So Panavision underbid REDs, should I be offended?

[Tenolian Bell]

2. Those declaring that Blu-Ray is a dead-end are judging by a standard that has no relationship to reality. It took DVD six or seven years to pass VHS, and that's considered one of the most successful consumer format adoptions in history. It's way too early to say Blu-Ray is a failure. And if it ultimately is, it won't be because people will stay with SD DVD forever. It'll be because people transition to digital downloads, many of which will be HD.

 

I haven't seen anyone declare Blu-ray dead. But its window is for success is short and is quickly closing. In the long run the continued use of DVD does severely hurt Blu-ray. The far majority of people are not buying Blu-ray players with their flat screen HD television. Alternative options for HD content are growing. Becoming easier and cheaper to access.

 

3. Obviously anyone who thinks their movie is going to be a success because just they shot it with a certain camera isn't thinking too clearly. But this is not the same thing as saying that acquisition format doesn't matter. If you're trying to shoot a movie that might actually get distributed, and it doesn't hold up on the big screen or at least at 1080p (which, remember, is at least as much resolution as a typical theatrical release print), you're not even in the game (unless there are some uncommon extenuating circumstances).

 

A movie shot on Pixelvision starring Brad Pitt has an infinitely better chance at distribution than a movie shot on 65mm without any known star actors.

[Max Jacoby]

Gunleik,

 

What exactly did you offer in your package? Just the camera, or also accessories and lenses? What I'd like to know is that could they have gotten everything from you, or would they have to go to a rental house to fill out the package?

[Keith Walters]

Hi,

 

But it's allowed on REDUSER, where very little criticism is tolerated.

I think Jim is beginning to become just a little bit impatient with some the Fanboy's demands :lol:

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=35...p;postcount=116

 

The "I want, I want" is really frustrating when we are delivering so much, so fast, for so little. We bend over backwards for our customers. We are developing at a rapid pace when others are closing the doors or shutting off development dollars.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about when you ask for a Monstro sensor in an S35 package today. The insult is when people infer that we are holding back something. All I can say is that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when you post this stuff.

 

If there is something in our program that you can afford and figure out how to use... wonderful. But please direct your uneducated and unreasonable requests to 1-800-SONYUSA.

 

Have a great Holiday Season.

 

Jim

 

He has certainly accelerated the rate of progress.

It took me about 15 years before I got to the point of telling people they "wouldn't know their arse from a hole in the ground", it's apparently taken him only three!

Maybe in five years or so he'll begin to appreciate (or at least understand) people like Phil Rhodes :lol:

[John Mastrogiacomo]

A movie shot on Pixelvision starring Brad Pitt has an infinitely better chance at distribution than a movie shot on 65mm without any known star actors.

 

 

Unfortunately, you are wrong. For a movie to get distributed, it has to past very strict quality control. Believe me, I've been through it fixing up a lot of independent movies. I have also seen low budget movies with no name actors that I have QCed get distribution.

 

Also, I own a Pixelvision camera and know exactly what the quality is like. I have also shot a lot of 35mm (no 65mm though) so I know the difference very well. .:rolleyes:

[Chris Kenny]

holding up on the big screen is relative though-- Iraq in Fragments, a Documentary was shot on the DVX and projected. There's also Inland Empire (or Island Empire, I get it confused) off of the PD-170. These are somewhat isolated cases, I know, but it also shows it's a marriage between concept approach talent and format which act as a litmus as to whether something holds up on any screen.

 

Sure. There are some movies which, conceptually, work just fine (or even benefit from) being shot on a format that doesn't quite meet the quality standards of most commercially released features. But major distributors are never going to have an appetite for more than a couple of them a year, and a lot of filmmakers are going to be interested in pursuing concepts which don't happen to work well that way.

 

I haven't seen anyone declare Blu-ray dead. But its window is for success is short and is quickly closing. In the long run the continued use of DVD does severely hurt Blu-ray. The far majority of people are not buying Blu-ray players with their flat screen HD television. Alternative options for HD content are growing. Becoming easier and cheaper to access.

 

I think (at least in the developed world) we're going SD DVD fade away in favor of some mix of Blu-ray and online distribution in about the same time frame it took DVD to overtake VHS, meaning DVD will be overtaken perhaps around 2013. Exactly what mix of Blu-ray vs. online we see is going to depend on a bunch of factors, and will probably vary from region to region based on the local quality of consumer Internet infrastructure.

