Jump to content

Once more red on #1


jan von krogh

Recommended Posts

Knowing, a fullfeature shot on red, is #1 in the USA.

 

Other news: The Academy Award for best cinematography was awarded to a feature shot mostly on the (fully digital) SI:2K.

 

Before we forget: The new german Prime lenses price has been disclosed. Sub 10.000. €.€€€ per set. The optical quality of the lenses is excellent - possibly because they have an 2008 design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,

 

am i now advertising red cameras and lenses, the si:2k which is distributed by ps technik (who also offer fine lenses and the cool IMS mount), or the lenses we have been betatesting?

 

To make things clear: we are not a manufacturer, not a reseller for any of the products mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
That´s one way to see it. Another, more accurate, would be: Knowing, a fullfeature shot by Simon Duggan, is #1 in the USA. ;)

 

Or maybe the RED is magic and it's sensor makes every frame a Rembrandt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Knowing, a fullfeature shot on red, is #1 in the USA.

"Once more red on #1"?

Huh? ... when were the other times?

 

But for the benefit of all readers whose initials aren't J.V.K. please check here before reading further.

 

"Knowing" has done OK, but it's a pretty ordinary film up against a slack handful of other pretty ordinary films in a quiet time for cinema trade. You know, like a TV movie being "#1" in the 2AM Sunday morning timeslot against a lot of telemarketing and religious spruikers' shows. It was estimated it would pull in about $15 million first weekend , but it did about $25 million, a nice surprise for the distributors, but hardly evidence of a Paradigm Shift. Often films that do better than expected on opening weekend do worse than expected in subsequent weeks, a sign the unexpected turnout was a result of lack of alternatives than any great patron enthusiasm.

 

And also ... lemme see ... Star Wars II, Star Wars III, Superman Returns, and ... er ... er...

 

Well anyway, despite the image shortcomings, that particular trio of All-Digital movies did extremely well in the box office and were all no-questions-asked "#1s", but years later, overall, digitally-made films still only account for a smudge on the bottom line of cinema income. So, your point is ...?

 

Other news: The Academy Award for best cinematography was awarded to a feature shot mostly on the (fully digital) SI:2K.

I presume you mean "Slumdog Millionaire"

Not "mostly", about 50%, the rest being film

 

And they were quite clear that they used that particular camera because it was compact and unobtrusive, crowd control being just about non-existent in India. An example where a digital camera was the best or (only) tool for the job. There will always be such occasions, but it's usually a case where highly skilled professionals have reluctantly concluded that digital is the only practical option.

 

Come back when Marvel have decided to shoot Iron Man 2 with a digital camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Once more red on #1"?

Huh? ... when were the other times?

 

But for the benefit of all readers whose initials aren't J.V.K. please check here before reading further.

 

"Knowing" has done OK, but it's a pretty ordinary film up against a slack handful of other pretty ordinary films in a quiet time for cinema trade. You know, like a TV movie being "#1" in the 2AM Sunday morning timeslot against a lot of telemarketing and religious spruikers' shows. It was estimated it would pull in about $15 million first weekend , but it did about $25 million, a nice surprise for the distributors, but hardly evidence of a Paradigm Shift. Often films that do better than expected on opening weekend do worse than expected in subsequent weeks, a sign the unexpected turnout was a result of lack of alternatives than any great patron enthusiasm.

 

And also ... lemme see ... Star Wars II, Star Wars III, Superman Returns, and ... er ... er...

 

Well anyway, despite the image shortcomings, that particular trio of All-Digital movies did extremely well in the box office and were all no-questions-asked "#1s", but years later, overall, digitally-made films still only account for a smudge on the bottom line of cinema income. So, your point is ...?

 

 

I presume you mean "Slumdog Millionaire"

Not "mostly", about 50%, the rest being film

 

And they were quite clear that they used that particular camera because it was compact and unobtrusive, crowd control being just about non-existent in India. An example where a digital camera was the best or (only) tool for the job. There will always be such occasions, but it's usually a case where highly skilled professionals have reluctantly concluded that digital is the only practical option.

 

Come back when Marvel have decided to shoot Iron Man 2 with a digital camera.

 

Couldn't have said it better! Digital right now appears to be a means to an economic short coming. The quality cameras, Viper, Genesis and F35, are not only tech heavy but cumbersome in the operation and media ingestion that people resort to RED and the SI-2k camera. Knowing topped the box office based on content with no reliance on the visuals, for a Sci-Fi film consisting of a massive amount of Green screen I would not call it a show pony for the Red. For a camera with only two stops of over-exposure it performs well in VERY controlled environments. If there were any show pony it would be finchers "fate" commercial shot on the red by Chivo. As for Slumdog I share the opinion that it shouldn't have even been nominated, even the parts shot on film seem over lit and boring, a wise friend wrote " don't mistake location and narrative intensity for visual supremacy", the film works well and cuts nicely but visually it appears more convenient than crafted. Maybe I'm still bitter that a film shot on IMAX with stunning lighting and beautiful exposure didn't win. Not that Mantle isn't very accomplished, 28 days later is still a feat yet to broken. Simply, digital is convenient but has yet to prove it's worth in cinema so far, Zodiac being the exception, "by far the best looking digital film available", shot by Harris Savides, summons the notion of a digital future. Mullen's works as well looks to control and properly apply talent with technology. Obviously there is a massive range of opinions on people's work and the future of digital narrative but for now Knowing does not represent RED's ability. Maybe the Book of Eli will prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Simply, digital is convenient but has yet to prove it's worth in cinema so far...

 

Ahem. SOME digital cameras are convenient.

 

Since people regularly observe that it can take longer to get Redcode files rendered to an industry-useable format than to get an equal amount of film footage processed and scanned, the RED would appear to only be convenient if

 

A. You happen to have access to a facility equipped to process R3D natively and

B. You happen to want the particular personnel that they have trained to use it, working on

your project :lol:

 

Also, read here.

 

That pretty much sums the general industry attitude, but most people aren't interested in arguing with fanboys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing topped the box office based on content with no reliance on the visuals, for a Sci-Fi film consisting of a massive amount of Green screen I would not call it a show pony for the Red. For a camera with only two stops of over-exposure it performs well in VERY controlled environments. If there were any show pony it would be finchers "fate" commercial shot on the red by Chivo.

 

Well said. I agree with everything you've said here.

 

I really really want to see digital do something that film can't do, not this attitude of "Oh, wow, we saved money, and it looks as good as film. Blah blah blah. Howabout wowing us by taking advantage of the strengths of the format and using it in a creative, new way?

 

Ditto on what you said on "Slumdog". That award still feels to me like a recession reward or something, or a consolation prize. Is it just me, or shouldn't the visuals in a film stand alone? I'm so tired of hearing "It suited the story used as a defense for 'Slumdog'." Not that the film stopped to this level, but it'd almost be like hearing someone defend "Blair Witch Project" on account of its footage very-effectively suiting the story. Honestly, I'd have an easier time with the latter winning than the former. I really think the Academy was trying to play it safe instead of having to make a tough choice between "BB" and "DKn"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...