Features: It’s the workflow, stupid.

[Russ McDonald]

I have as a Director shot film, and HD. I shot Eddies in HD for budget reasons. I would shot on film only if it was a deal breaker for an actor, or a Producer. Looking at the footage posted, the latitude you have in a red is amazing. Any number of looks can be achieved, with the push of a non destructive computer key.

As far as money, I do allot of budget consulting for independent films. I've done the math. Red production workflow is 60% of a conventional film workflow. If you add a first unit B camera it even more. Apples to apples.

Thom contention of saving shooting days, 15 days was an extreme example, but finding yourself 3-5 days ahead over a hundred day schedule. I can see that happen.

As far as onset offline edits, I for one would of loved to have had it on Eddies. The shorter to schedule the more value I see in the practice.

 

[Jason Murphy]

It's also a bit disingenuous to claim you saved time vs. shooting on film when you take 120 days to shoot a movie, don't you think?

Fincher's notorious for his long shoots. Not quite Kubrickian, but pretty close. Fight Club, shot on film, had a 138-day shooting schedule and seemed to be of similar scope to Zodiac, but your point is well taken. By that point, you're not saving anyone much time, no matter what format you're shooting in.

 

[Pat555]

A new Dawn?

A new Dawn?

I totally agree and could not articulate it any better.....

Sorry, Evin, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, at least until someone shoots something that either proves or disproves it. But in my experience, a production day is taken up by steps that are quite independent of any camera or recording technology. I just don't see where having a slightly smaller camera means less rigging time. Or where having visual confirmation of focus means that the AC shouldn't measure any more (unless you want to accept soft focus as a result). Or even where, for an experienced cameraman, having a monitor really makes any significant difference in the number of units used, the amount of grip equipment required, or how many tweaks are done - at least not if the cameraman is going to be meticulous. And there will certainly not be any less time taken waiting for first team to come in, or waiting for touch ups. Your experience is obviously showing you a different picture, at least for the productions you've worked on. Like I said, time will tell, but I really don't believe there will be any dramatic change in the amount of time taken for basic production at the same quality level.

 

[mezmo]

Hi Luki,
Not trying to say establishing a film post solution is cheaper
than a Red and Digital cinema solution. I'm saying at the moment there's
not that much difference between film and digital because of the
high cost of the 2/4K post & DI solutions.
On set I'm sure directors will shoot more, like Mr Fincher probably three
times more than a normal 35mm shoot. This may,haven't been there yet,
create a data management bunfight. Untill we have fast, reliable, inexpensive Digital Cinema solutions available, the real cost savings of this
new technology will not come into play.
The way I see it we have three acquisition/production systems for the
production feature drama for theatrical distribution.
Film. The old reliable, expensive solution. But still the only way
90% of theaters can screen our films worldwide.
High Definition. Another reliable and less expensive solution but
limited with various compression and quality issues.
Then Digital Cinema. The new kid on the block. Red and SI have done
a lot to bring the cost of DC down already and if things keep going along
this cost saving path this new system will be a force to be reckoned with.
Scratch is the only system at the moment attached to the Red DI post workflow and the guys who have your system will reap the benefits as
producers come in to DI and finish their Red movies. It won't be cheap
and I don't have a problem with this, good luck to them. But in the long
term the thing that wiil make Red Digital Cinema sucessful will be it's
ease of use and cost saving advantages over film and maybe even HD.
Will it replace film and HD, no way, Film will still be the way most people
on the planet see movies theatricially for many years to come and HD will still be a very large part of the broadcast & TV industry.
When we have Digital Cinema as reliable as the other two systems and
more cost effective it will fly and be a great option for motion picture production.
It's just not there at the moment,early days
and exciting times.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[Marcus Irvin]

It's happened over and over. Film is no different.

It's happened over and over. Film is no different.

Thom is right. I've been saying the same on this forum since this forum was born.

It happened to scientific recording.
It happened to typesetting.
It happened to photography labs.
It happened to fine art printmaking.
It happened to still photography.
It happened to audio recording.
It happened to satellite broadcasting.
It is happening to broadcast delivery (I'm on FIOS)

It is happening to filmmaking.

When DIGITAL ANYTHING reaches a certain quality level (which RED is surpassing) it creates a perfect storm of speed, convenience, repeatability, flexibility and per unit cost-savings compared to analog materials and methods.

It won't be RED workflow by itself forcing this, but to insist filmmaking is somehow different than all of these other data-delivery pursuits is just being a romantic non-thinker. Data is not necessarily art, but art is always data at some point lately.

Of course there are still people shooting daguerreotype photos for sale and others making buggy whips for easy acceleration. Film won't go away either, but it will become a small niche player sooner than many seem willing to admit.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

In capitalism, efficiency (or graft) wins out

In capitalism, efficiency (or graft) wins out

Maybe the reason that we are at odds in our evaluation of the impact of the RED system on production days and total costs is due to apples vs oranges. For example; larger crews power through issues that impede smaller crews, some DPs ignore the video tap and others check every time, etc. All due respect to mmost I still contend that the RED system will save time and money at every level, but the differential will vary based on the scope of the project and the working style of the DP / Director.

The other key issue I see is that the film based pipeline has been polished for years but a Digital Cinema solution with the underpinnings of the RED system is just beginning - heck, RedCine is not even shipping yet. Like Thom I see a day when proper manipulation of the production process to increase the efficiency of the post process will yield the kind of savings that producers will demand.

 

[mezmo]

Hi Marcus,
Film will go digital at some point but not at the moment.
90% of exhibition worldwide is still film.
That's why most sales agents/distributers still require a 35mm
interpos as the main delivery item on sale of rights.
But at the rate film based Theatrical exhibition venues are closing
worldwide, digital may not even get a look in here.
I'm talking about feature drama work for theatrical distribution.
This exhibition industry is slowly dying all over the world, attendances are
down, way down, and the old tech film projection systems we see in most
theatres will probably see most owners out and into retirement.
And your right at that point everything will be digital and the standard
set by film may well drop or may be even better.
New forms of digital delivery and exhibition will eventually replace film
exhibition, but when and how, that's the multi million dollar question.
Film prints will be with us for some time yet, even if the project was acquired digitally.
Hollywood has to be careful that it's doesn't put more people out of
business by forcing them to go the digital exhibition path.
If you only want to release a film digitally at the moment your looking
to be excluded from 90% of cinemas on the planet and only selling
rights to Hollywood majors who are the gatekeepers of the packaging and
encription technology for digital exhibition.
These guys only pick up 1-2% of films made worldwide for exhibition in the
US. The other 98-99% get shown mostly on film in a cinema near you all
over the world,or on TV,DVD,or not at all. You see why film is important to the
Indie filmaker. It's one of the last forms of Independant Distribution.
Food for thought. Mezmo

 

[Antoine Baumann]

First, yes worflow is a key point. Some may like film workflow, but video (or digital cinema if you prefer) workflow has his advantage. While you are not going to be able to do record much more than on film with CF card in the near future, you are with hard drives, and that's a difference.
Processing is not a expense with video, so director tends to shoot more, which does not sound as time saving, but more artistic advantage.
Most HD cameras are WYSIWYG, shooting RAW will be different. I think it is taking advantage on both workflow.

Totaly agree with you mezmo. I really don't believe that Film distribution will be replaced by digital so soon. BTW DCI is @ 2K res (with option for 4K) for ten years...so 8K tomorrow, yes but that's a far tomorrow. Cinemas are not going to buy new projector every couple of years, because a brand offer a new projector with more resolution, these toys are too expensive.

As for post production, well, if you stay in 4K REDCODE raw all the way, which I think will be very rare, you might be able to do a 4K finish for a quite cheap price in a small facility/studio, but looking to how it is done now, that is using dpx files, a 4K dpx workflow is not going to be manageable in the same way. BTW, I don't believe 3D rendering @ 4K resolution is going to be cheap for quite some year.

While post production workflow can be changed and format as well, don't forget REDCODE is a proprietary format, which EXR or DPX is not.

antoine.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Thom is right. I've been saying the same on this forum since this forum was born.

It happened to scientific recording.
It happened to typesetting.
It happened to photography labs.
It happened to fine art printmaking.
It happened to still photography.
It happened to audio recording.
It happened to satellite broadcasting.
It is happening to broadcast delivery (I'm on FIOS)

It is happening to filmmaking.

When DIGITAL ANYTHING reaches a certain quality level (which RED is surpassing) it creates a perfect storm of speed, convenience, repeatability, flexibility and per unit cost-savings compared to analog materials and methods.

You're not wrong, but go back and reread Mike Most's post. One of the issues with filmmaking is that the operation of the camera is one of the less significant ways that time gets eaten up on a film set. Lighting and set ups eat up much more time. You'll see some time savings by shooting digital, sure. Just not particularly significant ones.

Now, post production, yeah. Digital speeds things up. For experimental or documentary productions where you have one or two people doing everything, then shooting digital will likely speed things up for them a significant amount. Not so much on a set.

 

[E.J. Sadler]

I think there are things that will wind up making a big difference that people just haven't experienced yet. For example, if the AC buzzed a shot and the operator missed it because they were too focussed on something else, chances are a couple of sets of eyes watching an HD monitor that's capable of displaying critical focus would have caught it. The non-linear nature nature of the media is going to allow very quick spot reviews without having to scrub through tape. One or two catches like that during a production could save a schedule.

The lighter weight is going to make a big difference to operators wether hand-held or steadi. A lighter rig is going to let you go longer before fatigue starts to affect performance.