Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

EPIC-S...

Status
Not open for further replies.
find two more filmmaking friends and buy a red one.
but where does the idea come from, that owning a camera body allows you to make movies?
if you wanted, you already could make one. story is king etc. but if you love image quality, i understand you wanting a red.
but what about camera support, lenses, production design, wardrobe etc. the cam itself is a tiny piece.
 
Im not a fan of platitudes about story being most important on a camera forum, however, its true if you have no money, or production budget to rent, (or buy to sell on, after completion) as Cüneyt said The MX sensor isnt likely gonna make your film look much better in absence of lenses, art direction, props, costume, good talent, lighting etc. i mean theres Low budget, then no budget/ hobbyist. i mean Look at "monsters" by gareth edwards, you can achieve the same look as anything shot on red with dslrs and prosumer cams, just not the same resolution/ quality. you can shoot 5D 7D films that can look stunning and work your way up from there, like many others already have done, if you want to skip that step of working your way up, then you need cash.

theres no real price gaps in the market right now, and choice remains varied all the way down to $600. its a somewhat self answering dilemma.

in 10 years an old red one will be consumer priced, that day is not today but RED are the only company i see that are trying to change that, by not shamelessly handicaping their cameras (F3 S-Log) and protecting more expensive lines. if you cant wait, you cant wait, and i have been there once or twice over the last few years too. i figured its worth the wait and made money with what i have, and when necessary found other things to supplement my income, till it arrives. (organ selling)

what im saying is it just seems off key to seriously complain about low budget camera options now, of all times in cinematic history.


Someone on reduser has a quote on their signature that reads something like "film will only become art, when its tools are as inexpensive as pencils and paper" i used to love that quote, but the more i thought on it the more i disagreed with it: IMO the art world today is in a somewhat vapid state of confusion, often struggling to engage the population.. either way, Art has not become "better" since eras when paints where extremely dear. infact in london far more people flock to see great masters work than current artists. theres something i still find sacred about filmmaking, where people really have to work their way up to a platform, before they can shout, and i think its sometimes overlooked what value that brings to this medium.

its like a rant-off in here..
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
Im not a fan of platitudes about story being most important on a camera forum, however, its true if you have no money, or production budget to rent, (or buy to sell on, after completion) as Cüneyt said The MX sensor isnt likely gonna make your film look much better in absence of lenses, art direction, props, costume, good talent, lighting etc. i mean theres Low budget, then no budget/ hobbyist. i mean Look at "monsters" by gareth edwards, you can achieve the same look as anything shot on red with dslrs and prosumer cams, just not the same resolution/ quality. you can shoot 5D 7D films that can look stunning and work your way up from there, like many others already have done, if you want to skip that step of working your way up, then you need cash.

theres no real price gaps in the market right now, and choice remains varied all the way down to $600. its a somewhat self answering dilemma.

in 10 years an old red one will be consumer priced, that day is not today but RED are the only company i see that are trying to change that, by not shamelessly handicaping their cameras (F3 S-Log) and protecting more expensive lines. if you cant wait, you cant wait, and i have been there once or twice over the last few years too. i figured its worth the wait and made money with what i have, and when necessary found other things to supplement my income, till it arrives. (organ selling)

what im saying is it just seems off key to seriously complain about low budget camera options now, of all times in cinematic history.


Someone on reduser has a quote on their signature that reads something like "film will only become art, when its tools are as inexpensive as pencils and paper" i used to love that quote, but the more i thought on it the more i disagreed with it: IMO the art world today is in a somewhat vapid state of confusion, often struggling to engage the population.. either way, Art has not become "better" since eras when paints where extremely dear. infact in london far more people flock to see great masters work than current artists. theres something i still find sacred about filmmaking, where people really have to work their way up to a platform, before they can shout, and i think its sometimes overlooked what value that brings to this medium.

its like a rant-off in here..
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more - something being easier never really seems to make it better. Recording studios are cheap now - has that really made music better!? Besides, film is a collaborative medium, and that collaboration extends to external financing, among other people whom you must bring on board unless you are shooting nature films all by yourself in the forest.
 
