Jump to content

REDuser ethics


Jaron Berman

Recommended Posts

Care to factor in the cost of filmstock, developing and transfer in there?

 

Btw, maybe 1 out of every 500 jobs shot on film ever gets printed out to film. Just to keep things in perspective.

 

Mitch, re-read my post it says....."Yes the film stock costs money to buy and process". I left out the transfer, but still, those prices have come way way down.

 

On theatrically released movies they all get printed back to 35mm.

 

Plus shooting with the "The Phantom HD rents for $2500/day," you're still stuck with a movie shot on video, which is a major downside to me and many other filmmakers.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey, don't shoot with it. Plenty of clients are and they are not idiots, so there must be some good reason for it.

 

I wasn't implying people that shoot video are idiots. It just seems like such a huge amount of work to see ones imagery end up on video though. Video is better than nothing of course.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What you have to do is add up all the numbers for each proposed path, and compare the bottom lines. We just had a pilot switch from Red to F-23 because of what the vendor wanted for timed dailies.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

 

The phantom is an amazing camera. The stuff it's capable of an old, stinky prewar BL4 couldn't do in it's wildest, wettest dreams. Have you ever stopped to consider that some people actually choose to shoot on video?

 

And don't give me that old "distributors want things shot on 35mm" BS because it's patently false. My movie has distribution and is shot on video.

 

I've shot both 35 and video and like them both. They both have their own looks and feels. To me, one is not better than the other. I'd love to do some 1000 fps stuff on my next movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

 

The phantom is an amazing camera. The stuff it's capable of an old, stinky prewar BL4 couldn't do in it's wildest, wettest dreams. Have you ever stopped to consider that some people actually choose to shoot on video?

 

The stinky prewar BL4 can shoot 2008 35mm film stock, which is superior to any thing video has to offer.

 

Yes I know people choose to shoot on video, when they want a video "look." Video is great when you want the video look, nothing beats it as a matter of fact.

 

R,

 

PS: Do we have any reliable stats on the total number of feature films shot last year on video vs film? I'm thinking specifically of theatrically released studio features. I'd be curious to see how much of in road video is actually making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More features are shot on film than video, no question. As far as shooting 2008 35mm film stock - says you it's superior. There are many, many productions every year shooting phantoms, F900s, genesis, REDs, Panasonics, Dalsas, Arri D-20s - you name it. Do you think they all want the "video" look? Have you shot high end video lately? Your statement strikes me as ignorant.

 

Look at the new Bond. When it gets too hot in the kitchen for film and someone needs some visual effects, they call in the Dalsas to get the shot. Do that with your BL4.

 

They both have their functions and uses - nothing is replacing anything. One is not better than the other.

 

I'm personally kind of tired of some of these terrible indie flicks with an awful story and no name actors going around saying "at least we shot on 35mm" as if it's going to make up for every other flaw in the picture.

 

If you're so anti video, why bother posting in the HD section.....or even browsing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm personally kind of tired of some of these terrible indie flicks with an awful story and no name actors going around saying "at least we shot on 35mm" as if it's going to make up for every other flaw in the picture.

 

Ohhhhhh, subtle.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of my peeves with HD over 35mm. Yes the film stock costs money to buy and process, but, you can rent a BL4 camera package for a whole lot less than $2500/day!!

A completely fleshed out RED package goes for a lot less than that as well. And at the end of the day, you're out... what, the camera rental and $80 x 3 for a couple of hard drives to back up the data?

 

You can argue film vs. video aesthetics till the cows come home, but the cost comparison is almost laughable at this stage of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean subtle? I don't know what you're talking about. My point was my point - I don't follow you.

 

Look man, I'm not anti film. I LOVE film. My next feature will be on film. But bashing video just for the fact that it's video is not cool.

 

I was simply pointing out that I got your "dig" re:my feature.

 

 

A completely fleshed out RED package goes for a lot less than that as well. And at the end of the day, you're out... what, the camera rental and $80 x 3 for a couple of hard drives to back up the data?

 

You can argue film vs. video aesthetics till the cows come home, but the cost comparison is almost laughable at this stage of the game.

 

A single chip DV camera is a lot less than a RED. With a great script and some name stars, you're off to the races. The cost comparison between a single chip DV camera and a RED is almost laughable at this stage of the game.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single chip DV camera is a lot less than a RED. With a great script and some name stars, you're off to the races. The cost comparison between a single chip DV camera and a RED is almost laughable at this stage of the game.

 

R,

Your argument was that at $2,500+/day, "HD" is just as expensive to shoot as 35mm. I was pointing out that one of today's best alternatives to shooting film costs much less than the figure you quoted - and on top of that, the post costs in dealing with the "stock" you've shot pale in comparison to the budget you need to deal with film.

 

If you are confident that a single chip DV camera is sufficient for your production needs, then it looks like you've got nothing to worry about!

Edited by Häakon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there was a nearly identical thread on the exact same topic, so perhaps it was merged? Geez, a lot conspiracy theories around here. :)

Not "nearly identical" and it was not merged! The surviving thread had far less information. (But there is now quite a lot a lot of discussion in it about the missing thread!).

 

Conspiracy theories are typically unsupportable because they would require an impossible level of co-operation in keeping something secret, by people who have no vested interest in doing so.

 

This is clearly not the case here, since

A. The thread definitely did exist (I saw it, Google saw it, and one of the posters on Reduser has kept a copy of it)

B. Since Reduser is basically run by one person, it is entirely possible for them to eliminate threads if they feel like it, with no explanation.

