RED in Post

[Thomas James]

So what's wrong with a photographer writing their own films ? Everything nowadays seems so specialized and I do not think that this is a good thing.

[Chris Kenny]

So what's wrong with a photographer writing their own films ? Everything nowadays seems so specialized and I do not think that this is a good thing.

 

For some people and some projects, it's exactly the right thing to do.

 

My impression is that a certain contingent in this forum thinks that low-budget indies who do things like this do them because they don't know any better or don't have access to the right specialized talent. For the most part, I think that's not the case. When people wear six different hats on a project, I think they generally know what they're getting into and have some more substantial reason for it.

[Tom Lowe]

Why would you finish at 4K? The only reason I can think of is a 35mm filmout. Even David, who is shooting the biggest Red project around right now, has said he thinks Manure will probably finish at 2K. There actually isn't even a resolution gain over 3K.

 

Any decent, high-end editing computer can handle 2K compressed footage.

 

People get all crazy and huffy about how powerful a computer needs to be to edit HD footage. I remember when you supposedly needed a massive suite to edit Varicam footage. The very next year, guys were editing Varicam footage at their house. Computers are doubling in power every 11 months or so.

[Stephen Williams]

My impression is that a certain contingent in this forum thinks that low-budget indies who do things like this do them because they don't know any better or don't have access to the right specialized talent. For the most part, I think that's not the case. When people wear six different hats on a project, I think they generally know what they're getting into and have some more substantial reason for it.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I don't think thats correct. Stanley Kubrick is a good example of a succesful indie, he tended to wear many hats rather well.

 

My best,

 

Stephen

[John Tissavary]

Even a 2k finish benefits severely from a full 4k debayer. Do a test of each - full vs. standard processing (same in RedCine & Scratch) - the noise characteristics are superior in a full debayer, and that lowers the noise floor for more DR. With build 16 it's slightly less an issue, but it's still a very noticeable difference.

 

I think most who are investing in Scratch see that at the typical $250/hr and up rates, if you have a steady stream of work that needs to be conformed, graded, and processed at a high level it's an investment that can definitely pay off. Add to that the benefit of rapid online conform and you're adding time savings right there. For some setups FCP/Crimson/RedCine is a better choice for financial reasons. But if you wish to have a complete set of grading tools, an efficient and simple (read fast) conform, and the ability to lay off up to 2k in real time to VTR (like HDCAM-SR, for instance), then Scratch is at this time the way to go.

 

Obviously not every individual or production entity is going to benefit from dropping the $$$ - you have to do the math first. But I'd also like to think that most people ready to drop that much money are going to get their calculator finger dirty first.

 

By the way, the system/software costs for Scratch are overestimated in this thread - I know 'cause I've bought the software and built the system. The only way to know how much Scratch really will cost in the end is to speak with a sales rep and put the system together for your needs (its modular).

 

 

cheers,

 

John T.

TRAkTION*

*commercials *music video

*digital post

Los Angeles

http://www.traktionfilms.com

[Arni Heimir]

I think the whole "one man band" this is basically a strawman. There aren't many people trying to single-handedly write a film, direct it, art direct it, photograph it, record sound, edit everything, grade, and maybe distribute the final product all by themselves.

 

The culture clash with the RedUser do-it-yourself crowd is more because certain people here seem be annoyed by the notion that one person or a small production company could shoot, edit and grade entirely using in-house talent and low-cost equipment.

 

What about the singer songwriter? Should vocalists leave lyrics and songs to strictly to professionals?

[Brian Drysdale]

What about the singer songwriter? Should vocalists leave lyrics and songs to strictly to professionals?

 

This is a matter of scale. There is nothing new about film makers making high quality films on their own, you can do it with either film, video or a data camera. Small production companies and one man bands have been around for decades, the earliest films in the 1900s were made by such people.

 

I'm currently re-writing a feature film script through yet another draft, however, if it progresses further I won't be making it on my own, more and more people and organisations will become involved.

 

I suspect many of the people in the forum either currently make or have made films on their own.

[Keith Walters]

What about the singer songwriter? Should vocalists leave lyrics and songs to strictly to professionals?

A singer/songwriter is more the equivalent of an actor who is also a scriptwriter.

Regardless of how good a writer/performer you are you will not get very far without a recording company to back you up.

Similarly, you could be the best actor in the world, with an absolutely terrific script, but without the help of a lot of other talented and experienced people you are never going to produce much more than a Film Festival curiosity.

[Keith Walters]

I think the whole "one man band" this is basically a strawman. There aren't many people trying to single-handedly write a film, direct it, art direct it, photograph it, record sound, edit everything, grade, and maybe distribute the final product all by themselves.

 

The culture clash with the RedUser do-it-yourself crowd is more because certain people here seem be annoyed by the notion that one person or a small production company could shoot, edit and grade entirely using in-house talent and low-cost equipment.

