The real currency in filmmaking.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

In these RED-inebriated times I feel it's important to give an alternate view for those who think massive changes will be in the future for filmmaking. Now, this has got nothing to do with RED specifically, it's just that the same old voicings pop up whenever a potentially new technological landwinning is around the corner (like the dogma manifest tied to DV, the introduction of Cinealta and even Coppola's old SLEK-system of the 70's).

 

Everyone seems to think that if only the technology gets cheaper so that everyone can afford to be a filmmaker, that will be the end of Hollywood. If the whole world ends up owning a RED camera, then so much more better and cheaper film will be made.

 

No. That's not going to happen. More film will be made, but not better film.

 

Technology can democratize stuff and give more people a shot at the title, but it won't radically produce more talent. Talent has a tendency to transcend and rise above any hurdle and has always done so, even into very tight and closed shops like Hollywood.

 

So if the whole damn world does end up with a RED camera, you'll still see exactly the same amount of "good films" being made coming out - no more, no less.

 

Talent is the currency, technology isn't.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Thats a fair point.

 

No. That's not going to happen. More film will be made, but not better film.

 

However I don't really agree with this, at this point DV/16mm technology is available enough that if someone really has enough inclination to start shooting a feature, then they will start shooting with the best technology available to them, considering their budget. They may do this on a sony handycam, or an Arri BL (Like Christopher Nolan did for his first film)

 

The only thing different if RED does take over the world, is it will do a great deal towards democraticising picture quality standards - which has previously always come at a high price.

[David Mullen ASC]

What tends to happen with better digital tools is mainly that average quality rises but the best work stays about as rare. This is something that Randy Thom talked about when he showed a reel of "Apocalypse Now" at the Academy (probably the height of analog sound design for a movie), that digital sound tools have made the average Hollywood movie sound better and more complex, but the best sound design/mix work is still rare because it's the talent involved that makes it the best, not the technology.

 

Besides, let's say (theoretically) that because of cameras like RED, now everyone can get 35mm quality -- wouldn't that just make the base technical picture quality no longer a factor in comparison? In other words, talent & skill are the only way of standing out if everyone has the same quality tools to start with.

 

Maybe a few more people would get a chance to display that talent to the world with better but cheaper tools that otherwise may have not been noticed, but the tools themselves are not a major component of what makes someone a great artist. And perhaps as access to better tools rises, the opposite effect happens: rather than more talent being discovered, that talent has a harder time being noticed above the general white noise of more volume being produced.

 

Anyone can take a still photograph, but how many become successful still photographers? There are so many more factors that the ability to get ahold of the camera.

 

I tend to agree with Adam that a certain small percentage of any art will be great, most will be mediocre, some really bad... and I don't see technology as changing that breakdown significantly. Not to be cynical, but at best, the world can now be flooded with more mediocrity while perhaps a few more talented people show up as well. It's just the law of averages.

[Hal Smith]

If there's one thing I've learned after coming back into film after having been an ethnographic film-maker years ago it's that quality narrative film work is incredibly complex and difficult. The knowledge one has acquire, the amount of experience using your knowledge, the "game" of everyone involved, and one's personal artistic talents all are absolutely crucial if the end product is going to look anything like a really good film. No camera alone is going to make ten cents worth of difference in the above equation. RED will change nothing with respect to quality film-making, it becomes another tool for the knowledgeable to use and idiots to abuse.

[Mark Williams]

In these RED-inebriated times I feel it's important to give an alternate view for those who think massive changes will be in the future for filmmaking. Now, this has got nothing to do with RED specifically, it's just that the same old voicings pop up whenever a potentially new technological landwinning is around the corner (like the dogma manifest tied to DV, the introduction of Cinealta and even Coppola's old SLEK-system of the 70's).

 

Everyone seems to think that if only the technology gets cheaper so that everyone can afford to be a filmmaker, that will be the end of Hollywood. If the whole world ends up owning a RED camera, then so much more better and cheaper film will be made.

 

No. That's not going to happen. More film will be made, but not better film.

 

Technology can democratize stuff and give more people a shot at the title, but it won't radically produce more talent. Talent has a tendency to transcend and rise above any hurdle and has always done so, even into very tight and closed shops like Hollywood.

