there was one shot I wished I'd had time to get on the shoot, but time limits and all that. Anyway, I had the choice between shooting that shot on greenscreen, on film, with an actor - it would have taken about 2 weeks to arrange, and cost a couple of grand. For one bloody shot. I'd have to pay for stock, camera, lenses, and a whole chain of favours getting these cheap (and running out of favour "credits") and then somehow slot in a telecine session too - just to SEE the damn footage. For one bloody shot.

 

In the end what I decided to do was: tentatively organize the shoot, but spend the two weeks working on it to see if I can do the shot completely in CG. So the CG shot is what's in the film. And I could afford to pay my rent, AND eat :)

 

If at that point I'd had a red camera, I could have got the actor that same day, arranged a mobile greenscreen, shot the thing in my back garden, and walked upstairs and plugged the drive into my computer and started editing.

 

If people can't see the advantage to this they are fu**ing NUTS.

 

But a lot of the time DP's don't really have to deal with the stuff before and after the shoot, so this really is no advantage to them - they just go from job to job and deal with the shoot at hand. They don't even always stay around for telecine to make sure the thing is graded right - so why should they care if that process is cheaper? it's no better for what they have to do!

 

I should note how FEW people are good colourists, and I mean skipping telecine, not skipping grading/DI. That's an important skill that contributes greatly to the image - but overnight baths... well. It's important they don't fu** UP. I can live without ever having to deal with some of these processes again.

 

So yeah, I'm close to sold on red. At the moment, if I was shooting a commercial, I would never use HD for anything involving food, or lighting that has to be... graceful. Maybe red will change this. Look forward to seeing what the exposure lattitude turns out to be like...

 

I wish you could use anamorphic lenses properly though. It's my major gripe. If I was to shoot a big movie now (indulge me) the cost considerations would be pretty much moot. It would all come down to image quality - even before ease of use. Nobody uses anamorphic lenses because they are the more flexible lenses out there, or because they are fantastic in low light - they use them for the look. So right now, if the choice came down to red vs film, and all other considerations aside, the only difference was shooting scope, I'd be very tempted to shoot scope. I like the look.

 

Cheers,

R.

I agree with you costs will be low enough so film making will be accesible to most people this will certainly have an effect on films that will face much stiffer competition and production costs will be driven down. Big name stars will now more than ever make their own films. Of course this will mean up and coming actors will end up now in minority group films who will make their own as blockbusters become a thing of the past. Already many special effects can be created cheaply. Films will be tailored to meet the demands of small groups so we will get more variety as production standards fall and morality is tested. More pornograhy of all kinds and more violence possibly even the beginnings of roman style amphitheatres. The move away from the industry and into the public domain will mean the downfall of the industry but also a weakening and fragmentation of society itself MUCH of our values and invention have been taken from films and films made in the fifties contrast greatly with the violence and morality of today. Even if much of this does not happen the very minimum is the beginning of the end for the film industry. Some will say there is much more to a film than just a camera I say without control the lowest form of entertainment wins out erodes and finally removes, if the market is open to all. For example the industry that started the net and kept it going is? OR films that make money are usually the most violent. Films with stories will lose ground being over expensive and a limited appeal. Already TV figures are falling as you tube my space show the new style entertainment like happy slapping or silly stunts make as yet small inroads but nontheless is gaining popularity.

 

In the end films will be made by any groups/individuals good or bad and will often be the most selfish and primitive of urges and needs. TV is already going that way and films will soon join them. Of course this is just an opinion and I realise that progress cant be stopped but I think its a sad day for filmmakers some who will most likely only see an opportunity without realizing the whole game will change beyond recognition.

 

I guess people will say you cant stand in the way of progress things change and thats the nature of it cant stand still in the past etc. And yet society is regressing backwards The more we get the more we invent the more we destroy with our own selfishness and basic desires.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think one more thing I could mention about the alure of RED is it eliminates one decision that I hate making.

 

I love the look of film but quite honestly I don't have the necessary experience to be able to walk away from set and say "I got it, no question." The current methods is to do "party cam run throughs" effectively blocking with a mini-dv camera, and then "shoot it for real" with a crew once I know frame for frame what I want. Going back for reshoots is horendously expensive. A self financed indie spec spot often can't afford reshoots on film. There is no safety net. They can't afford to waste stock and they can't afford to come back and reshoot it later and often some members of the crew lack experience increasing your chances of f***ng it up.

 

Now that choice is a little easier. You can approximate without quite the same danger of waiting 3 days to find out focus was soft or you were underexposed 2 stops. Again, all things which go down in probability with a more experienced crew and all the more reason to try to pay/grovel to have, but even then know people make mistakes and you literally may not be able to afford to fix them.

[Michael Nash]

On my last short there was one shot I wished I'd had time to get on the shoot, but time limits and all that. Anyway, I had the choice between shooting that shot on greenscreen, on film, with an actor - it would have taken about 2 weeks to arrange, and cost a couple of grand....

 

If at that point I'd had a red camera, ...

 

If people can't see the advantage to this they are fu**ing NUTS.

 

And at that point it would have cost you more than "a couple grand." You have to be fair when making these kinds of comparisons.

 

If you had owned the film package, you only would have been out the film costs. If you're comparing renting the RED camera vs. renting the film package, again the only significant difference would be the film costs.

 

No one is disputing the savings of shooting digital over shooting film (for a digital finish), but let's please be realistic and avoid going "nuts" with apples-to-oranges comparisons.

[Werner Klipsch]

There is no safety net. They can't afford to waste stock and they can't afford to come back and reshoot it later and often some members of the crew lack experience increasing your chances of f***ng it up.

 

Now that choice is a little easier. You can approximate without quite the same danger of waiting 3 days to find out focus was soft or you were underexposed 2 stops. Again, all things which go down in probability with a more experienced crew and all the more reason to try to pay/grovel to have, but even then know people make mistakes and you literally may not be able to afford to fix them.

 

The well-known equation of the cruelty of reality :D

 

Sure, you can produce a pretty good result, maybe even an excellent result, shooting on 16mm or HD for cinema release, as long as you have a 'top-shelf' crew behind you, that know how to get the best focus, lighting and so on.

 

But the 'top-shelf' crew as a rule don't tend to work on 16mm or HD productions. :(

Unless they're doing it just to check out this new medium for themselves.

 

The exponential nature of the real world: everything tends to get smaller as it goes down the bath plughole :(

[Ruairi Robinson]

And at that point it would have cost you more than "a couple grand." You have to be fair when making these kinds of comparisons.

 

If you had owned the film package, you only would have been out the film costs. If you're comparing renting the RED camera vs. renting the film package, again the only significant difference would be the film costs.

 

No one is disputing the savings of shooting digital over shooting film (for a digital finish), but let's please be realistic and avoid going "nuts" with apples-to-oranges comparisons.

 

Well, yeah, there's the initial outlay, but the price is just about manageable for a workeable system...As far as I'm concerned there's not much point in owning a film camera, because you can't control the workflow from beginning to end - you HAVE to rely on other people.

 

The point I'm making is that if you own a camera like this you can shoot *some things* without having to rely on a whole chain of favours, or expense, and hopefully without a loss of quality. You can't shoot anything on film without relying on a whole heap of other people, and a whole heap of other processes before you can even see the result.

 

Just the film costs? You mean stock, development, couriers or telecine? Or are you lumping them all together as one?

 

That's 4 costs. Or some favours, and still *some* cost. Compared to no costs whatsoever, Or if I knew someone else with a red camera, I could borrow it, and use up one favour, and still no cost. As it happens I know a couple...

 

I'd say there's no way to look at this and not see an advantage in cost, or workflow. All that remains to be seen is if the quality holds up. Or the cameras don't fall apart...

 

This stuff if pretty irrelevant when you are shooting with a crew of 40 people on a commercial... But for my own projects that I have to fund myself (Like "The Silent City") it would help a lot.

 

After the initial outlay. Of course.

 

R.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The exponential nature of the real world: everything tends to get smaller as it goes down the bath plughole

 

Haha that's a good one, I'll have to remember that law of nature :D