Jump to content

Lucas' Digital Impact?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

The OP brought up Lucas and the 100-mil+ "Star Wars" prequels -- hmmm.... who knows where I got the notion he wanted to consider mainstream studio movies....

 

The Red One certainly had an impact on independent, non-studio filmmaking judging by the number of movies shot on it that played at the Sundance Film Festival and other festivals soon after it was released.

 

But you have a particular perspective that discounts anything as "low-budget" that could have afforded the Red One... perhaps you think a movie has to have a budget lower than $50,000 to fall under that moniker, but that is not a common cut-off amount.

 

In fact, the Independent Spirit Awards has a special category for "smaller" movies called the John Cassavetes Award and that draws the line at $500,000 and under, and there certainly were indie movies shot for under $500,000 on the Red One.

 

SAG defines "low-budget" as movies made for up to $700,000 and "ultra low-budget" as movies made with budgets up to $250,000. You could have made a movie on the Red One with a budget of $250,000 -- I shot a movie with a budget of that on the Sony F900, a more expensive camera (I also shot a movie made for $100,000 on a Sony F900). There are people on RedUser who made movies on the Red One with even smaller budgets.

 

So I don't buy this notion that the Red One was out of the reach of low-budget filmmakers if you use the most accepted definitions of the term "low-budget". Besides, if a movie has a budget of slightly more than $250,000 and can't be called a low-budget movie, then you'd have to call it a medium-budget movie, which most people would not. If you shot a movie for $300,000 and it played at a festival and was reviewed by Variety or the New York Times, they certainly wouldn't apply the label of "medium-budget movie" in the article.

 

Go on RedUser and make your case that no low-budget movies could have afforded the Red One and see how many people agree with you.

 

Truth is that I was walking around my neighborhood several years ago and some college kid was shooting a personal project on a Red One just on the sidewalk near my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can you answer my query of how long it took to render a feature length export at 4k on an indie system?

 

The answer isn't simple because (1) it was much more common to work in 20 minute reels for features, (2) a lot depended on how complex and layered your color work was, and (3) whether you also worked with live keys. On a single MacPro it might take 20 hours to render a reel – but a simpler job could take less. Again, home brew economics... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The OP brought up Lucas and the 100-mil+ "Star Wars" prequels -- hmmm.... who knows where I got the notion he wanted to consider mainstream studio movies....

 

The Red One certainly had an impact on independent, non-studio filmmaking judging by the number of movies shot on it that played at the Sundance Film Festival and other festivals soon after it was released.

 

But you have a particular perspective that discounts anything as "low-budget" that could have afforded the Red One... perhaps you think a movie has to have a budget lower than $50,000 to fall under that moniker, but that is not a common cut-off amount.

 

In fact, the Independent Spirit Awards has a special category for "smaller" movies called the John Cassavetes Award and that draws the line at $500,000 and under, and there certainly were indie movies shot for under $500,000 on the Red One.

 

SAG defines "low-budget" as movies made for up to $700,000 and "ultra low-budget" as movies made with budgets up to $250,000. You could have made a movie on the Red One with a budget of $250,000 -- I shot a movie with a budget of that on the Sony F900, a more expensive camera (I also shot a movie made for $100,000 on a Sony F900). There are people on RedUser who made movies on the Red One with even smaller budgets.

 

So I don't buy this notion that the Red One was out of the reach of low-budget filmmakers if you use the most accepted definitions of the term "low-budget". Besides, if a movie has a budget of slightly more than $250,000 and can't be called a low-budget movie, then you'd have to call it a medium-budget movie, which most people would not. If you shot a movie for $300,000 and it played at a festival and was reviewed by Variety or the New York Times, they certainly wouldn't apply the label of "medium-budget movie" in the article.

Interesting that these "indies" (who are not backed by studios; hence being independent) can afford to fund films that cost enough to pay off a single family residence without a mortgage and there are so many out there that can! I guess I am just very poor indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I couldn't afford to make one of those low-budget indie movies either, not even the smallest ones I shot as DP, but that doesn't mean they aren't considered low-budget just because they were made for the same cost as buying a small house. Out-of-My-Budget, maybe, but still "low-budget" by industry standards. I'm not suggesting the labels are accurate by the way, I'm just talking about the common usage of a term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that these "indies" (who are not backed by studios; hence being independent) can afford to fund films that cost enough to pay off a single family residence without a mortgage and there are so many out there that can! I guess I am just very poor indeed.

Sometimes these projects take years to complete, and that's part of the plan for how to afford making them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I couldn't afford to make one of those low-budget indie movies either, not even the smallest ones I shot as DP, but that doesn't mean they aren't considered low-budget just because they were made for the same cost as buying a small house. Out-of-My-Budget, maybe, but still "low-budget" by industry standards. I'm not suggesting the labels are accurate by the way, I'm just talking about the common usage of a term.

I never said that you were wrong on the matter of proper terminology. Only that it is not nearly the case of what is typical in smaller markets. I live in California (granted Northern) and people are lucky if they can even get paid gas money to be part of a film. Theater work is no different as it is almost entirely voluntary. Canon MKII is considered a "premium" camera around these parts and most "DPs" have some variant of the Canon Txi. I suppose I need to work on the set in an area where people actually have money to spend on making a film so I can get some perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The movie I shot in 2008 had a budget of $150,000. Not a tiny amount of money on a personal level, but certainly not enough to buy a house.

I guarantee that, after the housing crash, you could buy a house with that outside of major metro areas. Even now, there are places in the USA where that will get you a house mortgage free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guarantee that, after the housing crash, you could buy a house with that outside of major metro areas. Even now, there are places in the USA where that will get you a house mortgage free.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the relative prices of real estate. My point was that we were not working with a huge budget, yet somehow we were able to afford a RED package, and its apparently 'difficult' workflow caused us no problems, even working with consumer grade computing systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't want to get into a discussion of the relative prices of real estate. My point was that we were not working with a huge budget, yet somehow we were able to afford a RED package, and its apparently 'difficult' workflow caused us no problems, even working with consumer grade computing systems.

