Compact Flash...

Stephen Williams · May 12, 2007

Brought to you by Red#249.

Hi,

Hope you don't have to wait too long for delivery! The camera I bought from David Stump arrived yesterday, just 10 days use and it will be paid for!

Stephen

Alexander Joyce · May 12, 2007

Last time I checked for a client there were only 6 houses here in AZ that could convert BetaMax.

So you are saying that in 15 years you'll struggle to find someone to scan 16 or 35mm film? Even if film was to cease it's existence as a capture medium, there will most likely still be post houses who will accept film 20-30 years from now, long after everyone has forgotten about HDCAM, DVCPRO and Redcode whatever...

Digital, because of its "Softness" in nature will exponentially increase in quality. It will become cheaper and better than any other previous technology to date.

Not sure I'm following you here? To me digital has always looked quite hard and ugly. Or perhaps you are talking of a different kind of softness?

And here is the kicker...Will it look equal to film? IT WILL LOOK BETTER.

Well the word better is really a subjective one. I mean people still shoot on 8mm and 16mm even there are tons of DV and HD formats that offer "better" imagery.

Thing is you are basing this assumption on the fact that filmstock is a static format whilst digital is in constant motion.

Brian Drysdale · May 12, 2007

Of course, because your thinking is used to a "We'll scan our High-Res film to 2k and do it in post" mentality. Just like your current mentality will adjust to a 4k Red Camera shooting most major productions, workflows that almost mirror an IT Department more than a film crew, and a "craft" that looks more technical than organic like "it used to be."

The workflows are already IT in post these days. Also, the skill in making films that people want to watch lies in being able to tell stories not just having IT skills.

The RED camera will fit into a production just like any other camera. The established DPs will still have the advantage because they've developed a whole range of skills (plus the contacts) and the RED shouldn't cause too many problems to them. Most of then are pretty technologically savvy, those that aren't often tend to bring their "eye".

Werner Klipsch · May 13, 2007

First post here...
And here is the kicker...Will it look equal to film? IT WILL LOOK BETTER.

Not with any current technology. With the current technology CCD or CMOS sensor, 66 to 70 dB dynamic range is all that is possible. You can put more pixels on the chip to give more resolution but you can not in increase the light capture range to much more than 1,000 to 1. The problem is noise in the darker pixels which comes from the physics of silicon itself.

You would need much more than that to equal the capture performance of film. It is inconsequential what you do to the pictures afterwards, once pixels are overloaded they remain uncaptured for ever. Where film grains just have unoptimal exposure, silicon pixels have 1111111111111 and nothing else. Do what you want with 1111111111111 it still comes out looking like 1111111111111 and nothing else :lol:

David Mullen ASC · May 13, 2007

I think that right there is the reason that scares most veterans of an industry and makes them posture and position against newer tech. It makes it easier for people like us to move up and show our skills, hard work, and most importantly our ability to adapt to a changing environment.

You obviously don't spend a whole lot of time hanging around "veterens of the industry" -- spend five minutes at an ASC Technology committee meeting, sitting in a room with visiting engineers from Sony, Kodak, the Fraunhofer Institute, etc. plus the technical supervisors at the top D.I. facilities and labs in Hollywood, etc.

Very few top cinematographers "posture and position against newer tech" -- they merely question the notion that anything new is always better than anything tried and true. They want to use the best tools out there, but they want them to be actually the best tools, not just the newest tools. They question what manufacturers try to sell to them; they are natural skeptics, and ultimately, they judge almost everything by the results that they will get. They grab what's new if it produces better results and avoid what doesn't work as well as what they've got.

They are also highly adaptable -- it's the very nature of the job of cinematography. They didn't get to be at the top of their profession by being slow to learn and adapt.

They also know that technology is not the God that some young people worship at the feet of; technology is merely a tool for them to use in achieving a creative idea in an effective and efficient manner. But the technology isn't the goal itself -- it's merely a conduit. People who obsess over technology are basically trying to avoid the real work of an artist. As you mature, you may develop a better understanding of its true worth in the scheme of things.

