Tom York

Okay, first of all, what I said applies to everyone except actors. There is a reason they are the only ones called 'talent'. They are the only ones who can't be replaced (easily). Everone else is replaceable (even directors and producers). There are a few people who you don't mess around with no matter what (trully A-level people). They usually have earned their right to be the way they are, and you just work around them if you are even lucky enough to work with them. But it is usually also the case that they are brilliant and whatever thantrums they are throwing is in benefit of the production. But for the rest of us, no job is guaranteed. Bond companies have the right to fire anyone if the production gets out of hand. If your attitude is slowing down the production and your not the director (or an actor)... guess what, bye bye. I can just picture someone trying to tell me "But he's a really talented grip!" P.S. For the record, grips are really awsome people. Problems I've had with crew usually are in other dep's.

Happens all the time. Investors only care about returns on their investment, not if someone with talent gets to shine above the rest. As a producer you try to hire a team that works well together, talent comes second. After all, it's a job... not a talent pageant. You are right, they do have something of a 'something' to them that is different. I don't know if I would call it videoish, but it is definitelly not filmish. But I would like to see some moving footage to judge properly. For the record, I did NOT like the look of the Superman. And Apocalipto had several shots that did look like video. I am hoping that Red is way better than those cameras. Collateral, on the other hand, had this strange look that takes some getting used to. It almost reminds me of some of those french digital films like Baise Moi.

You are right. And I guess he has never attacked anyone directly. But I will stop now and not say anything further about him. I must admit that his conduct pissed me off. But I am over it. I don't want to just post about other people. I am new here and I am here to learn. If there is anything I can contribute, knowledge-wise, I will. So let the discussion continue. Richard, I do appologize, since you haven't done anything to me. But like Jim said and others have alluded, please try to stop being such an ass. Posts like yours (and I guess, to be fair, this one) really do bring down this forum.

In light of this new evidence I feel I must appologize to Richard. I had no idea he was such a successful person. He has his own business? No way. That is very impressive. And on top of that he financed his own 35mm feature? I think we should all step aside and let him continue to be the way he is. He certainly has earned it. Can we go back now to discussing the red footage?

Someone who shoots other people down for amusement and now thinks all is okay? This is exactly the kind of person I would never ever want to work with or hire, and the kind of person I would make sure no one I work with would hire either. It is no wonder that a lot of producers I know keep lists of people to consider and people to watch out for. I already know this person will most likely be on several people's to-avoid-at-al-costs lists. Is it bad to black-list people like this person? Naw. Life is too short. Why step in poop if you don't have to.

David, I think you are right (as always). I realised when reading one of your other posts that I too may be falling under the winning-the-super-bowl syndrome. To me one of the great expenses in a modest feature is not the equipment... but getting the right people involved. My excitement with Red is that it could theoretically allow me to have more money left over to pay for better crew and actors. But anyhow... in the end I think I agree with you that all this 'future-speculation', although fun, is a big exercise in nothingness.

That site moves too fast for my taste. I like the more plotting response time of this site. It gives one more time to think what one says... okay, probably not in everyone's case :P

Yes, I agree that Ruairi is on to something and that 300 is a sign of things to come. So, Ruairi, as probably the only Oscar nominated person on this board, and as someone who is forward-thinking in the aproach to movie-making, I am especially interested in your opinion about the potential of the Red One to your style of work. I have seen several of your shorts and I think that people like you are the furure of our industry: Highly knowleable people dominating several traits to put out a cohesive works. Sure, one will always need to work with others to get a film done... but I think the days of large crews are numbered. I think the economics are completely changing on us under our feet wether we like it or not. There is a reason George Lucas has gotten out of the feature film business (except obviously for his Indie 4). I think that the industry is going to be in for some serious economic readgusting in the next few years. The music industry was the canary in the mine.

Let's see if you can guess: Its the land representing the 5th most important territory for Hollywood Distributors... Country with (acording to Variety) the world's best equiped movie theatres... and Nation with one of the most screwed up national film industries (if you can call it that).

One more thing, the reason I joined this forum, as a modest producer (in spending ability and maybe not nescesarily in attitude? although I?ll try :D ), is to find out over the next weeks if the Red One can realistically mimic at least 90% of the film experience (for audiences and not the filmmakers). And what I mean by the Red One is the camera itself and whatever additionally can be done to its footage in post. I sincerelly hope people in this forum can help me find this out.

Actually I am originally from the US. It's just that right now I am a guest in another country. Regarding the discussion, I agree that in an ideal situation the producer would allow each and every single department complete creative and technical freedom... but from just the way I phrased it you can tell that this is definitelly not always the case. But this is where I think a product like the Red camera can change things. I could now tell our battered directors, "Okay, you can shoot in 35mm and have 21 days to get everything... or you could shoot Red and have 35 days and apply to the pristine 4K master whatever grainy look you want in post... I hear they have a great new Blair Witch filter."* *I always find it better to add some attempt at humor when giving a battered director a 'choice'

Ah David, I feel I must disagree with what you are descibing. I think it basically only applies to the U.S. industry (or similarly healthy ones). In the contry where I am operating all that you describe is turned upside down. Budgets rarelly exceed 2 million and on average are closer to 1.5 million. Many don't even approach one million. At this level the posibility of having an extra 200K makes a big difference. Also, the use of 'stars' doesn't really matter here either because there are basically only two or three of them and they are not always right for every script and most importantly, they don't guarantee a strong opening weekend. Also there is not the tradition of pouring money into a film's marketing since recoupment would then be impossible. poop, many times the distributor will make the producrer pay for his or her own prints... upfront! So, with no marketing and no stars... the standards by which these distributors here judge a film are: 1. Concept and Story 2. Technical Quality 3. That's it. Also, in a strange twist of circumstances, most films here do get distributed (unlike the US). This is because so few of them get made. But the distribution for poor films can sometimes net the producer only $10,000 total, especially if it is not shot in 35mm. So in this climate the production values and format of the movie are bargaining chips. I think Red can make a real difference here. Remember, quality cinema doesn't just come from posh US productions where even thinking about saving money in the camera department is considered un-filmmaker-like.

I also would like to discuss this camera and any new possibilities it may offer in the ever delicate balance between a producer's need to cheapen the production process and the director's / DP's duty to not let this affect the image quality and technical integrity of the movie. In other words, can this camera be a real world replacement for 35mm in independent features? If so, then maybe the green-lighting of more artistically adventurous scrips will become easier.

I am still holding off to see someone do some test on those. 35 lenses are common enough to rent that buying them right away doesn't matter.

Hi I am finally posting after being a long-time lurker. I just wanted to say that I was on the fence regarding the Red camera. Thanks to the comments from some of you I am finally going to buy this camera. The quotes that finally changed my mind: "I would describe the look as something like 5245 50D 35mm scanned at 4K -- sharp & clean" -- David Mullen, ASC "I didn't see any compromise in image resolution compared to 35mm" -- David Mullen, ASC "I think [Red's] success is going to shake-up the long-held domination of corporations like Sony and Panasonic" -- David Mullen, ASC For 25,000 bucks one would be insane not to use this for a modest, quality feature. I think this is going to definitelly change things in the industry.