Having never worked with the RED, I can take your word for it. But I happen to know that many on this forum (and DVXUser) back in the day did not share your optimism for that workflow and did not find it as cheap of an overall solution. But I suppose I have derailed this enough since the OP made it clear that he was satisfied with what David and Tyler told him.

 

The truth is...what company or camera makes digital special these days is largely based on who you ask. Someone who has the opportunity to make great images now because they can afford to when they couldnt in the past will probability have a different take on things than someone who is established, studio backed, and can name whatever gadget they desire.

 

For me personally, digital became viable for me thanks to Blackmagic and Sony. I am sure others have different views. I am not even sure why this topic is relevant anyway. People can shoot on whatever the hell they want to regardless of who did it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I am not even sure why this topic is relevant anyway. People can shoot on whatever the hell they want to regardless of who did it first.

 

 

What, there is no value in studying film technology history? We have discussions on 3-strip Technicolor on this site, which even has less relevance for how films are made today. If you think the topic is irrelevant then why are you posting on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

What, there is no value in studying film technology history? We have discussions on 3-strip Technicolor on this site, which even has less relevance for how films are made today. If you think the topic is irrelevant then why are you posting on it?

There is value in history. But the problem with discussions like this is because there is no way to objectively conclude something like this. I mean, facts can be spewed out but it is largely a qualitative study. How does one gauge, objectively, who or what had the most impact? How does one even measure impact?

 

I post because it is fun to give my own personal account but it seems that everyone has to start second guessing each other's subjective experience and trying to prove their point. Yes, i do that too but I am not the only one. I swear, I dont know why, but when I get on this site I turn into a crank. It might amaze you to realize that I am actually a nice guy in "real life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I suppose I have derailed this enough since the OP made it clear that he was satisfied with what David and Tyler told him.

You, Stuart, etc. are extremely knowledgeable and passionate on the subject of film and I have respect for all of you. Was just making a light joke on the fact that a lot of threads here can get a bit... unraveled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

 

You, Stuart, etc. are extremely knowledgeable and passionate on the subject of film and I have respect for all of you. Was just making a light joke on the fact that a lot of threads here can get a bit... unraveled.

 

What in the world makes you say that? :D I am teasing. At least I didn't go absolutely off the rails like that fellow on the bad cinematography thread. Even i was cringing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I agree that it is hard to objectively quantify the "impact" of something or someone, but it's attempted by historians all the time. You make the best case you can, that's all you can do.

 

Lucas is a major player in the history of digital cinema, but there have been many other people and events that have also had an impact. My own opinion is that Lucas cannot be dismissed if you are going to write a book on the history of the conversion of cinema technology from film to digital. The demos of DLP projection for "The Phantom Menace" and then the use of 24P HD for "Attack of the Clones" are historically significant if charting the shift to digital in the industry, and any book or article that skipped those events would not be taken seriously as a work of scholarship. But of course there were other important events before and after those, and other important people.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I agree that it is hard to objectively quantify the "impact" of something or someone, but it's attempted by historians all the time. You make the best case you can, that's all you can do.

 

Lucas is a major player in the history of digital cinema, but there have been many other people and events that have also had an impact. My own opinion is that Lucas cannot be dismissed if you are going to write a book on the history of the conversion of cinema technology from film to digital. The demos of DLP projection for "The Phantom Menace" and then the use of 24P HD for "Attack of the Clones" are historically significant if charting the shift to digital in the industry, and any book or article that skipped those events would not be taken seriously as a work of scholarship. But of course there were other important events before and after those, and other important people.

David, on a side note, but still indirectly related because of his early adoption...would it be too provocative to ask you what your opinion of Robert Rodriguez is? I mean this in the context of both his role in digital filmmaking and also as a Director who DPs. Do you feel he is technically competent as a DP? Do you personally like his work?

 

If you do not feel comfortable answering such a question in public then I am sorry for asking it. Feel free to disregard it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I feel comfortable answering it because my view of Rodriguez and his work as a director-cinematographer and pioneer in digital cinematography is positive. Yes, I think he has excellent skills all-around in directing, cinematography, and editing. Some of his movies look better than others, some are more my cup-of-tea than others. I liked "Once Upon A Time in Mexico", "Sin City", and his "Planet Terror" segment. I think I'm still the most impressed with his original "El Mariachi" though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I've come to appreciate about Rodriguez as a filmmaker is that even after fame and fortune, his style and subject matter is still in tune with the Texan-Mexican community he came from. Friends I've met who grew up on the Mexican border say he implants a ton of their culture into his work in a beautiful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Interesting that these "indies" (who are not backed by studios; hence being independent) can afford to fund films that cost enough to pay off a single family residence without a mortgage and there are so many out there that can! I guess I am just very poor indeed.

Yeah, life's not fair. You want to be a singer but you can't hear pitch? Sorry. You want to be a professional basketball player, but you're 5'2"? Sorry. I'm pitched against directors far more talented than me every day and it sucks and I usually lose to them and I wish I was as talented as my passion level, but I'm not.

 

Art is not fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah, life's not fair. You want to be a singer but you can't hear pitch? Sorry. You want to be a professional basketball player, but you're 5'2"? Sorry. I'm pitched against directors far more talented than me every day and it sucks and I usually lose to them and I wish I was as talented as my passion level, but I'm not.

 

Art is not fair.

Justin, you obviously did not read what I wrote in any sort of context whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...