With respect, I rather think you are the one erecting the strawman.

 

To correct your statement somewhat:

 

The culture clash with the RedUser do-it-yourself crowd is more because certain a lot of people here seem to be are annoyed by the notion that by the simple expedient of obtaining a cheap "digital Cinematography" camera, one person or a small production company could will somehow magically be able to shoot, edit and grade entirely using in-house talent and low-cost equipment.

 

If you can't shoot and edit a watchable short film using a cheap handycam and something like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker, then no amount of "Pro" equipment is going to make any difference. There is no back door that you can sneak in by, regardless of what you may have confabulated on certain other forums.

[Brian Drysdale]

A singer/songwriter is more the equivalent of an actor who is also a scriptwriter.

Regardless of how good a writer/performer you are you will not get very far without a recording company to back you up.

Similarly, you could be the best actor in the world, with an absolutely terrific script, but without the help of a lot of other talented and experienced people you are never going to produce much more than a Film Festival curiosity.

 

With the internet there is a means of distribution compared to the more traditional single etc. However, the place where you earn income from your music seems to have shifted more to the live event. Although, I suspect you do still need a range of skills in marketing, management etc., to succeed or a team of people who do have these skills. As in many products, a certain number of man hours are required to manufacture, sell and distribute a piece of music or a film and a limit to time one person can allocate without one element falling off the end.

 

Many film festival curiosities have more than one person making them.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Brian Drysdale

[Peter Moretti]

... If you can't shoot and edit a watchable short film using a cheap handycam and something like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker, then no amount of "Pro" equipment is going to make any difference. There is no back door that you can sneak in by, regardless of what you may have confabulated on certain other forums.

So you are saying a single person should be able to: write, cast, direct, shoot and cut a watchable short using a handycam with amature talent and iMovie/Windows Moive Maker? Every now and then, yes.

 

But lets be honest, specialization exists for a reason. I'm sure there are many fine DPs out there who can't direct or use FCP/Avid or write a screenplay. Spielberg's DP Michael Kahn use a Moviola. If he can't use Windows Movie Maker, are his three Academy Awards are undeserved?

Edited July 14, 2008 by Peter Moretti

[Keith Walters]

So you are saying a single person should be able to: write, cast, direct, shoot and cut a watchable short using a handycam with amature talent and iMovie/Windows Moive Maker? Every now and then, yes.

 

But lets be honest, specialization exists for a reason. I'm sure there are many fine DPs out there who can't direct or use FCP/Avid or write a screenplay. Spielberg's DP Michael Kahn use a Moviola. If he can't use Windows Movie Maker, are his three Academy Awards are undeserved?

No, I said that if you are starting out with expectations of becoming a film maker, and you can't even do that much, then maybe you shouldn't bother. OK maybe you don't have access to expensive cameras, lenses or film, but you still should be able to demonstrate competence with the equipment that IS available to you, and let's face it, any PC owner now has access to production tools and technology that even most TV stations didn't have 20 years ago.

All I am saying is, you can do an awful lot for next to no cost these days, all you need is talent. If you don't have talent, you can't buy it on eBay.

[Stephen Williams]

All I am saying is, you can do an awful lot for next to no cost these days, all you need is talent. If you don't have talent, you can't buy it on eBay.

 

Hi,

 

I thought the whole point of buying a Red was you don't need experiance or talent, anything that is missing from the camera today will come in a firmware upgrade tomorrow. ;)

 

Stephen

[Brian Langeman]

You're right. That's exactly what RED has been telling us the whole time.

[Arni Heimir]

A singer/songwriter is more the equivalent of an actor who is also a scriptwriter.

Regardless of how good a writer/performer you are you will not get very far without a recording company to back you up.

Similarly, you could be the best actor in the world, with an absolutely terrific script, but without the help of a lot of other talented and experienced people you are never going to produce much more than a Film Festival curiosity.

 

I understand that we live in the real world and there are loads of people who wish they could make a living out of their art. But a lot of people start out with no experience and get discovered. Essientially RED is todays DV. And I saw a couple of very interesting movies shot on DV in the late nineties.

 

But Keith, why are you so concered that people are making movies with entry level equipment and by themselves? Aren't emerging filmmakers a good thing?

 

I have noticed one thing in this forum. Cinematographers are very leary about directors acting as their own DP. I get that sense that for many of you that it is at par with a midwife delivering her own baby.

 

Although on contrary to Adam Smith theory on specialization, I see nothing wrong with a filmmaker who shoots, edits, grades their own pictures. The equipment in question has become so user friendly and cost effective in recent years that it has become a possibility for a lot of people.

 

and regarding "but without the help of a lot of other talented and experienced people you are never going to produce much more than a Film Festival curiosity."