 

So if the whole damn world does end up with a RED camera, you'll still see exactly the same amount of "good films" being made coming out - no more, no less.

 

Talent is the currency, technology isn't.

Its a shame I cant agree with you but how do you define talent? Do you mean like Tom who has to be on the cutting edge of the talent to know your market and to profit from it. Or do you mean Talent as in acting ability or film making skills? Unfortunatley even the very best crafted film can flop So to can the best scripted or the most expensive. For example are the very best actors then? Arnold Swarzennegar, Sylvestor Stallone, Tom Cruise, Who are all very very good but the best?

 

Top money earners for 2006

Ice age, Pirates of the caribean, Da vinci code, Borat, Saw 3,

 

Four of the 10 most profitable releases of 2006 are animated films. Presumably then the largest audiences are kids? So where are the rest? On the net perhaps even making their own little films using mobile phones interacting with each other through digital media? Posting stuff on My space or you tube? Towns are now communicating stuff. Teens are creating their own much more realistic films that are real violence like happy slapping or silly stunts?

 

The major reason for the cinema is quality and larger than life experiences being gripped by nailbiting tension scared witless. Well this will all be accesible at a more local and probably real level and will serve minority groups. As for talent those small theatre groups that form within the community who put on quality plays with intellectual witty clever scripts will gain new members as talent goes out of the window to be replaced by realistic cheap and plentiful. My opinion of course.

[David Mullen ASC]

Is English your first language, Mark? I didn't understand half of what you were saying in that last post. Just curious because you seem to be attempting to state complex ideas... but they are a bit incoherent. Maybe you would like to re-write that last post more clearly. For example:

 

"talent goes out of the window to be replaced by realistic cheap and plentiful."

 

What does that mean?

[Hal Smith]

Top money earners for 2006

Ice age, Pirates of the caribean, Da vinci code, Borat, Saw 3,

Top money makers, yes.

But not all moneymakers are mindless cr*p.

From IMDB PRO:

"Capote"

Budget: $7M (estimated)

Opening Wknd: $325K (USA)

Gross: $42.5M (Worldwide)

[Mark Williams]

Is English your first language, Mark? I didn't understand half of what you were saying in that last post. Just curious because you seem to be attempting to state complex ideas... but they are a bit incoherent. Maybe you would like to re-write that last post more clearly. For example:

 

"talent goes out of the window to be replaced by realistic cheap and plentiful."

 

What does that mean?

 

Well Apologies for not being more clear. You have written your example out of context so the full version for the sake of helping you to understand was

 

QUOTE

As for talent those small theatre groups that form within the community who put on quality plays with intellectual witty clever scripts will gain new members as talent goes out of the window to be replaced by realistic cheap and plentiful. My opinion of course.

----------------------------------------------

 

Now to break that down for you

 

QUOTE

As for talent those small theatre groups that form within the community who put on quality plays with intellectual witty clever scripts

 

--------------------------------------------

IE Local amatuer and dramatic groups who often put on plays shakespeare etc

-----------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

will gain new members as talent goes out of the window to be replaced by realistic cheap and plentiful. My opinion of course.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

They are usually dedicated groups with small audiences the reference to new members is a touch of sarcasm regarding talent being the main constituent for a film success. My belief is that this new camera will affect the film industy and will make it at best a much smaller less profitable organisation for reasons explained in the post. I believe that many talented people in the film industry will lose jobs or have to work for much less. IE the reason I said talent goes out of the window. I think the realistic cheap and plentiful is self explanatory however it means this camera will give rise to many films flooding the market and look very professional. Often with content that will be entertaining and sometimes real with real suffering.

 

I hope that explains better!

[timHealy]

I agree with Adam and David as well.

 

DV has been great in the democratization of filmmaking (both utilizing film and video) and bringing the the price of entry down. But it seems to mean that anyone who takes a cap off a video camera can call themselves a cinematographer. Now this kind of goes with anycraft but with cinematography just because anyone with a video camera can get an image, doesn't mean they are a DP. The true talent in cinematography involves how the camera is used and what the relationship between the camera the actors and the lighting is and how they relate in a moving three dimensional world. The camera will not revolutionize the industry. How it is used to tell the story is the real skill and craft.

