Jump to content

Epic 5k


Brian Drysdale

Recommended Posts

Genesis is almost "there" in terms of being a film slayer, but it will probably be the next generation that really seals the deal.

 

Well Tom no disrespect but do you think you have the same business training & experience as the execs that run Deluxe?

 

Deluxe just opened up shop in NYC, they bought Rainmaker in Vancouver and it's now called Deluxe Vancouver, and the Toronto office is moving to a bigger facility in the new Film Port.

 

Basically Deluxe is investing un-told millions in the future of......FILM.

 

I just have a hard time believing that these guys will read your posts and say, "Holy crap we've made a huge mistake, Tom Lowe says film will be "slain" very soon. What the *bleep* have we done?"

 

Directors can shoot on a wide variety of digital camera systems right now, but the vast bulk of Hollywood movies continue to be shot on film. Mel Gibson shot Apocolypto on the Genesis I believe, looked good, Zodiac was also digital and it looked good as well. So the option is on the table right now, and yet film is still being used more for Hollywood movies. Why?

 

On another note I can also foresee the day when Jim Jannard gets a technical Oscar for creating RED.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well Tom no disrespect but do you think you have the same business training & experience as the execs that run Deluxe ?

 

Deluxe just opened up shop in NYC, they bought Rainmaker in Vancouver and it's now called Deluxe Vancouver, and the Toronto office is moving to a bigger facility in the new Film Port.

 

Basically Deluxe is investing un-told millions in the future of......FILM.

 

I just have a hard time believing that these guys will read your posts and say, "Holy crap we've made a huge mistake, Tom Lowe says film will be "slain" very soon. What the *bleep* have we done?"

 

Directors can shoot on a wide variety of digital camera systems right now, but the vast bulk of Hollywood movies continue to be shot on film. Mel Gibson shot Apocolypto on the Genesis I believe, looked good, Zodiac was also digital and it looked good as well. So the option is on the table right now, and yet film is still being used more for Hollywood movies. Why?

 

On another note I can also foresee the day when Jim Jannard gets a technical Oscar for creating RED.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard I tried to respond to you, but this damn thing only gave me 2 minutes to edit my post.. sheesh. Anyway, my reply:

 

No disrespect to Deluxe, but just because a company thinks they know the future doesn't make it so. Starbucks thought their business was doing well enough to open thousands of stores in the US over the last few years. Now they are closing most of them. I'm sure the execs at Starbucks know more about coffee than Tom Lowe (although I do brew a nice cup!), but that didn't save their stores.

 

I never said film would be "slain" anytime soon. I just said it would be replaced by digital some day. No one really disputes that. With still photography the change has been very dramatic and very sweeping. Motion pictures will take longer, for the reasons mentioned already in this thread. My guess would be about 2 more years before the trend really accelerates, and within about 10 years there will be very few features shooting on film. Mostly just the nostalgia people. I could be wrong. It might take longer, it might be sooner. With still photography, it actually happened fairly quickly.

Edited by Tom Lowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact the REDone camera has broken records in that many think it obsolecent before orders taken before launch have been fulfilled!

 

Frankly, those people aren't thinking too clearly. The Epic isn't a replacement for the Red One. It's twice the price, and Red will continue to sell, support, and even offer hardware upgrades for the Red One after the Epic is introduced. The Red One will be obsolete when you can buy a significantly better camera for significantly less money than it's presently selling for. A slightly better model for twice the price -- that isn't even shipping for at least a year -- doesn't render anything obsolete. The Red One is still, far and away, the most compelling choice in the market for low-budget indie filmmakers. And unless Sony or one of the other usual suspects is up to something big that they're not talking about, the Red One will probably continue to be the most compelling choice for that market segment until Red eventually retires it and replaces it with a similarly priced successor.

Edited by Chris Kenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to have seen red stick with the same body that could be upgradeable up or down. So someone buying scarlet could remove a bit of innards and upgrade to a red 1 and the ambitous 5k 6k cameras. But all cameras should have interchangeable lenses as a given. Seems a shame that the premise red was based on IE upgradability and functionality seems to be getting lost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Mostly just the nostalgia people.

Your choice of words is very revealing for someone who professes impartiality ;)

 

Why not talk about people who love their highlights to blow out gracefully or people who like a bit texture in the images? That comes closer to the truth than nostalgia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will continue to use a piece of kit just has long as it reliably full fills the functions required of it. My old computer (with the odd upgrade) can handle my scripts, photoshop and Vegas for SD showreels and sending the odd video christmas card to online friends. I'm not using it for hardcore gaming or serious editing on productions.

 

Chances are that it'll have to changed in the next year, but it's currently doing its job. The RED One can do the same, meeting the needs of a wide range of productions. It mightn't be the best in every department, but then most productions never really get to those levels either, in spite of people's best efforts (or talk).

 

However, you shouldn't underestimate the driving force of fashion and need for change, which may slow during a economic down turn, but is none the less relentless in the world of gadgets and technology.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said film would be "slain" anytime soon. I just said it would be replaced by digital some day. No one really disputes that.

 

There are lot's of us that dispute that. I'll go on the record as saying film will not be replaced in my life time or my son's life time, or his son's life time. It is here to stay for as long as people make movies.

 

If all the hundreds of digital formats that have come out could not even kill off Super 8, I doubt digital has a chance of taking out 35mm and the constant improvements made to the the stocks.

 

I don't see a shred of evidence to suggest a trend that would lead me to believe that film will disappear. I do remember all the people on boards like these predicting the end of film via DV, & HDV.

 

Any way this has all been said before.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lot's of us that dispute that. I'll go on the record as saying film will not be replaced in my life time or my son's life time, or his son's life time. It is here to stay for as long as people make movies.

 

How do you explain what happened with still photography? Do you really think moving film will be exempt from the general march toward digital technology in basically every aspect of human life? I mean, are there still major bands recording their CDs on analog equipment? Come on, now. You're claiming film will remain supreme in motion pictures for DECADES or maybe a CENTURY to come?? I know it's usually the digital people who make outlandish claims, but you have tipped the balance toward film in the koolaid department. ;)

Edited by Tom Lowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I know that history will prove me right. Film is here to stay.

 

There is nothing that the "film will soon be extinct" crowd can offer to prove other wise.

 

Hollywood features can all be shot digitally right now, but they aren't.

 

Digital will continue to make in roads, but a complete replacement for film? Never happen.

 

Only time will prove one of us right or wrong.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people prefer digital film for their cameras rather than film because its instant and because its cheap. Many used to use polaroids for similar reasons However on a small photo a digital one looks OK but many end up losing their pictures because they never get them developed and sooner or later the hard drive breaks down or just gets lost. However a photo goes in your album and lives their for years. I have pics of relatives no longer here from years ago. I wonder how many taking digital photos will end up with theirs?

 

ANYWAY

 

Film is leaps and bounds above digital in terms of creating a reality that can pull us in creating more atmosphere more character and more style. The film look is different to video and always will be because its a different process. Its one thing to show a video clip and compare it on a small screen and even then no comparison. But on the big screen video will never be a match. Star wars was a good example of that. I love video and what it can do. Jim Jannard has pushed the boundaries and given those who dominated a wake up call. I hope and wish him success. And that he stays with the modular upgradeable idea. But I will never agree video can replace film.. Look as good as film. It could be used as an alternative an artistic choice yes. But anything else is plain silly.

 

I tell you what say no more let it be our little secret Those making real films can continue being succesful and those making videos pretending to be films can take second place? Just an opinion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The alternative here is to purchase (for a lot more money) either a film camera or a full size HD cam like Sony or Panasonic. These machines will not require future upgrades for proper future performance.

Remember 1" A, B, and C, Beta SP, D-2, M-2, D-3, D-Beta, etc? They're all trying to crank the upgrade treadmill faster.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
How do you explain what happened with still photography? Do you really think moving film will be exempt from the general march toward digital technology in basically every aspect of human life?

 

 

Many hi end still photos are made with film, the low end news market is of course all digital but real film is still widely used in many forms of advertising and artistic imagery. As far as digital replacing everything in human life I would say you should look at just how wasteful digital technology really is, both in terms of raw energy wasted running computers and huge server farms, i.e. the new Google server farm which burns up 108Mw in Oregon, most electricity in the US is made by burning coal. I had a Baselight-4 here at the lab on eval for two months and it took as much electricity to run as five continuous motion picture processors...

 

 

Computer technology is also made from highly exotic and toxic materials, many petrochemical products and things like berrillyum and arsenic and mercury are in computers, these devices have very short life cycles and the whole computer business model is based on consumptive waste, considering energy costs have more than doubled in the US last year I cannot see how this is sustainable at all...

 

 

Not that film does not have it's environmental problems but it is all organic chemistry and materials (for the most part) and when properly dealt with it leaves no persistent carcinogens in the environment, takes less energy and has a extremely long life cycle, in terms of equipment and material..

 

 

 

I like the Red and Jim's follow through of Jeff Kreines idea, it was bound to happen but I feel sustainability and energy issues are going to intrude on the computer business model far sooner than people realize.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
But I will never agree video can replace film.. Look as good as film. It could be used as an alternative an artistic choice yes. But anything else is plain silly.

What digital (not video) is doing is taking some market share away from film. The thing to watch is the extent to which that reduces the total volume of film being manufactured. As film starts to lose volume, it'll lose economies of scale. That'll drive the price up, in a vicious cycle, reducing the volume even more. There may be a sustainable state if one of the two major players were to drop out and leave the business to the other. Or it may decline to such a low volume that nobody will pay the price. It's sort of like trying to get a car engine to idle as slow as possible. Go a little too far, and it dies.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What digital (not video) is doing is taking some market share away from film. The thing to watch is the extent to which that reduces the total volume of film being manufactured. As film starts to lose volume, it'll lose economies of scale. That'll drive the price up, in a vicious cycle, reducing the volume even more. There may be a sustainable state if one of the two major players were to drop out and leave the business to the other. Or it may decline to such a low volume that nobody will pay the price. It's sort of like trying to get a car engine to idle as slow as possible. Go a little too far, and it dies.

-- J.S.

 

I understand your analogy But I dont think its true that will happen. Many will fall for the line Video is better etc. However when they realize it isnt they go back to film. Many films will be made on video because of the look or because of SFX and there is a place for it But not a replacement for film because the two are so far removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm not sure which way it'll tip. I don't know how to figure out what is the minimum volume of film manufacturing below which it's not economically viable. It's sort of like critical mass for a nuclear reaction, or the stalling speed of an airplane. Only on this one I don't know the equations or what numbers to stick into them. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure which way it'll tip. I don't know how to figure out what is the minimum volume of film manufacturing below which it's not economically viable. It's sort of like critical mass for a nuclear reaction, or the stalling speed of an airplane. Only on this one I don't know the equations or what numbers to stick into them. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

I wouldnt worry to much I think with all the competition in the video world more people will be attracted in. The upshot will be more people demanding film. More students who will see film as an essential need. Perhaps even a return of consumer film cameras being made again. All video will ultimately do in the end is popularise and glamourise film..

The problem video has is. It has to in the end back up its claims and while some of the people can be fooled some of the time. You know the rest.

Edited by Mark Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that RED's second offering would likely be the film slayer. This could be it.

 

 

No digital camera is going to 'slay film' whether it's made by RED or anyone else. It will be digital distribution/projection that finally relegates film to boutique projects only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your analogy But I dont think its true that will happen. Many will fall for the line Video is better etc. However when they realize it isnt they go back to film. Many films will be made on video because of the look or because of SFX and there is a place for it But not a replacement for film because the two are so far removed.

 

In the world of DI I'm not at all sure digital motion imaging (NOT "video' not television's legacy) are so far removed and I suspect that's a gap that will narrow rather quickly.

 

Any time you've seen something that wet through a DI you saw a digital representation of 'reality' - the reality happened to have been a film capture.

 

Who is realizing what here, you speak as if with some supreme authority.

 

 

I'll accept a passionate defense of all-photochemical 'workflow' if you like but that must include the viewing experience too.

 

"Digital" is still in relative infancy and I'd be very reluctant to make long term predictions - if I could do that with a high degree of accuracy I wouldn't be posting this - I'd be online trading trading stocks....

 

...from my yacht...

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the world of DI I'm not at all sure digital motion imaging (NOT "video' not television's legacy) are so far removed and I suspect that's a gap that will narrow rather quickly.

 

Any time you've seen something that wet through a DI you saw a digital representation of 'reality' - the reality happened to have been a film capture.

 

Who is realizing what here, you speak as if with some supreme authority.

 

 

I'll accept a passionate defense of all-photochemical 'workflow' if you like but that must include the viewing experience too.

 

"Digital" is still in relative infancy and I'd be very reluctant to make long term predictions - if I could do that with a high degree of accuracy I wouldn't be posting this - I'd be online trading trading stocks....

 

...from my yacht...

 

-Sam

Yes DI is a different kettle of fish though Im talking here about using film in the camera. As for authority please direct your attention to the numerous posts about film is dead Red will replace film Blah de blah de dah. I for one have had it up to here regarding these predictions when I know full well the difference between film and video is not a gap its a different format. Its like comparing an aston martin to a jet fighter. One flies the other well just doesnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got a yacht? Damnnn....

 

That was "IF" Rob, IF............ IF I could see the future

 

I have a Toyachta Catamarany....

 

Mark, I don't regard "film is dead" posts as speaking from authority....

 

(I don't buy your analogy at all but whatever....)

 

-Sam

 

(doesn't live in Towota)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I agree that film and digital will co-exist for a good time to come, sooner or later to be replaced by holograms and holonovels. . or so I hope.

 

As for still film, it's still around. Nikon did just put out the F6 after all and I have no problems buying/shooting/or archiving anything I do on 1-35. Both film and digital have their benefits, and in some industries those benefits cause that industry to err towards it. news and the like went video, because it fits their needs, motion pictures do either or, but primarily still film, because that suites their needs. I may be young and stupid and naive as hell, but I can't seem to imagine a world where the majority of motion pictures are captured electronically, at least not until well in the future. further, all of the other up-and-comers, the new people just starting, all seem to agree that they want to shoot now and in the future on film. . . I don't know if that means much, really, but at least it shows for the next generation, at least as far as I've interacted with them here in Philly, that film is the medium of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...