 

Isn't that how Vin Disel and the Coen brothers started out. Making movies on the cheap with their credit cards?

 

Maybe the next "Blood Simple" will be shot on RED and edited on FCP.

[Brian Drysdale]

I understand that we live in the real world and there are loads of people who wish they could make a living out of their art. But a lot of people start out with no experience and get discovered. Essientially RED is todays DV. And I saw a couple of very interesting movies shot on DV in the late nineties.

 

But Keith, why are you so concered that people are making movies with entry level equipment and by themselves? Aren't emerging filmmakers a good thing?

 

I have noticed one thing in this forum. Cinematographers are very leary about directors acting as their own DP. I get that sense that for many of you that it is at par with a midwife delivering her own baby.

 

Although on contrary to Adam Smith theory on specialization, I see nothing wrong with a filmmaker who shoots, edits, grades their own pictures. The equipment in question has become so user friendly and cost effective in recent years that it has become a possibility for a lot of people.

 

and regarding "but without the help of a lot of other talented and experienced people you are never going to produce much more than a Film Festival curiosity."

 

Isn't that how Vin Disel and the Coen brothers started out. Making movies on the cheap with their credit cards?

 

Maybe the next "Blood Simple" will be shot on RED and edited on FCP.

 

 

I think you're confusing the tools with making good films. People have always made films have with small crews, or even doing the shooting themselves, so I wouldn't connect RED with that ability.

 

Unfortunately there were a large number of poor films also made on DV. The RED ONE is a lot more expensive an a DV camera, perhaps the Scarlet might be closer to the DV budget, although the EX1 and EX3 also offer great options to the low budget film maker. Not forgetting the range of HDV cameras ("Once" was shot with a Z1).

 

Currently the rates that REDs are going out for seem closer to Varicams and F900s than a Sony PD150.

[Peter Moretti]

No, I said that if you are starting out with expectations of becoming a film maker, and you can't even do that much, then maybe you shouldn't bother. OK maybe you don't have access to expensive cameras, lenses or film, but you still should be able to demonstrate competence with the equipment that IS available to you, and let's face it, any PC owner now has access to production tools and technology that even most TV stations didn't have 20 years ago.

All I am saying is, you can do an awful lot for next to no cost these days, all you need is talent. If you don't have talent, you can't buy it on eBay.

If you are saying that the camera, or whatever piece of equipment, doesn't give some talent; of course I agree. But the back and forth in this thread has largely been about are people are biting off more than they can chew when they plan on wearing a lot of hats? And does the Red play into that psychology by offering a 3+K image at cut rate price (relative to other cameras)?

 

All I'm saying is some people may be very good at one thing and not at others. It takes special talent to be a producer, editor, director, dp and so on. But they are not really the same talent. I know a girl who is a wizard at editing, but try to get her to plan a shoot or talk to actors and she withers. But there is a place for her in filmmaking--and using your logic she should go into another field. I've also met directors who still don't know the difference between HDV and HD. You think such directors can edit in... anything? You'd have better luck having the chimp house in the San Diego Zoo pound out Shakespeare.

 

Some people can wear a lot hats and succeed. But those who only excel at one thing can also do very well.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Peter Moretti

[Chris Kenny]

If you can't shoot and edit a watchable short film using a cheap handycam and something like iMovie or Windows Movie Maker, then no amount of "Pro" equipment is going to make any difference. There is no back door that you can sneak in by, regardless of what you may have confabulated on certain other forums.

 

I'm the one creating the strawman? The issue we're discussing is not whether high-end equipment substitutes for talent, because nobody believes that. The issue is whether self-taught individual filmmakers (or small teams) can develop the skills and acquire the equipment necessary to finish projects at high quality, or whether this is an industry where quality output can only be had if one involves a large number of narrow specialists and has access to extremely expensive equipment.

[Keith Walters]

I'm the one creating the strawman?

Yes.

 

You said:

"The culture clash with the RedUser do-it-yourself crowd is more because certain people here seem be annoyed by the notion that one person or a small production company could shoot, edit and grade entirely using in-house talent and low-cost equipment."

 

And that is a misrepresentation of the supposedly "anti RED" viewpoints often expressed here, and constitutes the strawman. Nobody is annoyed by "the notion that one person or a small production company could shoot, edit and grade entirely using in-house talent and low-cost equipment".

 

What they do tend to be annoyed about is the notion that it can be done with no talent or experience, as long as you have access to high quality equipment. And a lot of people DO believe that. That is what annoys us. Not the thought that they could do it, but the fact that they are so convinced they could do it, when they clearly have no experience whatever.

 

"The issue is whether self-taught individual filmmakers (or small teams) can develop the skills and acquire the equipment necessary to finish projects at high quality, or whether this is an industry where quality output can only be had if one involves a large number of narrow specialists and has access to extremely expensive equipment."