Only a small percentage of a cinematographer's work involves technology actually, and the rest of the skills are timeless and independent of current trends in technology, which is why the best DP's work decade after decade despite the changes in technology. You don't hire a Roger Deakins or John Toll because they know the menu structure of an F900; you hire them because they are exquisite visual storytellers, because they know how to light, how to work with actors, how to interpret scripts, how to stay on budget and schedule, how to work with directors, how to deal with studio politics -- you hire guys like these because they deliver. And because they are smart guys, they are well aware of current technical trends and know which ones to use and which ones are not relevant to the project at hand.

It's actually the overly "tech heads" who obsess over the latest toys at NAB that don't have the long-lasting careers because they don't have the broad range of artistic skills necessary to advance, so they look to new technology as their savior, their ticket to success, but it's short-lived because they don't have the real chops to be a cinematographer, because that job has very little to do with technology.

I spend my time trying to keep informed of the latest developments, but 90% of the time, when I step onto a movie set to shoot that day, very little of that knowledge comes into play. It still boils down to the art of blocking actors, planning coverage, lighting, composing, working fast and watching the clock, delivering consistent results, day after day -- while getting along with directors, actors, producers, crew people, etc. If you don't have those skills down, knowing the technology isn't going to help you much. Unless your goal is to be an engineer or technician, not a cinematographer or director.

Kenny N Suleimanagich · May 13, 2007

David is completely right, someone who's "up there" can make an actors face look good using an old hank-crank camera. Technology is merely a means of recording what the artist cinematographer is creating with manipulation of light. Though it's not that simple, I'm almost positive it's the least of the cinematographers worries if youre shooting on a Panavision Elaine or Arri SR3, if it's the same format and it works why does it matter?

It's like a professional race-car driver, they're still good drivers even on the oldest of race cars. Having a better car won't make them a better driver.

Daniel Gourley · May 13, 2007

David,

You are absolutely right that a NEW TOY will make instant results and overstep years of experience, but there is a point that I believe others here like Haakon and Ohsiro here have been expressing.

You have the "privilege" to step foot on sets that have budgets larger than most of us using for our endeavors but the issue that seems to get overlooked here is pervceivable quality vs. price.

Basic low-budget feature shot on film with rental, sync and telecine costs can run into the $300,000 range. Red film differentiates because of shear cost and ease of use, seeing what you are actually recording (both a sub HD tap). This provides me with the opportunity to shoot a feature for around 30K and have what? --90% of the subjective quality that you see, a faster workflow-no DI process, and increased time owning the gear to shoot continually and refine my abilities.

You are right that most DP's are skilled and have worked for decades but what the audio revolution and now in Video and Cinematography revolution is putting tools in place that will allow myself and others to produce quality on par with your work. You are quite skilled and have a great resumé. There is no disrespect here, just an honest assesment that things will change and as they do I will ride the wave.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Daniel Gourley

Brian Drysdale · May 13, 2007

On the $30K budgets, you're still going to be restricted. One of the usual weaknesses being the quality of the actors and the script, without them and a RED you've only got high resolution pictures. With them and a mini DV camera you could have an extremely good film. You're better spending the money on the actors and the script.

The RED won't be any easier to use than the other cameras, all the other issues that David mentioned come into play regardless of the budget.

Daniel Gourley · May 13, 2007

True. But why does everybody assume that you NEED to pay gigantic sums of money for credible actors. They exist apart from money and studios as well.

Sure it helps in distribution, but markets are becoming more flexible and access is larger and better than ever. Hollywood is becoming more decentralized much like everything else has in history and an upstart quality film with no name actors has more of a chance today to make it than ever before.

Also, Bryan your statement is true. It is a better choice to spend money on your actors and script--So why shoot an expensive and tedious format?

You contradict yourself in that statement.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Daniel Gourley

Daniel Gourley · May 13, 2007

They also know that technology is not the God that some young people worship at the feet of; technology is merely a tool for them to use in achieving a creative idea in an effective and efficient manner. But the technology isn't the goal itself -- it's merely a conduit. People who obsess over technology are basically trying to avoid the real work of an artist. As you mature, you may develop a better understanding of its true worth in the scheme of things.

I want to speak to this. Perspective is the differing factor here. You see it as "Worshipping". I see some do that, but what you don't realize is the access that new technology much like FCP did for nonlinear editing changed the landscape forever. I bought FCP 1.0 after 4 years on an avid and 3 years on Premiere and Media100. The access it afforded me has changed the way I create and what I can produce for my clients.

You, however, and others like you have had "access" to more expensive equipment and budgets that have you in the perspective of best quality possible with best skills possible. My perspective for the last 11 years has been do the best possible, learn as much as possible with the best I can afford.

I finally believe that the RED camera has made it possible for me to compete with you at a level where quality is so close it is imperceivable to an audience and finally it will be about skill sets and creativity.

Let the race begin.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Daniel Gourley

Stephen Williams · May 13, 2007

I finally believe that the RED camera has made it possible for me to compete with you at a level where quality is so close it is imperceivable to an audience and finally it will be about skill sets and creativity.

Let the race begin.

Daniel,

You have been running that race for 11 years already, David has never owned a film camera and is not about to buy a RED. It has always been about skill sets & creativity.

Stephen

Mark Williams · May 13, 2007

The most important thing you need is a great script. The next thing you need is Actors who will draw in an audience. then you need a decent sized budget once you have a producer who can realize these things for you then you can start talking about crew. If you want to concentrate all your attention in this area then Maybe you can't afford an ASC so you make do. Perhaps you can get a good Cinematographer for little money who wants work experience? At some point in all this you will NEED a Camera and also lighting, sound, and costumes, editing, and music, Composer? Gripping, and set builders. Then of course you need your equipment like cameras etc well you can be flash and rent the best from arriflex or panavision or you could buy a cheap camera of ebay and sell it again when you have finished who knows you may make money? And you will need a ton of other stuff too. Let alone set design storyboard artists the list goes on and on.

This idea that you can compete with big productions because you have a camera that is 10% less than a film camera is absurd. If thats your criteria (Why aim low) would class you as less than professional. Why when you could have the full 100% quality and cheaper than a red?

Brian Drysdale · May 13, 2007

True. But why does everybody assume that you NEED to pay gigantic sums of money for credible actors. They exist apart from money and studios as well.

Sure it helps in distribution, but markets are becoming more flexible and access is larger and better than ever. Hollywood is becoming more decentralized much like everything else has in history and an upstart quality film with no name actors has more of a chance today to make it than ever before.

Also, Bryan your statement is true. It is a better choice to spend money on your actors and script--So why shoot an expensive and tedious format?

I never said gigantic sums, you can sometimes employ extremely talented actors for minimum rates, especially if they like the script. I implied you'd be better investing in the script and the actors rather than hardware. Some actors receive extremely large fees exist because they attract funding by their involvement, so setting up the right package is the producer's job.

How much you spend on acquisition will depend on your project and for many productions film does bring something visually that digital doesn't. On larger budget productions film is a low percentage of the costs and the archival issues are known.

It doesn't take any longer to light for film as the digital/video formats. Going to 35mm prints involves quite a few stages regardless of the shooting format. So, I'm not sure where tedious really enters into the equation.

Daniel Gourley · May 13, 2007

I never said gigantic sums, you can sometimes employ extremely talented actors for minimum rates, especially if they like the script. I implied you'd be better investing in the script and the actors rather than hardware. Some actors receive extremely large fees exist because they attract funding by their involvement, so setting up the right package is the producer's job.

How much you spend on acquisition will depend on your project and for many productions film does bring something visually that digital doesn't. On larger budget productions film is a low percentage of the costs and the archival issues are known.

It doesn't take any longer to light for film as the digital/video formats. Going to 35mm prints involves quite a few stages regardless of the shooting format. So, I'm not sure where tedious really enters into the equation.

Why do a DI and wait to preview, edit and grade your footage? Why not take your "actual" footage and run with it? Is it something that you are used to--waiting for footage to "develop" AKA telecine?

Your right that lighting is still in the equation, but that's not a fair comparison as lighting has and continually evolves in its current format tungsten/HMI and in a greener future LED. Your suggestion and some of the others in this forum are that film will live on forever in its "Supremeness". It's like someone suggesting everything should be lit with candles and not this new fango light bulb technology.

The tediousness is the fact that we need to convert the format to THEN be able to work with it. Why do that? Why not edit with a moviola or beter yet a razor like the old days? Lets go back to complete black & White silent films?

True. A 35 mm print needs to be done as most theatres are not digital, but they are slowly heading that way. When all is a digital pipeline, will you still be advocating a n expensive analog format to slow down and limit the process of production?

Stephen Williams · May 13, 2007

Why do a DI and wait to preview, edit and grade your footage?

True. A 35 mm print needs to be done as most theatres are not digital, but they are slowly heading that way. When all is a digital pipeline, will you still be advocating a n expensive analog format to slow down and limit the process of production?

Hi Daniel,

Shooting 35mm does not need to involve a D.I. How do you think films were made for most of the last 100 years.

IMHO shooting film without any video assist is far quicker than any digital shoot. All that time wasted looking back at what has been shot.

Stephen

Gary McClurg · May 13, 2007

True. But why does everybody assume that you NEED to pay gigantic sums of money for credible actors. They exist apart from money and studios as well.

Sure it helps in distribution, but markets are becoming more flexible and access is larger and better than ever. Hollywood is becoming more decentralized much like everything else has in history and an upstart quality film with no name actors has more of a chance today to make it than ever before.

Also, Bryan your statement is true. It is a better choice to spend money on your actors and script--So why shoot an expensive and tedious format?

You contradict yourself in that statement.

I'm sorry Daniel... every time I've pitched a script or project... besides how much... it's who's in it?

Bryan is right... its better to spend your money on known actors... and a good script... either purchased or written by yourself...

Edited May 13, 2007 by Gary McClurg

Brian Drysdale · May 13, 2007

Why do a DI and wait to preview, edit and grade your footage? Why not take your "actual" footage and run with it? Is it something that you are used to--waiting for footage to "develop" AKA telecine?

Your right that lighting is still in the equation, but that's not a fair comparison as lighting has and continually evolves in its current format tungsten/HMI and in a greener future LED. Your suggestion and some of the others in this forum are that film will live on forever in its "Supremeness". It's like someone suggesting everything should be lit with candles and not this new fango light bulb technology.

The tediousness is the fact that we need to convert the format to THEN be able to work with it. Why do that? Why not edit with a moviola or beter yet a razor like the old days? Lets go back to complete black & White silent films?

True. A 35 mm print needs to be done as most theatres are not digital, but they are slowly heading that way. When all is a digital pipeline, will you still be advocating a n expensive analog format to slow down and limit the process of production?

Actually one of film's big advantages is that, now and again, you have time to think. It's not the speed of the process that's so important, unless you're doing news and current affairs, but how you put it together. Going just for the fastest time often tends to result in formulaic work.

You mean you don't transcode and render in the digital world?

Lights tend to have different characteristics, so if they manage to produce LED lights that compare to the other types and give the same options, well and good. Lighting has been pushed by those DPs that you've been having the problems with. Oh, candles can also be used as well.

They're still catching up with the techniques and ideas used in some of the best B & W silent movies.

Digital projection won't really improve the chances of a film that can't attract large enough audiences for the owners of the cinema. There will be additional pressures because the cost of the digital projection is higher for the owners compared to traditional projectors (which have much longer working lives) and they need a quicker return on the investment.

Film making isn't just about the technology, it's a complex thread of relationships, both business and creative.