 

Well, whoever is responsible, it just makes Reduser.net look more amatuerish than it already is, if that's possible. This sort of thing is like resisting arrest when there's no possibility of escape. The cops are still going to arrrest you, and you'll just get extra charges on the rap sheet for your trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Look at the new Bond. When it gets too hot in the kitchen for film and someone needs some visual effects, they call in the Dalsas to get the shot. Do that with your BL4.

Yeah right, that's ONE shot. The rest of the film is shot on 35mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Max - that ONE shot is what makes Bond......Bond. I'm going to turn it around for you and say that if they could have pulled that one, simple shot off with film they would have.

 

Richard - I don't know a thing about your feature or that you even filmed a feature. I wasn't trying to dig anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've just been back there.

Take 1... aaaannnnd... Action!

 

jannardgd8.gif

 

Take 2... aaaannnnd... Action!

 

jarredvt4.gif

 

There you are folks, he just feels like it :blink:

 

 

I thought that was hysterical and no one on REduser even mentioned it.. Jannard comes in the fray and says that no one deletes posts and then, because he's totally clueless, JaRED comes in and drop kicks his sugar daddy with one of the most hysterical posts on reduser. Its beautiful to see hypocrisy exposed so openly, maybe thats what they mean by an open policy. All revolutions are the same, dissenting voices have to be dealt with. Claudio Miranda anyone.

Edited by Michael Peploe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear that these industry forums are becoming very powerful. Tim Tyler is like the mafia Don of the cinematography world, he has control over the forum :D

 

On a serious note I'm often amazed at how fast posts from this forum spread, I have production people from Southern Ontario quoting things back to me that I wrote here. One day I'll be rich and powerful and 90% of the stuff I've posted here will come back to haunt me :D

 

The web has certainly leveled the playing field between big business and the public. In the old days you had to spend a lot of money to get out your criticisms of a new product, now you can do it at home for free.

 

It must scare the crap out of fortune 500 companies to know that their products and services can be bad mouthed all over the web, and there is nothing they can do to stop it. I'm sure the studios don't appreciate the loads of negative comments that get posted about their movies on IMDB, 80-90% of the comments are negative after all.

 

It's certainly the wild West out here.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The stuff it's capable of an old, stinky prewar BL4 couldn't do ....

Prewar? What war? Except for the Model I, all Arriflexes are post-war. The cold war had no significant effect on Arri, only WWII did. Their plant and parts inventory was destroyed by allied bombing on July 13, 1944.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it keeps getting funnier. Heres the forum rules posted by Jarred Land on Reduser:

 

1. We will delete posts sometimes for any number of reasons.

 

2. We will not delete criticism or opinion.

 

3. We will delete posts that would get you punched in the nose if you were to say the same thing in the "real" world.

 

4. We will delete untrue posts that are slanderous, to a company or an individual.

 

5. Posts that are not on topic or that drift off topic, will be moved to the proper location.

 

6. Remember.. you are visiting our house, so above all.. please be respectful.

 

 

He's lost. Number one had me on the floor laughing . Kind of conflicts with number two. And now in number 6 its "OUR" house. And I guess JaRED can't use his usual 'I'm gonna unleash a can of whoopass on you' quote he uses so often because now being respectful is listed. Oh JarRED you make me laugh. You keep shooting yourself. I mean whats really changed here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I still have the dubious honour of being the shortest lived member of that forum. Jared had me booted and banned within 30 seconds.

 

With the comment, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

 

Odd thing is that I had no problem re-posting a few times using a Yahoo account and he had no idea it was me. Oh well I guess he needs better IP address blocking software.

 

I'm sure they have snipers up on towers there 24hrs a day looking for Phil Rhodes. Geez if Phil put a toe onto their property Jared would have it machine gunned off in two seconds. Be careful Phil :D

 

Any way we don't want another "forum war" we love our Red brothers and the Red camera.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm going to turn it around for you and say that if they could have pulled that one, simple shot off with film they would have.

So by that very same argument: If they could have pulled the whole film off with digital they would have... ;)

 

Since no one knows (or is telling yet) why they used the Dalsa for that shot, speculating on their reasons for the choice of format is just plain useless. I guess when the film gets released we'll all learn why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must scare the crap out of fortune 500 companies to know that their products and services can be bad mouthed all over the web, and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

It's certainly the wild West out here.

 

R,

 

Hi Richard,

Actually big companies have been using web forums for a long rime now to push there products and have been known to hire pr firms to pose as members of the public for long periods of time (posting innocuously, becoming part of the 'community') before 'activating' them to build hype about a particular product. Its quite insidious, and sometimes the pr firms will lie in wait for many months before starting the campaign. Quite a few tech firms have been caught out doing this as has Sony and I'm sure others. Its probably more significant in the prosumer world and I don't expect this is the type of site which would be targeted. Have a look at the history of alliwantforchristmasisapsp.com (I think thats what it was called) for a pretty hilarious blunder on Sony's part.

Unfortunately the web works both ways and clever companies take full advantage. I think a well run and honest forum would be a good way for a company to engage with its customers but there would be a limit to how open a discussion that community could engage in.

Food for thought.

Sasha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Let's not forget Panasonic's huge blunder with the HVX and defperception.com that was originally set up to look like some sort of former Panasonic employee insider who was going to give secrets about the HVX out. That astroturfing worked for a a few weeks until it was discovered to be a PR firm for Panasonic. So they changed the header to say it was a fictitious character. But the humiliation never stopped and Panasonic finally pulled down the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...