 

Some people will learn, many will not.

 

Someone pointed out the other day how Pixelvision was used to tell certain stories well. It was not dependent on 35mm quality. Red won't change things all that much.

 

Most of my background is in lighting, and many people have been saying for years electricians and grips, amongst others, will lose jobs. It is kind of ironic that as video is used more often, and the quality of film has improved and ASA ratings get lower, the lights seem to keep getting bigger! Like the Arri Max 18k for example. Where maxi's weren't big enough we now have, 12 light maxis, dinos, and super dinos. I have also used Beam projectors more often on location as well. And lighting trucks seem to be getting bigger as many want to keep all the gadgets on hand.

 

The thing that threatens my job more than technology, is someone else learning the craft and doing it halfway around the world for half as much. Like Tom Friedman wrote "The World Is Flat"

 

But in most industries and crafts, the cream usually rises to the top.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Best

 

Tim

Edited April 21, 2007 by timHealy

[Mark Williams]

I agree with Adam and David as well.

 

DV has been great in the democratization of filmmaking (both utilizing film and video) and bringing the the price of entry down. But it seems to mean that anyone who takes a cap off a video camera can call themselves a cinematographer. Now this kind of goes with anycraft but with cinematography just because anyone with a video camera can get an image, doesn't mean they are a DP. The true talent in cinematography involves how the camera is used and what the relationship between the camera the actors and the lighting is and how they relate in a moving three dimensional world. The camera will not revolutionize the industry. How it is used to tell the story is the real skill and craft.

 

Some people will learn, many will not.

 

Someone pointed out the other day how Pixelvision was used to tell certain stories well. It was not dependent on 35mm quality. Red won't change things all that much.

 

Most of my background is in lighting, and many people have been saying for years electricians and grips, amongst others, will lose jobs. It is kind of ironic that as video is used more often, and the quality of film has improved and ASA ratings get lower, the lights seem to keep getting bigger! Like the Arri Max 18k for example. Where maxi's weren't big enough we now have, 12 light maxis, dinos, and super dinos. I have also used Beam projectors more often on location as well. And lighting trucks seem to be getting bigger as many want to keep all the gadgets on hand.

 

The thing that threatens my job more than technology, is someone else learning the craft and doing it halfway around the world for half as much. Like Tom Friedman wrote "The World Is Flat"

 

But in most industries and crafts, the cream usually rises to the top.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Best

 

Tim

 

Tim DV has been a great way for the public to be creative and make films BUT its certainly not up to competing with film. Television viewing figures are going down as more people spend time on the internet and more people are getting involved in making their own stuff. NOW TV has undoubtably taken a hit. The cinema hasn't yet because of its picture quality. This Camera will give access to all. As for cream rising to the top. Noble words but not factual in any shape or form In every walk of life I can see examples of where the very worst rises to the top.

[timHealy]

Tim DV has been a great way for the public to be creative and make films BUT its certainly not up to competing with film. Television viewing figures are going down as more people spend time on the internet and more people are getting involved in making their own stuff. NOW TV has undoubtably taken a hit. The cinema hasn't yet because of its picture quality. This Camera will give access to all. As for cream rising to the top. Noble words but not factual in any shape or form In every walk of life I can see examples of where the very worst rises to the top.

 

I think you missed my point.

 

I wasn't comparing DV with Film. In fact I was using the word "filmmaking" to encompass all filmmaking whether utilizing film or video on any level.

 

What I was talking about with DV specifically is that there are alot more people engaged in the filmmaking process. And with that I was agreeing with David and Adam in that there will be alot more films (again in either film or video formats) out there, but the majority will not be great or perhaps just mediocre.

 

The Red camera will not be all that revolutionary in the sense it will change the movie making business to any great degree. It will be another tool to visualize a story. The cinematographers and camera assistants wil be eager to learn what it can and cannot do, and the producers will compare the rental and post production costs with current methods either film or video.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I am not a Red hater or anything. In fact I am looking forward to checking it out. In fact I am a fan of Jim Jannard. Though I don't know him personally, I have know of him since my BMX days of my youth. He created a great products back in the 70's and I loved his BMX illustrations way back when. I think he should be honored as a really great entrepreneur. Both a business and creative entrepreneur. He has got some really great design ideas in there. In some way he is a bit of a maverick like Tucker and his cars or Huges and his planes.