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you. There is obviously lots of crap content coming from DSLR's, but many, many great indie films we have today are because of the introduction of the DSLR's (and 35mm adapters). These films would have never existed if it wasn't for the large sensor interchangeable lenses revolution. A new generation of cinematographers will come from this, with the ability to learn from using different lenses, the intricacies of shutter, aperture, ND, lighting, etc because these cameras give them the possibility of controling the process and present an artistically acceptable cinema frame- beyond the Dogma Verité DV look. Red was supposed to be this revolution , at least for those indies that went DSLR's, when they introduced themselves. They did make a revolution, they revolutionized the rental markets, the top end productions and the middle end productions. This was an incredible feat, indeed. It was just not meant for me and my budget, at least yet. It was something I thought was always part of the plan, but as I see prices increasing, products constantly delaying (specially the lower end cameras, the ones I can afford) it makes me think we are more of a hindrance than a target audience for RED.

I do not wish to continue this rant, since its going nowhere.As for the suggestion of me buying with another filmmaker a Red Camera, I assume we are talking a non misterium X Red. I've worked with that camera and its not good in low light. An F3 is much more indie friendly than a Red non misterium X. Red One Misterium X is a completely different camera, that's why it costs much more.

Yes, I can shoot a film, and I will, and it will not look bad with the current available gear in the market that I can purchase. No, I cannot rent, rentals do not exist here. Renting from Hong-Kong is not viable because we need international insurance for that. But this is not what I want at all. I wanted to be part of this revolution. I figured with 15K I could be part of what RED called since the beginning the digital cinema revolution. I want to agree with RED and say 4K is the way to go, not 1080p. I don't want to shoot with DSLR's. I thought I would have a choice! I know I have: a 40K purchase of the lightweight dream cinema camera of the future.
 
Sergio,

Move to Japan and work with me.
 
Democratising filmmaking is a good thing, i just don't see it producing "better" films. more kit doesn't mean more know-how.. the age of successful filmmakers may lower or spread out, but that doesn't mean the "artform" will necessarily get better.

the 35mm adapter setups work out at virtually the same price as Epic S. my old kit did anyway, you know no budget films are liked through the merits of the film as a whole (including image aesthetics , but not necessarily resolution etc.)

if rentals dont exist where you are, its a likely an indicator that theres not enough of an industry there to support it, so an important part of a filmmaking career may involve moving where there is a sustainable demand. I only say this because I know from my experience that even within the UK, the area you live can make it impractical and impossible to get any regular work or opportunities.

i still dont see whats wrong with shooting 3k scarlet, if Epic S is too much. $5-6k $15-20k $30-60k seems like a fair and super competitive spread of price points.
 
Sergio Perez said:
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you. There is obviously lots of crap content coming from DSLR's, but many, many great indie films we have today are because of the introduction of the DSLR's (and 35mm adapters). These films would have never existed if it wasn't for the large sensor interchangeable lenses revolution. A new generation of cinematographers will come from this, with the ability to learn from using different lenses, the intricacies of shutter, aperture, ND, lighting, etc because these cameras give them the possibility of controling the process and present an artistically acceptable cinema frame- beyond the Dogma Verité DV look. Red was supposed to be this revolution , at least for those indies that went DSLR's, when they introduced themselves. They did make a revolution, they revolutionized the rental markets, the top end productions and the middle end productions. This was an incredible feat, indeed. It was just not meant for me and my budget, at least yet. It was something I thought was always part of the plan, but as I see prices increasing, products constantly delaying (specially the lower end cameras, the ones I can afford) it makes me think we are more of a hindrance than a target audience for RED.

I do not wish to continue this rant, since its going nowhere.As for the suggestion of me buying with another filmmaker a Red Camera, I assume we are talking a non misterium X Red. I've worked with that camera and its not good in low light. An F3 is much more indie friendly than a Red non misterium X. Red One Misterium X is a completely different camera, that's why it costs much more.

Yes, I can shoot a film, and I will, and it will not look bad with the current available gear in the market that I can purchase. No, I cannot rent, rentals do not exist here. Renting from Hong-Kong is not viable because we need international insurance for that. But this is not what I want at all. I wanted to be part of this revolution. I figured with 15K I could be part of what RED called since the beginning the digital cinema revolution. I want to agree with RED and say 4K is the way to go, not 1080p. I don't want to shoot with DSLR's. I thought I would have a choice! I know I have: a 40K purchase of the lightweight dream cinema camera of the future.
Click to expand...

sorry cant resist..how come you say F3 is much more indie friendly??? Joking right :) when you see red company wants money for firmware update? dont understand people why they purchase F3...
 
Platitudes on story quality are nonsense. People are far more likely to pay to watch well produced drek than to spend a penny to watch something shot on a GH1 with poor lighting and bad sound.

Without a good picture and sound your project is a non-starter--even on YouTube. Presentation is important. I would say in descending order of importance is:

1) Sound - Just sound tracks by themselves sell better than most indie films.
2) Lighting/Picture - Most people are keen to watch nature documentaries of pretty scenery before your average indie film.
3) Acting - The most senseless story delivered by great actors is more watchable than the best story with horrible actors.
4) Story - An excuse for the above 3 points to exist. Also carries the potential for insight into the human condition... but usually doesn't in indie or big production films. Essentially every film is horribly riddled with plot holes and has a simple story.

The first 3 are just such givens in studio films today that we take them for granted until they're missing. We usually skip to #4 because everything else is generally executed brilliantly. They aren't givens in independent productions and suddenly they become deal breakers when they aren't there. A camera which isn't an obstacle saves you money and time to focus on a better result. More resolution, more cinematic looks, more sensitivity, less noise, more dynamic range and less clipping--these enable you to cover all of the presentational bases so that people can judge your story on its own merits.

*Also #1 and #2 can sometimes be flipped. I would say Tom's work is visually more important than its audio component.
 
Following a prioritized list of how much can this thing suck before it fails doesn't seem like a very good approach. This should not be a race to the bottom. It all has to be good. "We are only as strong as our weakest link." is a better mantra to follow. If there is one thing that indie Directors really need to work on it is the drama... the acting, IMHO. I've seen lots of half-assed shitty indies and while some rock the tech and others have a passable story fairly well told they all have one thing in common: Shitty performances.

While a technical problem may rest in the hands of an individual, performances are crafted by at least three; the Actor, Director AND the Editor. Since performance is key and has three or more points of failure, I say it is PERFORMANCE that requires most of our care, effort and attention. Why is it that so many indie directors have such a lack of respect for the craft of acting? Why do so many take casting so lightly? NO your sweet looking girlfriend can NOT have the part, we need an actual actress thank you very much.

What is the percentage of indie/student shows you worked on that actually rehearsed the actors? This isn't directed solely at Gavin, I mean any of us. No a read through does not count as rehearsal. How many... 1%?

Sorry Gavin, I can't place acting #3 of 4. just my 2¢ soapbox. Sorry it's OT.
 
Last edited:
Scott,
Couldn't agree more. The focus of any film, indie, blockbuster, or other, has to be the story and acting. The camera, sound, and lighting supports these. It is when these get flipped that we see some truly terrible films. While I am a believer in making sure there is excellent sound and picture, to many people on the lower end of the industry put way to much emphasis on which camera they are shooting with, and having the best possible gear. I have been guilty of this myself in the past. Without a great story, whats the point?!

My 2C :)
 
Kaku Ito said:
Sergio,

Move to Japan and work with me.
Click to expand...

Hehe, thanks Kaku :). Maybe in the near future we can work something out, a joint project,, or if you have any idea of shooting over here, you know you can count on me. I just can't leave this place, its my home, and there are so many stories to tell over here, important things to keep record since everything is just changing in an incredible pace. Its a great place to be if you're a filmmaker in terms of inspiration and storytelling possibilities, but has the downside of not having the technical infrastructure, both in manpower (technical staff) and professional gear. That's why you have to get almost everything yourself and try to build up around yourself.

Just ranted here because I've followed Red for so long, seen the Red One appear, then the First Scarlet announcement, then the change to DSMC, now the Epic-M and the fantastic footage it produces, and then, Epic-X, and the price has always gone UP. Epic-S seemed like the "Holly Grail" for people like me, but, again, we are getting silence. Seeing the roadmap of Red Epic X deliveries, with all those stages, and the price increase for next year, it seems like it will not be realistic for someone outside of a Red Stage to be getting an Epic-X this year with the old prices, which also means that, looking at Red Pricing tendencies and schedules, the Epic-S will be a more expensive camera and will come out 2012 the earliest. We are probably talking Red One Pricing again.Now that's frustrating. As for the F3 which I'm always coming up with is really the best camera I can afford. its a crippled camera that needs a paid software update to make it work properly. But with that firmware update the camera is still bellow 18K. And it produces images with 14 stops dinamic range, excellent low light performance and without the defects of DSLR imaging. Its somehow "affordable". Epic-S is on paper right now "affordable" for the indie. But its just not a priority, it seems. And I can understand that, because the fact is RED is now a cinema standard- its in almost every major production house in the world, its shooting Hollywood blockbusters. And when this happens, if you introduce a camera that can shoot Red Epic X quality images at a much inferior price, you're devaluing the rental value of the more expensive cameras, or the marketability of certain production houses that built around the Epic or Red One. This is great for branding of RED, they are in the Big leagues, but it somehow makes for the production world to be exactly the same. I always thought RED idea was to be the tool for the filmmaker, the digital cinema camera for all. A good video production is not only obviously about the camera, and one person having a RED does not make him a filmmaker. Good actors, lighting, set design, sound, support equipment, gprofessional staff and technicians, post-production... All these are fundamental for a professional piece of filmmaking. The camera is just a small, but fundamental part of the production. In fact, much of the technical and even visual language can be defined by the camera you have. If you have a 3CCD 1-3 camera you can be sure that you will not have the cinematography of one shooting a DSLR or a RED Camera- this is obvious and simple. The cinematographic quality of the web videos we can see in Vimeo for example would never be possible without the large sensor DSLR's. And you can see films in the web that are much, much more beautiful in cinematography than much broadcast and even films in cinemas. However, these videos are full of moiré, or have artifacts that make these productions rejected for big screen or broadcast production- look at BBC, for example, and their criteria. And these lcriteria make sense since the images have to go through heavy broadcast compression and will fall apart. So here we go back to Red. If you want to do Broadcast, or film, without concern of having to meet the technical requirements of these distribution mediums, you need to, again, pay much more to even start shooting.

And so I keep on ranting. What is this worth for? I don't know, would really like for Red to rethink their strategy and remember us down here. I'm not talking about the soccer mom democratic 3K for 3K camera here, but the 13K camera that would open 4K, 60FPS, RAW, Big sensor interchangeable revolutionary camera for the indie. Make it happen!
 
Scott Crawley said:
I didn't see it. Are you saying it was a bomb because the tech was bad or it was great in spite of shitty performance, or what?
Click to expand...
I'm saying it wasn't a bomb. It might not have been high art but a whole lot of people judged it to be more worth their time and money than every indie film released in the same year. I think that well demonstrates that even if you have an innovative story it ultimately comes down to presentation more than substance in order to get people to consider your offering.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I'm saying it wasn't a bomb. It might not have been high art but a whole lot of people judged it to be more worth their time and money than every indie film released in the same year. I think that well demonstrates that even if you have an innovative story it ultimately comes down to presentation more than substance in order to get people to consider your offering.
Click to expand...

probably the action content special effects and advertising more than aesthetic sensibilities though with films like that... if it was shot with 360 shutter and no lighting it would likely still have outsold the indie offerings.
 
Well I guess if we were only speaking about action and maybe horror genres, then I can see where you might consider the acting as less important. Yes, I can go along with that. On the other hand, few would deny that better acting would have considerably improved (Insert Michael Bay Action title here.).
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Platitudes on story quality are nonsense. People are far more likely to pay to watch well produced drek than to spend a penny to watch something shot on a GH1 with poor lighting and bad sound.

Without a good picture and sound your project is a non-starter--even on YouTube. Presentation is important. I would say in descending order of importance is:

1) Sound - Just sound tracks by themselves sell better than most indie films.
2) Lighting/Picture - Most people are keen to watch nature documentaries of pretty scenery before your average indie film.
3) Acting - The most senseless story delivered by great actors is more watchable than the best story with horrible actors.
4) Story - An excuse for the above 3 points to exist. Also carries the potential for insight into the human condition... but usually doesn't in indie or big production films. Essentially every film is horribly riddled with plot holes and has a simple story.

The first 3 are just such givens in studio films today that we take them for granted until they're missing. We usually skip to #4 because everything else is generally executed brilliantly. They aren't givens in independent productions and suddenly they become deal breakers when they aren't there. A camera which isn't an obstacle saves you money and time to focus on a better result. More resolution, more cinematic looks, more sensitivity, less noise, more dynamic range and less clipping--these enable you to cover all of the presentational bases so that people can judge your story on its own merits.

*Also #1 and #2 can sometimes be flipped. I would say Tom's work is visually more important than its audio component.
Click to expand...

I'd have to say that i agree with you for the most part. Although if i was doing this list i may shift a few things around, maybe even combine a few things. But no matter the order, none of these can be lacking too hard because for me movies have to have all four of those held high, in significant amounts. if any one of them is lacking the whole movie can be off-putting, so i'd have to say that it's all about the balance of them all.

That's me.

The general public, and of course this could depend on what part of the world that you live in, likes too see explosions and sex. And that's just terribly unfortunate. haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top