Stephen Williams
Well-known member
Hi Jim,
The final running time will be under 10 minutes so we were quite wasteful with film! Our locations were not close together, and without any electricians lighting took longer than usual.
Stephen
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
What RED can do that FILM can't?
- Thread starter Siva Kollipara
- Start date
Hi Jim,
The final running time will be under 10 minutes so we were quite wasteful with film! Our locations were not close together, and without any electricians lighting took longer than usual.
Stephen
Eirik Tyrihjel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,580
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Age
- 53
- Location
- Oslo, Norway
- Website
- www.groovyentertainment.com
I guess I was saying; Those rates you mentioned are very very good, I own 16mm gear and even with that I couldn´t dream to come close to your quote. But Norway isn´t the filmmakers dreamworld (economically), with only one lab - that few use, and little or no competition on the telecine side of things... enter RED.
Chris Pickle
Well-known member
This is sort of related.
I produced a commercial for a regional client and they wanted to amp up production value on a particular campaign. We budgeted out for an HD shoot on the Sony 900 but it turned into a huge challenge. We needed to find a Dp with HD experience that the Ad Agent / client could approve, we needed to rent HD gear and on set monitoring, plus forget trying to ingest footage. There's a huge deck rental involved. It became a nightmare.
One day I'm starring at the budget trying to figure it out and suddenly realized we could shoot 35mm for easily the same money. Within a few hours I had a DP with a great reel signed off. I had telecine figured out. I made a deal on some recans and rented a decent 35 camera kit for a fraction of the damn 900. Does anyone realize how cheap it is to rent 35 mm gear compared to a 900 or a Varicam, especially if you add a P&S 35 adapter to the HD deal. I got a fantastic off-hours rate on the CC session and the DP oversaw the session included in his original shoot day rate. The transfer house also loaded the footage as DPX sequence on a drive for me. No need to rent a deck. The footage looked fantastic, and everyone was a hero.
Now I understand the Red will eliminate much of the hassle that is usually associated with shooting HD so I think it will be an awesome tool, but I think some people don't realize what other expenses can drive a budget and that sometimes the bleeding edge of technology can make things more complicated than they need to be.
Just my .02 cents
Chris
I produced a commercial for a regional client and they wanted to amp up production value on a particular campaign. We budgeted out for an HD shoot on the Sony 900 but it turned into a huge challenge. We needed to find a Dp with HD experience that the Ad Agent / client could approve, we needed to rent HD gear and on set monitoring, plus forget trying to ingest footage. There's a huge deck rental involved. It became a nightmare.
One day I'm starring at the budget trying to figure it out and suddenly realized we could shoot 35mm for easily the same money. Within a few hours I had a DP with a great reel signed off. I had telecine figured out. I made a deal on some recans and rented a decent 35 camera kit for a fraction of the damn 900. Does anyone realize how cheap it is to rent 35 mm gear compared to a 900 or a Varicam, especially if you add a P&S 35 adapter to the HD deal. I got a fantastic off-hours rate on the CC session and the DP oversaw the session included in his original shoot day rate. The transfer house also loaded the footage as DPX sequence on a drive for me. No need to rent a deck. The footage looked fantastic, and everyone was a hero.
Now I understand the Red will eliminate much of the hassle that is usually associated with shooting HD so I think it will be an awesome tool, but I think some people don't realize what other expenses can drive a budget and that sometimes the bleeding edge of technology can make things more complicated than they need to be.
Just my .02 cents
Chris
- Banned
- #64
Hi Stephen,
As you know the lab for a 35mm feature is almost $100KUS, DI even more.
I don't know why producers promote this "I only made it for $100K" thing?
When potential buyers know you made a film for next to nothing, it can
backfire, because that's what buyers tend to offer for a pick-up or advance
on sales, next to nothing.
On a low budget film with a real budget of say $1.5-5million the savings are in
100-150,000 feet of filmstock,Processing,Telecine for editorial,Neg cut
costs,Scan out to DPX of 10-15,000 feet, more if the neg is cut camera
stop to camera stop or slate to slate.
When many thousands of Red cameras are out there for hire, weekly
rates should be as cheap as dirt.
When the data centric workflow really gets going and we see competiton
in this area a 1080p/2K capable system that can conform, grade and render
out to DPX should eventuallly be had for the rental price of an Avid offline
system.
Datacentric acquisition and workflow will create competition in the industry
and help drive down costs in the low budget area of films produced using
this Digital Cinema technology.
I will still shoot projects on film but the possibility of the things mentioned
above may be worth some consideration if a larger than $100K low budget
project comes your way. I'll definitly be giving it a shot, pardon the pun.
Mezmo
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
The high costs of doing a laser recorder output from digital to film has traditionally meant that for feature work, sometimes shooting in 35mm, if you have a very low shooting ratio and are willing to work with cheaper recan stock, etc., and then cutting the negative, can be cheaper than digital-to-film, or about the same. It definitely can be cheaper than Super-16-to-35mm using a D.I., unless the shooting ratio is high.
A film with a budget of $100,000 to $200,000 that shoots in 35mm is probably going to cut a lot of corners -- like I said, using a low shooting ratio and probably recanned/shot-end stock. I've done it myself on some features. It's not a right or wrong thing, it just depends on the visual needs of the project, whether or not a low shooting ratio is problematic or not. Scrimping, getting deals, whatnot, their costs for shooting in 35mm are more likely to be around $50,000-$60,000, let's say, which is within the realm of some laser recorder film-outs for digitally-shot features.
But lately, laser recording costs have dropped somewhat, so it gets a little harder to make the argument that it can be cheaper to shoot in 35mm and do a traditional photochemical finish, though it may be similar in costs to digital-to-film and it may look better, depending on the quality of the digital project vs. the 35mm photography. But all of this assumes a pretty restrictive shooting ratio for 35mm, and it assumes that a 35mm print release is required.
If you eliminate the need for 35mm prints, then it's obvious that shooting digitally is always going to be a lot cheaper.
The arguments for shooting indie features in HD have been similar to those for using Super-16, i.e. reduce upfront production costs and figure that if a theatrical deal happens later, the money to transfer it to 35mm will also become available. And if a 35mm theatrical deal never happens, then you've saved all that money for what will become a straight-to-home video project.
A film with a budget of $100,000 to $200,000 that shoots in 35mm is probably going to cut a lot of corners -- like I said, using a low shooting ratio and probably recanned/shot-end stock. I've done it myself on some features. It's not a right or wrong thing, it just depends on the visual needs of the project, whether or not a low shooting ratio is problematic or not. Scrimping, getting deals, whatnot, their costs for shooting in 35mm are more likely to be around $50,000-$60,000, let's say, which is within the realm of some laser recorder film-outs for digitally-shot features.
But lately, laser recording costs have dropped somewhat, so it gets a little harder to make the argument that it can be cheaper to shoot in 35mm and do a traditional photochemical finish, though it may be similar in costs to digital-to-film and it may look better, depending on the quality of the digital project vs. the 35mm photography. But all of this assumes a pretty restrictive shooting ratio for 35mm, and it assumes that a 35mm print release is required.
If you eliminate the need for 35mm prints, then it's obvious that shooting digitally is always going to be a lot cheaper.
The arguments for shooting indie features in HD have been similar to those for using Super-16, i.e. reduce upfront production costs and figure that if a theatrical deal happens later, the money to transfer it to 35mm will also become available. And if a 35mm theatrical deal never happens, then you've saved all that money for what will become a straight-to-home video project.
- Banned
- #66
Matthew Rogers
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,497
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 44
- Website
- www.macvilleproductions.com
The nice thing about shooting something like the RED--if you can get a 35MM film quality--is that you don't have to get those recans or ends. Plus, you don't have to worry about your shooting ratio as much. But it just depends on what people want to shoot on.
It'll be nice in a few years when most theaters can project digitally so you won't have to worry about doing a filmout.
Matthew
In general, you have to get a distribution deal to be in theaters in the first place. And when you get a distribution deal, there are deliverables that are required that include a finished negative. That will likely be the case for a long, long time.
- Banned
- #68
Hi David,
This is probably more possible in LA, with the large number of lab
facilities and recan providers.
In my area the recan guys charge almost as much as new rawstock. It's not worth the trouble and lab prices are pretty fixed with little competition.
I still fail to see how a 35mm feature can be made for $100K without
megabucks in deferals out the backend or operating with unsafe uninsured
or risky work practise. A deferal cost or deal to be paid or settled at a
later date has to be included as budget. Otherwise it's a buls..t budget
quoted by producers. I have two friends who have just completed a film
project. Both spent approx two years working on the thing full time. Not to
include man/women hours as fees, Producer/Director and have that as part of a budget quote when a film comes up for sale is just insane IMHO.
This low low shooting budget thing seems to be very in vogue at the moment. "Look at me I just made a film for next to nothing", I just don't get it.
Maybe it's time to throw in the towel and go fishing. My time has come.
Mezmo
This is probably more possible in LA, with the large number of lab
facilities and recan providers.
In my area the recan guys charge almost as much as new rawstock. It's not worth the trouble and lab prices are pretty fixed with little competition.
I still fail to see how a 35mm feature can be made for $100K without
megabucks in deferals out the backend or operating with unsafe uninsured
or risky work practise. A deferal cost or deal to be paid or settled at a
later date has to be included as budget. Otherwise it's a buls..t budget
quoted by producers. I have two friends who have just completed a film
project. Both spent approx two years working on the thing full time. Not to
include man/women hours as fees, Producer/Director and have that as part of a budget quote when a film comes up for sale is just insane IMHO.
This low low shooting budget thing seems to be very in vogue at the moment. "Look at me I just made a film for next to nothing", I just don't get it.
Maybe it's time to throw in the towel and go fishing. My time has come.
Mezmo
Systems don't conform and grade. People do. Hopefully those people don't also come for next to nothing.
Häakon
Well-known member
Just spent the weekend shooting RED side-by-side with 35mm film and an HDX900 (the 1080, tape-based one) in a myriad of tests. I don't have time to write a huge report right now, but what I will say is that RED is so far ahead of everything else available from a workflow standpoint that it's ridiculous. The footage is unbelievable... I have very few complaints. I am confident that the film will hold its own, but seeing that it needs to be developed and processed and sent to telecine first... *shrugs.* Oh, and you know that I respect you immensely Stephen, but I'm just not buying the "film-saves-you-money" bit. The only thing I spent shooting RED this weekend was 80 bucks on a hard drive to store the footage. The cost of the stock, lab fees, digitizing time, and gas it took to drive all over L.A. just so I can watch my film... in the thousands. It's not even close...
- Banned
- #71
Hi mike,
of course not, any machine is only as good as it's operator, i think we all know that, highly skilled people wiil always have an edge here and
the cheaper technolgy becomes the more highly skilled people are on the
ground. this is the much promoted win, win, situation in a corporate speak
that we all know and love/hate.
Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
Mezmo
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
Hi,
They shot 65,000 feet & did not pay list for anything. D.I.'s are expensive & can be avoided if you shoot 35mm 1:1.85.
BTW the producer is going to make a profit on his indie film.
Stephen
Joseph Mastantuono
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Brooklyn
- Website
- www.goodpost.net
Too many people learning on DV instead of Film has already done it...
The *huge* advantage I saw was:
On Set non destructive color-correction for dailies, Playback, and vfx previews, with just a laptop.
Just think: the DP can set the look onset in between takes and set ups, so that producers don't have to use their imagination with the dailies, but the Director isn't locked into that look in post the same you'd be with a paint-box.
In two words, Immediate Feedback. Soft-Focus, a smudge on the filter, boom in the shot, Continuity... All of those things can be checked immediately, without the pain that is video tap + playback.
I do think that for some people, 35mm film will be a little bit cheaper in the short run for certain projects, simply because the work-flow is there, and so ingrained in the minds of everyone, that the known quantity may be easier for them.
And, philosophically I think it can be argued that the immediate feedback could be a 'bad' thing in terms of keeping things moving. I'd disagree unless the director wanted to see playback for every shot or something, but it could be argued.
- Banned
- #74
Hi Stephen,
getting a little off topic here, but here goes. A profit is not a profit
if it's at the expense of another. If somone has to loose in order for your
producer to make a "profit", then that's not a profit it's a debt . and if that
debt is not repaid in some way shape or form then it becomes theft IMHO.
Mezmo
- Banned
- #75
To make a 35mm feature on film for $100KUS a lot of people are working
for nothing, trust me it's the only way a thing like this can happen.
It's not even legal because some form of wage/salary has to be paid so that
a person is insured standing or working on a set.
If your asked to work on a film for nothing by people who call themselves
producers and like Stephen's pal's who want to make a "profit", be warned.
Most seem to suffer memory loss when they pick up the first 3 picture
deal from Fox and are unable to recall those who helped them on early projects, those who worked for nothing.
Being passionate and eager to gain experience in the film industry is one
thing, being exploited is another.
Mezmo
for nothing, trust me it's the only way a thing like this can happen.
It's not even legal because some form of wage/salary has to be paid so that
a person is insured standing or working on a set.
If your asked to work on a film for nothing by people who call themselves
producers and like Stephen's pal's who want to make a "profit", be warned.
Most seem to suffer memory loss when they pick up the first 3 picture
deal from Fox and are unable to recall those who helped them on early projects, those who worked for nothing.
Being passionate and eager to gain experience in the film industry is one
thing, being exploited is another.
Mezmo
- Banned
- #76
Dont take that personally RED team
- Banned
- #77
?
Mezmo
- Banned
- #78
The Red camera costs peanuts (relatively speaking). Does that help?
- Banned
- #79
I think the Red Team are highly skilled and paid well as a result.
I was refering to film crew/post people who are poorly skilled and paid little.
Nothing to do with Red or the cost of the camera.
To get the best results we need to attract the best people by paying them well, according to their skills.
In other words, you get what you pay for.
Mezmo