 

I just don't believe that one piece of technology is going to change the over all filmmaking process. That is just a bunch of malarky. Like Adam clearly pointed out: It's about the talent.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

best

 

Tim

[Ken Cangi]

Tim DV has been a great way for the public to be creative and make films BUT its certainly not up to competing with film. Television viewing figures are going down as more people spend time on the internet and more people are getting involved in making their own stuff. NOW TV has undoubtably taken a hit. The cinema hasn't yet because of its picture quality. This Camera will give access to all. As for cream rising to the top. Noble words but not factual in any shape or form In every walk of life I can see examples of where the very worst rises to the top.

I can't think of any politically correct way to say that your post sounds as though you pulled it out of thin air. I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime.

 

Your cream-rising-to-the-top analogy is off the wall. If one considers the percentage of self-proclamed indie filmmakers running around with prosumer cameras to the amount of films that actually make it to the big screen, it should be easy to see how few poorly constructed films are among them. The Blair Witch Project was made of consumer equipment, although it was well down. November and Lonesome Jim were made on DVX cameras, although by experienced DPs. As David has said on numerous occasions, there is much more to making successful and/or competent films than top flight equipment. The opposite applies to great equipment in the hands of people with little or no talent.

 

I have tested this with still cameras on several occasions, when some neophyte photographer argued that he or she could make comparable professional images if he or she had the right equipment. I immediately handed that person my $4000.00 still camera, with a $7000.00 lens, and said "Have at it." Almost every person who took the camera from me started firing frames without ever asking me what type and speed of film was in the camera. This is a true story, and I have done it several times.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Mark Williams]

I think you missed my point.

 

I wasn't comparing DV with Film. In fact I was using the word "filmmaking" to encompass all filmmaking whether utilizing film or video on any level.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I didn't miss your point I was defining your point you never said that" I did" and as a way to show film and cinema has so far done alright in the digital revolution because film has had been closed to the public. This will now no longer be the case. That was the point I was making.

 

QUOTE

Someone pointed out the other day how Pixelvision was used to tell certain stories well. It was not dependent on 35mm quality. Red won't change things all that much.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Of course red will change things in fact everything

------------------------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

Most of my background is in lighting, and many people have been saying for years electricians and grips, amongst others, will lose jobs. It is kind of ironic that as video is used more often, and the quality of film has improved and ASA ratings get lower, the lights seem to keep getting bigger! Like the Arri Max 18k for example. Where maxi's weren't big enough we now have, 12 light maxis, dinos, and super dinos. I have also used Beam projectors more often on location as well. And lighting trucks seem to be getting bigger as many want to keep all the gadgets on hand.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Know how talented people are in the film industry thats not an issue. The issue is what will the paying public pay to see? Entertainment is not about talent its about the public getting a need fulfilled, which is a desire to escape from the drudgery, boredom or the hopelessness of normality. Lighting as in all the skills will not sell films not even a good script or great actors. What sells is thrills, spills, and escapism. People want to laugh, cry. To be scared, be sad. The Lighting, sound, editing, music, etc all help to tip the balance when everything else is equal. BUT Films can't compete with real people and their lives. Thats why Footie gets such big audiences because its real but its not real as real as it could be It has rules. No one is in real danger or no one can properly support the protaganists when they dont know them. BUT now they will be able to.. Film making is set to become more personal more community orientated.

 

Many things have permanently changed the way we do things and this is one of them. And thats not Malarky thats reality.

[Mark Williams]

I can't think of any politically correct way to say that your post sounds as though you pulled it out of thin air. I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime.

 

------------------------------------------

So your older wiser and know better?

-----------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

Your cream-rising-to-the-top analogy is off the wall. If one considers the percentage of self-proclamed indie filmmakers running around with prosumer cameras to the amount of films that actually make it to the big screen, it should be easy to see how few poorly constructed films are among them. The Blair Witch Project was made of consumer equipment, although it was well down. November and Lonesome Jim were made on DVX cameras, although by experienced DPs. As David has said on numerous occasions, there is much more to making successful and/or competent films than top flight equipment. The opposite applies to great equipment in the hands of people with little or no talent.