 

And as I said, if you really have talent, you should be able to produce something watchable with only very low-cost equipment, because today's entry-level technology is yesterday's broadcast quality. There are enormous numbers of TV programs that were made with what would today be regarded as laughably primitive equipment, and plenty of them are still being shown on cable, and sometimes even broadcast TV!

[Keith Walters]

Hi,

 

I thought the whole point of buying a Red was you don't need experiance or talent, anything that is missing from the camera today will come in a firmware upgrade tomorrow. ;)

 

Stephen

Yes, but Sony bought up the patents for that technology and is now suppressing it :lol:

I know it doesn't make sense, conspiracy theories never do, which only deepens the veracity for some people. <_<

[Chris Kenny]

And that is a misrepresentation of the supposedly "anti RED" viewpoints often expressed here, and constitutes the strawman. Nobody is annoyed by "the notion that one person or a small production company could shoot, edit and grade entirely using in-house talent and low-cost equipment".

 

What they do tend to be annoyed about is the notion that it can be done with no talent or experience, as long as you have access to high quality equipment. And a lot of people DO believe that. That is what annoys us. Not the thought that they could do it, but the fact that they are so convinced they could do it, when they clearly have no experience whatever.

 

That's rather revisionist. Over the last couple of years here I've been told, among other things, that it's impossible to shoot anything worthwhile with photo lenses, that a serious Final Cut editing suite costs $30K+, that color grading can't be done seriously without an expensive control surface, purpose-built room and high-end grading monitor, that a Red package plus post tools costs upwards of $80K, that compression is not "OK", and that the non-technical aspects of filmmaking (cast, locations, etc.) are inherently so expensive that bringing down the cost of the technical aspects doesn't matter at all.

 

The "You won't be able to afford to make proper use of your Red because achieving quality results involves so many other costs" argument is quite common here.

 

As for the notion that a lot of people believe high quality equipment will magically enable them to produce high quality results without having any talent... it's nonsense. What a fair number of people do believe, I think, is that with full-time access to high-quality tools, and an ability to use those tools heavily without much incremental cost (i.e. no film stock or lab processing costs if you shoot two hours of tests with your Red every day), a sufficiently motivated individual can learn to use those tools very effectively. And this is spot on. Someone who owns a Red and has full-time access to it can gain experience much faster than someone who only comes into contact with professional equipment when they can land work on other people's sets and even then probably doesn't come into very close contact.

[Phil Rhodes]

And you can learn all that stuff with a DVX-100 then go and rent something decent (and not have to deal with the Jim Jannard Ego Effect) when you need it.

 

Nothing changes.

 

P

[Michael Most]

As for the notion that a lot of people believe high quality equipment will magically enable them to produce high quality results without having any talent... it's nonsense. What a fair number of people do believe, I think, is that with full-time access to high-quality tools, and an ability to use those tools heavily without much incremental cost (i.e. no film stock or lab processing costs if you shoot two hours of tests with your Red every day), a sufficiently motivated individual can learn to use those tools very effectively.

 

No, I think that's what YOU believe. I would say that an awful lot of people really do believe it only requires equipment, just like a lot of people believe buying Final Cut makes you a professional editor, buying After Effects makes you a crack visual effects artist, and buying Final Draft makes you a master screenwriter, all regardless of age, knowledge, or experience.

 

Oh, and by the way, all of that stuff should be free.

[Brian Drysdale]

As for the notion that a lot of people believe high quality equipment will magically enable them to produce high quality results without having any talent... it's nonsense. What a fair number of people do believe, I think, is that with full-time access to high-quality tools, and an ability to use those tools heavily without much incremental cost (i.e. no film stock or lab processing costs if you shoot two hours of tests with your Red every day), a sufficiently motivated individual can learn to use those tools very effectively. And this is spot on. Someone who owns a Red and has full-time access to it can gain experience much faster than someone who only comes into contact with professional equipment when they can land work on other people's sets and even then probably doesn't come into very close contact.

 

The rental companies allow you to practise and shoot tests with camera kit on their premises for nothing. Owning a camera is one thing, but you still need to build up to using larger lighting rigs. At a certain point the camera is not that expensive compared to the rest of the kit you'll need in order to progress. A lot of the work is actually dealing with people whilst under pressure, not using the camera.

 

You can learn amazing amounts just by watching a top DP and their crew in action because the camera itself is only a small part of the operation.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'd add that most cameras basic functions can be grasped rather quickly. Limitations of each camera and the like can come out through some testing. What's most important is developing your "eye" in broader senses (camera ambiguous, almost) as well as the interpersonal skills to help keep things rolling, and as mentioned, the knowledge of the other-than-camera equipment (lights/lenses/filters/post processes etc.)

But, I could be dead wrong on all of this, and would add, it's my own opinion.