 

But either way, my point is basically that, whether via Blu-ray or online distribution, people are going to be watching most content that was acquired in HD (or on film) in HD in four or five years. Distributors mostly know this. If you're shooting in a format that doesn't hold up all that well at 1080p, that is going to have a real impact on the commercial success of your project.

 

A movie shot on Pixelvision starring Brad Pitt has an infinitely better chance at distribution than a movie shot on 65mm without any known star actors.

 

Pixelvision might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I take your point. Thing is, any talent big enough to substantially increase the odds of commercial success for a film is going to cost far, far more than the price difference between (say) shooting on an HVX and shooting on a Red One. So at least until you reach the level of the Red One (virtually everything below it is badly compromised in terms of compression format and/or resolution), spending more on camera does seem to be a worthwhile investment.

[John Sprung]

Exactly what mix of Blu-ray vs. online we see is going to depend on a bunch of factors, and will probably vary from region to region based on the local quality of consumer Internet infrastructure.

Given how long it takes to download reasonable quality HD, I'd expect to see Blu-Ray be very successful as a feature film delivery medium. Short stuff like trailers and music videos may be a bigger proportion of the content we get from the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

The deliverables have to meet quality control standards, that says nothing of how the material was acquired. Nor does it mean you have to have badly shot Pixelvision.

 

The Bliar Witch was shot on a CP-16 and Hi-8.

 

 

Unfortunately, you are wrong. For a movie to get distributed, it has to past very strict quality control. Believe me, I've been through it fixing up a lot of independent movies. I have also seen low budget movies with no name actors that I have QCed get distribution.

 

Also, I own a Pixelvision camera and know exactly what the quality is like. I have also shot a lot of 35mm (no 65mm though) so I know the difference very well. .:rolleyes:

[Tenolian Bell]

Sure. There are some movies which, conceptually, work just fine (or even benefit from) being shot on a format that doesn't quite meet the quality standards of most commercially released features. But major distributors are never going to have an appetite for more than a couple of them a year, and a lot of filmmakers are going to be interested in pursuing concepts which don't happen to work well that way.

 

I remember 8 years ago arguing with people that miniDV was not a viable replacement for 35mm.

 

 

I think (at least in the developed world) we're going SD DVD fade away in favor of some mix of Blu-ray and online distribution in about the same time frame it took DVD to overtake VHS, meaning DVD will be overtaken perhaps around 2013. Exactly what mix of Blu-ray vs. online we see is going to depend on a bunch of factors, and will probably vary from region to region based on the local quality of consumer Internet infrastructure.

 

But either way, my point is basically that, whether via Blu-ray or online distribution, people are going to be watching most content that was acquired in HD (or on film) in HD in four or five years. Distributors mostly know this. If you're shooting in a format that doesn't hold up all that well at 1080p, that is going to have a real impact on the commercial success of your project.

 

Anecdotally, from my perspective DVD was adopted fairly quickly. I remember first seeing DVD players in electronics stores in 1998, but they were expensive. In 1999 Apple began including DVD players in Macs. By 2000 DVD players had gotten down to around $200 - $300. That's when they took off, and many people began to buy them. Apple began including DVD burners in Macs in 2001. I cannot remember seeing VHS commonly used after that.

 

Blu-ray players first appeared in stores in 2006. Their has been a format war that stymied adoption for the past 2 years. After the war was over Blu-ray adoption has not really increased in any significant way. Apple does not offer Blu-ray players in Macs at all.

 

 

 

Pixelvision might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I take your point. Thing is, any talent big enough to substantially increase the odds of commercial success for a film is going to cost far, far more than the price difference between (say) shooting on an HVX and shooting on a Red One. So at least until you reach the level of the Red One (virtually everything below it is badly compromised in terms of compression format and/or resolution), spending more on camera does seem to be a worthwhile investment.

 

 

Yes pixelvision is a bit of an exaggeration. But I was using it to illustrate the point that the optimum word in the phrase show business is "business". Executives and distributors are going to pick the movie they feel will make the most money. Its important for the independent filmmaker to understand the gatekeepers don't care as much about acquisition formats.

[Tenolian Bell]

Well you have to take a few things into consideration. For one technology does not stand still. The internet is going to get faster, codecs are getting better at delivering better quality at lower bit rates. iTunes is able to deliver decent 720P downloads in a couple of hours. Hulu can deliver real time 720P steaming, with Joost, YouTube and other following suit.