 

---------------------------------------------

The anology is not off the wall and you have misquoted me. However Cream rises to the top is just a saying that is used to apply to all walks of life and unfortunetly the truth is opposite. The film world does not have the rights to this saying and it doesn't even work when applied because there are many films made on relatively low budgets I.E. A few Million so lets get the anology right from the start? As compared to two hundred million and actually go on to make fortunes.

 

QUOTE

 

I have tested this with still cameras on several occasions, when some neophyte photographer argued that he or she could make comparable professional images if he or she had the right equipment. I immediately handed that person my $4000.00 still camera, with a $7000.00 lens, and said "Have at it." Almost every person who took the camera from me started firing frames without ever asking me what type and speed of film was in the camera. This is a true story, and I have done it several times.

-------------------------------------------------

There is no argument here yes quality is quality. Here is an analogy for you. Take a look at Mcdonalds even though people know what goes into the burgers it still makes shed loads of money. A high quality restaurant in london never ever gets close to the sort of profits they make.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Mark Williams

[Ken Cangi]

"I can't think of any politically correct way to say that your post sounds as though you pulled it out of thin air. I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi

 

 

"So your older wiser and know better?" Mark Williams

 

 

My comment had nothing to with whether or not I am older and/or wiser. I was referring to television's consistent growth within my lifetime, as opposed to its alleged decline, as you proposed.

[Mark Williams]

"I can't think of any politically correct way to say that your post sounds as though you pulled it out of thin air. I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi

"So your older wiser and know better?" Mark Williams

My comment had nothing to with whether or not I am older and/or wiser. I was referring to television's consistent growth within my lifetime, as opposed to its alleged decline, as you proposed.

Well you did question my age and included it in the same sentence as informing me of your experience. I accept what your saying regarding TV viewing figures they have drasticly fallen in the UK and the USA?

 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2007/04/ame..._victim_to.html

[Ken Cangi]

Well you did question my age and included it in the same sentence as informing me of your experience. I accept what your saying regarding TV viewing figures they have drasticly fallen in the UK and the USA?

 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2007/04/ame..._victim_to.html

 

I'm sorry, Mark, but there was nothing in either of my posts that questioned your age. Again - my inclusion of MY age was strictly a timeline reference for qualifying my point. I am pretty sure that I articulated that.

 

Someone else made the observation that your arguments (or sentences) border on incoherent. I have to concur and add that your reading comprehension could use some work, or that you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough.

[Mark Williams]

I'm sorry, Mark, but there was nothing in either of my posts that questioned your age. Again - my inclusion of MY age was strictly a timeline reference for qualifying my point. I am pretty sure that I articulated that.

 

Someone else made the observation that your arguments (or sentences) border on incoherent. I have to concur and add that your reading comprehension could use some work, or that you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough.

QUOTE

I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi

 

-------------------------------------

"I dont know how old you are"

 

That is questioning my age?

 

QUOTE

Someone else made the observation that your arguments (or sentences) border on incoherent. I have to concur and add that your reading comprehension could use some work, or that you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I read your post as it was written and as shown. Perhaps this communication problem is because Im not following your line?

[Ken Cangi]

QUOTE

I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi

 

-------------------------------------

"I dont know how old you are"

 

That is questioning my age?

 

QUOTE

Someone else made the observation that your arguments (or sentences) border on incoherent. I have to concur and add that your reading comprehension could use some work, or that you just aren't reading my posts carefully enough.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I read your post as it was written and as shown. Perhaps this communication problem is because Im not following your line?

 

Mark,

 

"I don't know how old you are." is a statement - not a question. If that much is not clear to you, then perhaps the problem is that you aren't following my line? Don't worry about it. It's not really important, anyway. Let's just move on.

[Daniel Sheehy]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2007/04/ame..._victim_to.html

 

The link was an interesting read, but did nothing to support your conclusion that TV viewing figures are dropping.

It talks specificly about the viewing figures for one particular show which is having its concept manipulated online.

