Matthew W. Phillips

Thanks Jim, finally I got your attention for once. My hypothesis was correct in thinking that you would not leave these boards afterall. I had previously asked you a question in another thread and I dont think it was ever answered. I was utmost sincere when I asked it and I still am. I will rephrase how I asked it before... Is RED a good value for the filmmaker who can only afford to shoot on 16mm? When I ask this, I mean total workflow and everything. Would the cost be reasonable considering shooting till editing on a computer? For instance, if I want to make a 90 minute feature, would the RED be a better cost/ value tradeoff than 16mm film? I mean this question with all sincerity. And I dont consider a fire sale of the RED after production as a true indicator of value. Afterall, you have to come up with money initially to fund a project. As far as my remark about him never having it in his hands, it is because I think as the project goes on, demand will increase such that he wont get one. Also, I feel that the price will go up as interest increases. A good thing never lasts for us poor folks, you can count on that. And I am assuming this will be a good thing. But if it is, there will be a catch.

Not a bad roll indeed. What method of transfer did you use? Also, wanted to say that the zoom in there was one of the fastest zooms I've ever saw! Nice color though. Also, someone on this site had posted this url before for comparison of Vision2 200t vs. 16 vs. S16 vs. DVX100. Here it is: http://www.philrosefilms.com/kodakfilmdemo.html

You're in UK right? That explains this statement...otherwise, S8 is considerably cheaper than 16mm, especially for large projects.

I wouldnt get my hopes up of having it in your hands.

I got the bright idea to build my own Super 8 projector from scratch and I want it to be capable of single frame projection for scanning. I have a ridiculous looking functional model that can now project single frames but cant sync and has no shutter. Is this a foolish venture? The images look pretty good bounced off of a black television screen. Anyone else try crazy stuff like this?

What about Standard 8mm and Super Duper 8? Heck, let's bring back the 17.5mm also! Hell, I think someone should invent a method of pulling the film through that doesnt take precious space from our 8mm stock so we can use the full surface. Ok, that was my soapbox for the day.

It's actually not four times when you are talking about regular 16mm. This is because 16mm originally had double perfs and has room for a soundtrack. To clarify, Super 8 frame size is 5.5mm x 4mm (22mm area) 16mm has frame size of 10.26mm x 7.49mm (76.85mm area) So, about 3.5 times the area. :P

On the video for IBC, a rep did indeed say that RED was holding detail with a light 15 stops hotter than the subject without blow out. I am extremely skeptical of that.

Later, you wont be missed...sorry if I am jerky but I don't think it is a huge deal to give your real name.

Comeon guys, get off of Max Jacoby's back. I can never understand anything that Manny says. No one is insulting him, but comeon...don't act all pious and start throwing out accusations about people being racist. I would bet most anything that many, if not all, of you have insulted fast food workers or others who do not speak good English. Don't be a hypocrite or someone may call you on it one day.

I'm not a person who would never consider using a video camera. I just think it is foolish for REDs site to tell people to quit shooting on 35mm now. The camera isn't even built yet and I'm supposed to put my life on hold and shaft film until Jim feels like releasing his super camera. That is a ridiculous notion and, quite frankly, a stupid marketing line. Maybe if the camera was available for sale now it might be ok, but comeon man. Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this camera is any better of a value than shooting on S16. S16 is easily 2k and the price is considerably cheaper than this camera with a decent lense. The camera + the $10k lense + hard drive = almost 30k. For that, I could shoot 16mm for days. The quality difference between s16 and RED would not be worth the extra money and workflow hassle IMHO.

Yeah, I been there too...

What an idiot...I want to come back in five years and ask what all those "film is dead" people what they think when film is still the origination medium on over 50% of all narrative productions.

Yeah, that would be me. :(

Okay, I stand corrected...I totally overlooked the fire sale idea. However, most people I know might have trouble procuring that much cash initially for gear even if they know they are going to get back a significant portion. And you're right about the great feeling of shooting on film. I think shooting on Super 8 is more exciting than shooting HD. Of course I am referring to low level HD like HVX200, etc. I wouldn't mind trying a shoot on a Genesis but that is way out of my range and I would rather shoot 35. Actually, I cannot think of any scenario where it would be better for me to shoot on video than on film. Unless the only thing I could afford was a cheap MiniDV cam and then I would probably shoot S8 and do a short instead.

I don't get what you are saying...I think you have had fancy digital gear so long, you don't understand the low-budget mindset anymore. Check this scenario... I want to shoot a 90 minute feature. If I shoot at 4:1 ratio like you did, I can: Buy a $100 Super8 camera off ebay. (I got a good one for $40, but let's just figure high) Go through Spectra and get 6 hours worth of Color negative film in a bulk deal with processing, prep/clean, and RANK telecine to digital format: $7,137 TOTAL FOR JUST THE IMAGE ACQUISITION AND EDITABLE PLATFORM: $7,237 Let's say Panasonic HVX200 camera: $5,285.00 (figure taken from buydig for estimate) At least two 8 GB cards for swapping out (assuming you transfer footage and delete): $2,300.00 (B&H) TOTAL FOR IMAGE ACQUISTION AND EDITABLE PLATFORM: $7,585 Granted, the HVX200, in DVCPRO50 mode will have higher res. than Super 8. But using a good S8 stock like Vision2 200T is going to give a much better latitude than the HVX200. If the end result is SD, is there really any significant gain in using the HVX? If it's not for SD, you still have a native film negative instead of a digital source. Either way, I think the Super 8 is the better choice in the super low budget realm. And MiniDV is not even on the charts in this discussion.

I never said you were a fraud. Honestly, my concerns are really that you aren't going to have your camera done as soon as you say and also that the perceived value of the 17.5k camera is going to disappoint as all the neccessary add-ons factor in. I am a low budget filmmaker so a package costing upwards towards 30k might as well be like shooting 35mm film for me. It still seems to make more sense, cost wise, to shoot 16mm. This camera most likely will not change that.

I don't think it is so much that it looks cgi that makes people suspicious as the fact that the whole RED operation has sounded fishy. No prototype but yet this "brilliant" footage. How am I to be convinced that this mystery unbuilt camera produces this great footage and will be available at the price suggested when there is no camera yet. I think that RED seems grossly behind target to reach their release deadline and I didnt hear what sort of lense was used to acquire these images. A realistic entry level lense or some other worldly priced prime? Many more questions than this exist in my mind before I start ditching film.

I'm going to take a big leap of faith here and say...8MMs? Seriously though, if you are talking about regular 16mm, you can have sound on the film, you have increased resolution, less grain usually, and it costs more. than S8. Also, the cameras tend to be more expensive. I know there are exceptions to the rule such as the K-3 16mm camera is cheaper than the Beaulieu S8 models, or even Leicina Special. Another difference is that you can have positive prints made of 16mm and you can't, at least in the USA, have positive prints made of S8 anymore. And loading a 16mm magazine is more difficult than loading an S8 cartridge. These are the only differences I can think of now. Film is largely like wire, the main difference is the thickness(gauge).

I am not defending slavery, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of self righteous individuals who put down the means but revel in the ends. Just like the Croc hunter himself. People want to call him crazy and an idiot but many enjoyed sitting down and watching the "idiot" work.

With all due respect Richard, your comments about what is right and wrong are largely based on ethnocentricism. In the USA, we often speak about how wrong slavery was, yet it's funny how much everyone enjoys a nation that was largely built on slavery. If slavery is totally wrong, why is America considered such a great nation? When I was in college, I actually heard a young Christian black woman who said that she priased God that the slavery ordeal happened because 1) It led her people away from the pagan rituals which she abhorred being that she was a Christian and 2) she can now enjoy freedom and opportunity that she never could have thought possible if she were stil in her ancestor's homeland. Point being: Right and wrong are not always clearly defined and you cant be shortsighted about things. Some of the best things in this world today required grave sacrafice from someone.

Thanks for the tip.

Who cares what Darwin would say...Darwin is dead. And this thread should be closed, I mean, this is getting to be about character attacks and serves no intellectually stimulating purpose anymore. Facts are: Richard is the minority who feels he is right, but sadly fact is determined by what is universally accepted, not what is "right" according to Richard. Kent is getting lame because he is bringing up arguments about who has went to more continents which is completely irrelevent. I could have went to the moon and still be wrong about this issue. Maybe this forum should get back to making films like we all like to do. Go to your corners fellows.

I am surprised he "jets" around the world since there is a chance he might get in a plane crash and die an idiot's death.

For Richard to say that Steve Irwin, boxers, or anyone else is stupid is absurd. Who are you , Richard, to assume that you get to determine what is a meaningful risk and what isn't? I personally think that Steve Irwin was too risky for my taste in the since that I wouldn't do what he did. However, I admired the man and the fact that he had the passion to do iwhat he did. With all due respect, if everyone were like you Richard, this world would be extremely boring. I also suppose motorcyclers should be considered idiots since Ben Rothlisburger almost died on one. Oops, he was already an idiot because he played football in the first place. And Brandon Lee was an idiot for being in The Crow. JFK was an idiot for going to Texas and Abraham Lincoln was an idiot for being in a theatre when he pissed so many people off. You could go on and on with that sort of mentality.