 

Broadcast and Cable HD is becoming more common. You can record 1080i broadcast on your DVR. Cable companies are beginning to offer 1080i HD video on demand. So their are a growing number of options for HD content.

 

People who are 25 and younger are growing up in a media downloading culture. While people who are 35 and older have grown up with physical media. When the 25 and younger become 35 and older they won't have any attachment to physical media they will be used to downloading and streaming.

 

Given how long it takes to download reasonable quality HD, I'd expect to see Blu-Ray be very successful as a feature film delivery medium. Short stuff like trailers and music videos may be a bigger proportion of the content we get from the internet.

 

-- J.S.

[Jaron Berman]

Gunleik,

 

What exactly did you offer in your package? Just the camera, or also accessories and lenses? What I'd like to know is that could they have gotten everything from you, or would they have to go to a rental house to fill out the package?

 

Yes, back to the subject at hand - what exactly was underbid?

 

This drummed-up RED vs. the world competition is a bit ridiculous and if the original poster's situation is real then it just proves that the competition exists only in redusers' heads. These members like to do thought experiments about RED being better than Genesis or F900 or Arri loaded with such and such stock...etc..., thinking that companies like Panavision will roll over and die once they realize RED's "superiority". But as mentioned hundreds of times before here and elsewhere, RED is a tool and a choice among many. And Panavision isn't a dealer - you can't walk in and buy a Genesis, nor would you want to. The idea of Panavision and all brick and mortar camera houses is to provide a COMPLETE service. They rent cameras and production support, and most don't force a self-described "DIT" on you when you do rent from them. They require insurance because they have no personal or emotional attachment to their equipment. And that is a VERY important thing. Panavision has a HUGE inventory and they could care less which of their products you rent. They aim to develop long-term relationships, sometimes giving massive discounts to earn your business and trust. And if something goes wrong - something breaks or a camera goes down, they have the support to get you a tech on set, help over the phone, or an entirely new camera package at the drop of a hat. This is what you get with a camera house.

 

It's ironic that RED owner-operators are now getting upset that camera houses are cutting into "their" business. When this whole RED "revolution" started, the idea was to stick it to the big guys, to democratize filmmaking, to sidestep rental houses and studios. The fallacy was that RED was different, that it would hold value better than varicams or F900's..RED was a movement not a product.... But in the end now that camera production has caught up, it turns out RED is just another camera. It's got a lot of great qualities, but it is a camera like many others. For those RED owners who have solid business models based on their own production, Panavision's rates won't matter a bit.

 

It's once again all about service now that things have normalized. If Panavision et. al. can offer a better service, they win. If you offer a better service, you win.

[Keith Walters]

Hulu can deliver real time 720P steaming...

I know it's a typo but ... many a true word has been spoken by typo :lol:

[Matt Workman]

Panavision has a HUGE inventory and they could care less which of their products you rent. They aim to develop long-term relationships, sometimes giving massive discounts to earn your business and trust. And if something goes wrong - something breaks or a camera goes down, they have the support to get you a tech on set, help over the phone, or an entirely new camera package at the drop of a hat. This is what you get with a camera house.

 

I agree with Jaron. Are you still banned at REDuser? :P

[Sing Howe Yam]

This is very true. I just got done DPing a feature in Wilmington, NC. I rented the camera from a friend of mine that has his own because he gave us an awesome deal. But the fear is what Jaron was talking about, if that RED went down one day we would have to stop shooting and go to the local camera house and fork out the money for a full priced daily rental, or worse, shut the production down for the day. If the production had the money I would have rather gone with the local rental house in Wilmington to get the full support and the backup cam if things were to go wrong. Thank god though nothing went wrong because the production would of been in a predicament.

 

I had to go the cheaper route because of budget but when I do get on shoots that have the budget I go with the camera house. In the long run it is worth it because on set time is money and when a independently owned camera goes down I bet there isn't the greatest options laying in front of you.

 

It is just another camera, I couldn't see the Dark Knight being a shoot for the RED. This whole HD will destroy film is crazy, it's like the choice between oil paint and acrylic paint. You choose them accordingly to every project.

 

Just my two cents, hope I'm not going to get any angry poster coming after me.

 

Enjoy the holidays!

[Chris Gloag]

I think Jim is beginning to become just a little bit impatient with some the Fanboy's demands :lol:

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=35...p;postcount=116

 

The "I want, I want" is really frustrating when we are delivering so much, so fast, for so little. We bend over backwards for our customers. We are developing at a rapid pace when others are closing the doors or shutting off development dollars.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about when you ask for a Monstro sensor in an S35 package today. The insult is when people infer that we are holding back something. All I can say is that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when you post this stuff.

 

If there is something in our program that you can afford and figure out how to use... wonderful. But please direct your uneducated and unreasonable requests to 1-800-SONYUSA.

 

Have a great Holiday Season.

 

Jim

 

He has certainly accelerated the rate of progress.

It took me about 15 years before I got to the point of telling people they "wouldn't know their arse from a hole in the ground", it's apparently taken him only three!

Maybe in five years or so he'll begin to appreciate (or at least understand) people like Phil Rhodes :lol:

I disagree. No crowd, no sales. No Red.

[Michel Hafner]

I couldn't see the Dark Knight being a shoot for the RED.

Maybe no the current model. But the coming models are what Nolan looks for. He could not shoot all in IMAX because of the noisy and unwieldy cameras (among other things). Imagine a Red 2 with 9K sensors and more dynamic range and he can shoot all of this film with better resolution than 35mm approaching an IMAX look and no need for any DRM filtering tricks if he shoots some IMAX as well.

[Jaron Berman]

Maybe no the current model. But the coming models are what Nolan looks for. He could not shoot all in IMAX because of the noisy and unwieldy cameras (among other things). Imagine a Red 2 with 9K sensors and more dynamic range and he can shoot all of this film with better resolution than 35mm approaching an IMAX look and no need for any DRM filtering tricks if he shoots some IMAX as well.

 

Actually that's not true. I dislike speaking for someone else, but at the SOC screening in LA when asked about not shooting the whole movie in IMAX, Wally Pfister replied (and I'll paraphrase), "we didn't know the film would do so well. If we could show these box office numbers to the producers they may have allowed us to shoot entirely in IMAX. The extra $10 million doesn't seem like so much now."

 

The message being, the usage of 35mm for the majority of the film was a budgetary decision. Granted there are other hurdles with IMAX, but according to his answers in the Q&A that followed the screening, IMAX was a "bonus" as opposed to a primary acquisition format because of budget.

 

 

Matt, hope you're well! I haven't been back to REDUSER since that online fiasco. Not sure if they are still posting under my name? Happy holidays by the way!

[Bob Hayes]

It used to take a lot of skilled craftsman to make a bad film. Now anyone can make a bad film.

[Patrizio De Sica]

I think Jim is beginning to become just a little bit impatient with some the Fanboy's demands :lol:

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=35...p;postcount=116

 

The "I want, I want" is really frustrating when we are delivering so much, so fast, for so little. We bend over backwards for our customers. We are developing at a rapid pace when others are closing the doors or shutting off development dollars.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about when you ask for a Monstro sensor in an S35 package today. The insult is when people infer that we are holding back something. All I can say is that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when you post this stuff.

 

If there is something in our program that you can afford and figure out how to use... wonderful. But please direct your uneducated and unreasonable requests to 1-800-SONYUSA.

 

Have a great Holiday Season.

 

Jim

 

He has certainly accelerated the rate of progress.

It took me about 15 years before I got to the point of telling people they "wouldn't know their arse from a hole in the ground", it's apparently taken him only three!

Maybe in five years or so he'll begin to appreciate (or at least understand) people like Phil Rhodes :lol:

 

I thought the whole gang had been banned no? :lol: :P

[Brad Grimmett]

A movie shot on Pixelvision starring Brad Pitt has an infinitely better chance at distribution than a movie shot on 65mm without any known star actors.

 

 

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

Oh no, he's 100% right. And why unfortunately?

For a movie to get distributed, it has to past very strict quality control.

Who is doing this quality control? And for what purpose? Every single distributor in the world would want a movie with Brad Pitt in it. They could care less about quality if they know they're going to make money. Many many many movies shot on cameras like the XL1 (and worse) have gotten distribution (both theatrical and video).

[Chris Kenny]

Oh no, he's 100% right. And why unfortunately?

 

Who is doing this quality control? And for what purpose? Every single distributor in the world would want a movie with Brad Pitt in it. They could care less about quality if they know they're going to make money. Many many many movies shot on cameras like the XL1 (and worse) have gotten distribution (both theatrical and video).

 

If you're sticking to strictly theatrical releases, I wouldn't characterize "many many many" as accurate. And the standards for getting non-theatrical distribution are changing as a result of consumer HD formats, so pervious success in that arena doesn't necessarily mean anything, looking ahead.

 

Anyway, the hypothetical is useless. The fact that a movie featuring Brad Pitt will sell almost regardless of any other factor is completely irrelevant to most low-budget filmmakers, who have no realistic possibility of attaching A-list talent to their projects. In other words, whether or not shooting format has a substantial impact on the commercial possibilities for the latest Brad Pitt vehicle says absolutely nothing about whether or not it has a substantial impact on the commercial possibilities of a low-budget film featuring unknown or lesser-known talent.

[Tenolian Bell]

This isn't hypothetical. We already know their is little chance for a movie to be a commercial success without a known star. This is the way it already works. These facts are not irrelevent to most low budget filmmakers because their movies have little to no chance of seeing significantly wide distribution without a known star.

 

The acquisition format can add production value and a professional polish that can help give it some degree of marketability. But over all the format a movie was shot on has its limits of importance. People are not going to see a movie because of what camera it was shot on. The actors playing in a movie have a far greater influence over its commercial viability and success. At times this is also true of directors and producers who have reputations for making certain types of films and an audience who follows their work.

 

 

Anyway, the hypothetical is useless. The fact that a movie featuring Brad Pitt will sell almost regardless of any other factor is completely irrelevant to most low-budget filmmakers, who have no realistic possibility of attaching A-list talent to their projects. In other words, whether or not shooting format has a substantial impact on the commercial possibilities for the latest Brad Pitt vehicle says absolutely nothing about whether or not it has a substantial impact on the commercial possibilities of a low-budget film featuring unknown or lesser-known talent.

[Chris Kenny]

These facts are not irrelevent to most low budget filmmakers because their movies have little to no chance of seeing significantly wide distribution without a known star.

 

They're irrelevant to most low-budget filmmakers because regardless of how useful it would be for them to attach a known star, they have no realistic chance of doing so.

[Brad Grimmett]

If you're sticking to strictly theatrical releases, I wouldn't characterize "many many many" as accurate.

I wasn't sticking to just theatrical, which I clearly stated in my previous post.

And the standards for getting non-theatrical distribution are changing as a result of consumer HD formats, so pervious success in that arena doesn't necessarily mean anything, looking ahead.

Sure it means something! Distributors released movies that were shot on all kinds of consumer formats previous to any consumer HD being available. The fact that HD is now available to more people makes their chances of getting distribution (based solely on format) better.

Anyway, the hypothetical is useless.

Wasn't it you who made the hypothetical to begin with?

[Tenolian Bell]

Their is no special consideration for low budget filmmaking. Its not as though its done in some vacuum in of itself. When a distributor picks up a film, that film is in direct competition with every other film that is available at the time. The low budget film has to compete directly against films with known stars. Its not very likely the low budget film will receive any significant attention against the larger films with known stars. Which is why distributors want movies with known stars.

 

On the other hand if one makes a feature film that receives no distribution, what ends up being the purpose of making that film in the first place.

 

They're irrelevant to most low-budget filmmakers because regardless of how useful it would be for them to attach a known star, they have no realistic chance of doing so.

[Chris Kenny]

Sure it means something! Distributors released movies that were shot on all kinds of consumer formats previous to any consumer HD being available. The fact that HD is now available to more people makes their chances of getting distribution (based solely on format) better.

 

You appear to have missed my point. My point is that HD distribution raises the bar for quality. Your image quality is now a liability if your footage won't hold up at 1080p, whereas previously for non-theatrical distribution, your footage only needed to hold up at 480p. And the move to HD generally in the consumer viewing market has put more emphasis on image quality -- it's now more of a selling point than it used to be. So, the fact that distributors previously bought all sorts of stuff shot on lower-end formats doesn't demonstrate that image quality isn't a significant factor in the current market.

 

Wasn't it you who made the hypothetical to begin with?

 

As it happens, no. That was Tenolian, with his comment that "A movie shot on Pixelvision starring Brad Pitt has an infinitely better chance at distribution than a movie shot on 65mm without any known star actors."

 

My point here is that while this may be true (well, if one looks past the hyperbole), it's completely irrelevant to the subject of whether shooting on a higher end format makes your movie more likely to get distributed. It's only relevant to a situation where you have to choose between shooting a film with no-name actors on a Red and shooting a film with Brad Pitt on a DVX, and I'm not aware of anyone having ever been in a situation where they had to make that choice.