 

TV is spreading its influence in an everwidening circle. Now they are not only providing content via cable, terrestrial and satellite braodcasts, but also via the internet, and video for mobile devices.

[Mark Williams]

Mark,

 

"I don't know how old you are." is a statement - not a question. If that much is not clear to you, then perhaps the problem is that you aren't following my line? Don't worry about it. It's not really important, anyway. Let's just move on.

What just move on with me being incoherent?

 

QUOTE

I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi

 

I dont know how old you are is a statement. Stating a question. The reason Its a question is because you dont know how old I am and the only way to find out is by asking me this question otherwise why ask it? state it. I dont start a sentence with Im a director whats the time? I say what it is I want to communicate no more no less. Your statement not knowing my age and your experience is informing me the reason you know this is because you lived it therefore your right I'm wrong. Unless of course I can back this up with having lived it too. But You also pad out your argument questioning my maturity. and of course now my posts border on being incoherent.

 

Now we can move on?

[Ken Cangi]

What just move on with me being incoherent?

 

QUOTE

I don't know how old you are, but at 47, I can tell you that television media is larger and more pervasive than it has ever been in my lifetime. " Ken Cangi

 

I dont know how old you are is a statement. Stating a question. The reason Its a question is because you dont know how old I am and the only way to find out is by asking me this question otherwise why ask it? state it. I dont start a sentence with Im a director whats the time? I say what it is I want to communicate no more no less. Your statement not knowing my age and your experience is informing me the reason you know this is because you lived it therefore your right I'm wrong. Unless of course I can back this up with having lived it too. But You also pad out your argument questioning my maturity. and of course now my posts border on being incoherent.

 

Now we can move on?

 

Correction. My statement stated a statement - not a question. Had I asked you how old you were, or even cared to know, and then made the slightest insinuation about wanting in any manner or form to know, then my STATEMENT might possibly, tenuously have been construed as a question. However, none of that is the case, except of course for the part about how my statement is a statement and in no specific or amorphic way, shape, or form a question. Therefore, all things considered. I have to emphatically conclude that my Statement was from above its head of it to below its feet only a statement, and in no possible way a question.

[Mark Williams]

Correction. My statement stated a statement - not a question. Had I asked you how old you were, or even cared to know, and then made the slightest insinuation about wanting in any manner or form to know, then my STATEMENT might possibly, tenuously have been construed as a question. However, none of that is the case, except of course for the part about how my statement is a statement and in no specific or amorphic way, shape, or form a question. Therefore, all things considered. I have to emphatically conclude that my Statement was from above its head of it to below its feet only a statement, and in no possible way a question.

Well I think the debate has now run out of steam and sour grapes along with undermining and wordplay has taken over.

[Ken Cangi]

Well I think the debate has now run out of steam and sour grapes along with undermining and wordplay has taken over.

Finally.

[Matt Workman]

Try not to take this stuff into the personal realm, if it can be helped. You alienate other peopel who might have something of stock to say.

 

I've been working with a lot of film students lately and I can easily say that the camera means NOTHING when it comes to the quality of filmmaking. I've worked with the same crews on a super16 short and a HVX/m2 short and its about the same. We had the same amount of experience in producing, acting, directing, lighting, etc. etc. In my opinion the film industry is defined by the HUSTLE.

 

Even if they threw a Panavision GII and a 18 ton grip truck at us we would still be the same crew of guys. Its the same deal on the professional level. If the production team has that HUSTLE then they probably already secured funds for 35mm or RED or whatever is top of the line.

 

I've seen plenty of bad/mediocre 35mm footage from a photography side and like everyone else I've seen my share of bad 35mm films from a production side.

 

I agree with Adam's original post. Although I'm excited in seeing the new RED just like I'm excited about working with the Thompson Viper, Arri 416, Aaton Xtera, and Arri D20. Movie budgets aren't $100 million because of the camera package.

 

I'll conclude by saying read the production journals that report on Sony Pictures new marketing campaigns and Miramax's new feature line up and you'll see quickely that they don't mention the RED camera. The film industry is straight business. All films are business, only a few are art. If they big guys can make money by shooting with the RED they will, like Fincher.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt