Epic vs Film - the Decisive Battle is looming

[David Birdy]

Digital Cinema will certainly gain a large share of the market,(and already has)
Trying to pin a date and time is very difficult.

I shot a Red test in Talladega for a NASCAR race and was amazed at the fact that NO photographers in the media room were shooting "film".

I asked one photographer how long it had been since he saw a "film" camera in the room and he said it was a few years!

The freelance photographers use digital cameras for these reason's:

Reduced cost.

Quick turnaround times.

Reduced cost.

Great images.

Reduced cost.

Easy and cost effective distribution.
______________________________________________________________________

Do you think any motion picture companies would benefit from the list above?

Do you know any producers that would like to reduce cost?

Seems like Mr. Jannard may have come to this conclusion a few years back!


While we were shooting on the "grid" I saw a well know sports "film person" shooting 16MM,one of his crew members pointed out the Red One we were shooting with and he glanced over and looked down his nose at the Red One. When I asked him if he had shot with it yet he said," Why would I want to shoot with that Star Wars looking camera"...That comment said it all...

It will take time and effort to move "film People" from film to digital, but just as the freelance professional Photography industry transitioned, so will a majority of the motion picture studios. Will it be 2010? It's unlikely, but the market share for Digital Cinema will certainly continue to grow!

Don't forget about this guy named George Lucas that has embraced Digital Cinema and used the benefits of the medium to his advantage, releasing a few popular movies........

P.S.

I never owned a Porsche or Ferrari but that day in the Photo room with the Red One gave me that feeling, as crowds of people gathered around to see the Red One and ask about it!

Dave

 

[jpp]

This means that by the end of 2010, more major studio pictures will be shooting digitally than on film.

That's a very short period of time, for a generally conservative industry to make that kind of a switch.

Digital urgency, and in some cases evangelism, seems to be felt most strongly among people who aren't actually making films, because they see it as an enabling technology. If you're already enabled, you may be more likely to stick with film for a few years more or to work in both mediums. And why would there be a hurry to adopt new technology when the existing technology is grand and improving, and with workflow and archiving proven and well-understood?

The analogy with D-SLRs may not be a good one. Convenience, and cost to individuals seems to be the crucial factor there. If you needed a production company, a large crew and $75 million to take still photographs, there would probably be more film cameras around.

 

[Chris Pickle]

No offense, but "reduced cost" is the weakest part of the argument. Any budget above a certain amount will not benefit from reduced cost. Everyone thinks it will, but it doesn't.

Someone will say if we save money we can afford more X or Y. But budget line items are like a pack of wolves. If there is some stray money, all the wolves descend on it, each getting a little taste, which then doesn't translate directly to the screen. Most producers know this. If you save a few bucks somewhere, it only ends up with slightly better craft services, or maybe more fair day rates or an extra trailer.

If you tell a producer on a 2 million dollar budget and above that they could save 50k if the shoot the Red, they won't jump at it. Yes, you could save more maybe, but producers hate risk as much as spending money. Tell them the post will be a challenge and you will lose them. They currently have a very proven work-flow and it's hard / scary to change. Many big spot houses and post houses still offline in 3/4 which I think is just complete insanity, but hey, they've been doing it for years that way.

And ironically at the low end, you could rent film gear cheaper than a Red kit. And with Red, you still have to sync audio in post--same as film. Render to an offline codec overnight--same as a film transfer. It's kind of ironic that you could get film developed and transfered faster than a Red render. In the big cities they turn around film in hours.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Red and plan to shoot my next project with it, but I think it shines mostly in very low budget projects where you could never get the image quality with anything else, as well, I think it's also good on the very big budget projects where you can make a choice to use it, and you have enough resources to trouble shoot, the still in development, work-flow.

I'm impressed when a big-name filmmaker uses the Red, but I also know they also have access to a money hose to put out fires.

I think film will be here for many more years.

Just my thoughts.

Chris

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's how it will probably go, since it is already happening:

More and more TV production companies will mandate shooting digitally for dramatic series normally shot on film, following Showtime's lead and other cable companies. Someday you'll hear rumors that, let's say, ABC Television wants all their new season shows to be shot on the Genesis or RED, etc.

The smaller studio-owned feature companies will also start pressuring their producers to shoot digitally once they are comfortable with the workflow and reliability. Those producers will start pressuring their directors and DP's to choose a digital option.

Eventually only the biggest feature productions (and commercials) will be left on their own to decide what format to shoot, but as more and more of their directors come from a background of shooting digitally, more and more will opt for what they are comfortable with.

Who knows how long for all of that to happen. It's already happening, of course, but it's not at a steady rate. It will probably be happening in big chunks or leaps as whole production entities and studios switch over. So in three years, five years, seven years, I don't know. I don't think it will be a specific camera like the EPIC that causes the conversion though, it will be the expansion of options combined with the comfort of using a proven workflow available at a wide variety of post houses, and a belief in the reliability of the cameras. For all the people who want to be first in line to use something new, there are a lot of people who would rather be last in line and stick to what they know works until then.

 

[Tom Lowe]

If you keep predicting the death of film, eventually you'll be right.

Well, this is my first such prediction.

 

[James T Mather]

This "film is dead" thing is so incredibly boring and juvenile (I'm sorry but it is). Given that an appreciation of "the film look" is why most people are interested in the Red camera, it seems a touch ungrateful to be celebrating it's death so joyously. Maybe give it a rest - when was the last time you went to the cinema to see a movie shot on bigibeta (they we're heralding the death of film when that was released too). Why not be grateful that films shot up to fifty years ago still look great - celebrate the fact that its still around instead of everyone jumping on the same bus with hand-wringing glee at it's extinction. Its like you all want to see it gone.

 

[Häakon]

Of course, how many people here predicted that the RED ONE would kill film? It seems every new camera that comes out will be the film killer... until the next one comes out...

I suppose this all depends on how one defines "killing film." Does it mean that the majority of productions in the world have shifted to digital acquisition? Does it mean that film is literally dead - that Kodak has completely stopped manufacturing stock and no one is shooting it anymore? When we say "film," are we discussing common run-of-the mill 35mm scope, or does it encompass larger formats like IMAX and beyond? Everyone likes to throw this phrase around, but I don't think it really has a unified, singular "definition."

For me, the RED ONE has already killed film. I get the quality I want, the DOF I want, the solid state architecture I want, and the vastly superior digital workflow I want in a package that's actually affordable. (Hey, what a concept)! I think many have prophecized about other cameras' legacy in much the same way (as you mentioned, the DVX, the XL2, the Varicam, etc.) because *on paper* the cameras look pretty good. I was pretty hyped up about the HVX myself with it's "1080p," true overcranking, and tapeless media. Then I got it home and found out it was quasi-720p at best, full of noise, and had a very poor codec that could be pushed around very little in post without disastrous results. It's easy to get caught up in the hype when companies make grandiose promises... but far more often than not, they fall pretty flat.

That, then, is what I think makes RED's story so interesting. Many have credited RED's "brilliant marketing" as a reason for the enormous hype/success the camera has received, but I honestly don't think they have marketed it much at all. They simply made a superior offering to everything else that's available - and then perhaps more importantly, delivered what they promised. Indeed, the the legion of fanboys have taken the hype to the next level and maybe it's this "marketing" which has annoyed more than a few... but honestly, I think there are quite a few reasons to be excited over what RED has put on the table.

Do I think RED ONE is the ultimate camera? No. There are still flaws, and hey... call me picky, but the quality of the image still has room to grow. All of this technology will only continue to evolve and get better. Remember that film has a hundred-year start! Look where digital offerings were 10 years ago compared to today. The improvement is exponential. Even Epic won't be there quality-wise, I don't think... we need in the realm of 6K-8K before that happens. Perhaps that's what "Monstro" is for, but I honestly don't think that's more than a great idea on a piece of paper at this point. What excites me is that I believe RED will actually deliver that cool idea someday.

Anyway - *for me* - 2007 was the tipping point in the digital vs. film equation in that RED was the camera that's finally "good enough" to best film given all of the advantages it has. Image quality had to reach a certain threshold before this could happen, absolutely, but now that it's there - AND you throw in the benefits of instant playback, realtime accurate monitoring, no processing, no developing, no telecine, instant editing opportunities... I mean, do I need to go on? I see very little reason to shoot film unless the project absolutely demands it and production can afford those costs. And unquestionably there are pictures where film would be more appropriate - but the vast majority don't. If you are shooting a commercial, music video, industrial... even if you're shooting a big-budget studio film like "Meet Dave" in 2008, I think RED is a far better choice. And for those reasons, I think film is already dead.

And for others, it will never be.

Isn't in a wonderful time to be a filmmaker?

 

[Chris Parker]

i can say that digital is coming faster and faster. i have posted several times on my thoughts on this, with 2012 as my prediction as i recall.

over the past 5 years, digital has begun replacing film on the commercial sets i work on at an increasing RATE. the percentage is still about 80% film, 20% digital. this is accelerating though, and i think it will continue to accelerate. i would actually agree now that by the END of 2010, over 50% of the jobs that I work on (high end commercials) will be shot digitally. thing is, once it gets to 50% or so, the rest will go quickly in commercial world. it has to become considered the 'norm' and then it's all the execs will budget for, except the odd old director/DP that won't bite.

 

[Chris Pickle]

This "film is dead" thing is so incredibly boring and juvenile (I'm sorry but it is). Given that an appreciation of "the film look" is why most people are interested in the Red camera, it seems a touch ungrateful to be celebrating it's death so joyously. Maybe give it a rest - when was the last time you went to the cinema to see a movie shot on bigibeta (they we're heralding the death of film when that was released too). Why not be grateful that films shot up to fifty years ago still look great - celebrate the fact that its still around instead of everyone jumping on the same bus with hand-wringing glee at it's extinction. Its like you all want to see it gone.

Hey James,

Here! Here!

BTW - Did you ever release Prey Alone as a full download. I'd love to watch the entire short. I read every bit of info and "making of" clips that you had on your Saint & Mather site.

Oh, I just checked. Is the "Watch The Movie" link the entire film?

I'm downloading it now!

Cheers,
Chris

 

[James T Mather]

Hey James,

Here! Here!

BTW - Did you ever release Prey Alone as a full download. I'd love to watch the entire short. I read every bit of info and "making of" clips that you had on your Saint & Mather site.

Oh, I just checked. Is the "Watch The Movie" link the entire film?

I'm downloading it now!

Cheers,
Chris

Yep, thats the whole thing Chris. Compressions a bit strong at times though.

 

[Tom Lowe]

This "film is dead" thing is so incredibly boring and juvenile (I'm sorry but it is). Given that an appreciation of "the film look" is why most people are interested in the Red camera, it seems a touch ungrateful to be celebrating it's death so joyously. Maybe give it a rest - when was the last time you went to the cinema to see a movie shot on bigibeta (they we're heralding the death of film when that was released too). Why not be grateful that films shot up to fifty years ago still look great - celebrate the fact that its still around instead of everyone jumping on the same bus with hand-wringing glee at it's extinction. Its like you all want to see it gone.

I don't think we are celebrating the death of film. Rather, we are celebrating the rise of digital cinema technology and all the democratizing benefits it brings to filmmakers. I mean, 15 years ago if you wanted to shoot and edit a little movie, you had to basically go to film school, spend a fortune on film and lab costs, camera rental, etc, then cut the thing on a hand splicer, and even then you had no real way of showing it to the world. It was not even possible to teach yourself editing, or special effects, or the art of color correction. You couldn't just "fiddle around" on After Effects or an NLE.

I used to shoot 35mm still film for years. But I remember what it was like to hand my precious roll of film over to some punk, pimple-face kid at the lab and PRAYING that they would not F up the exposure on my shots.

Now I'M THE LAB. I control my shots from start to finish, and the power of RAW makes me laugh when I think of handing a roll of film to some punk.

It's not so much a celebration of the death of anything. It is a celebration of new opportunities.

 

[jpp]

I mean, 15 years ago if you wanted to shoot and edit a little movie, you had to basically go to film school, spend a fortune on film and lab costs, camera rental, etc, then cut the thing on a hand splicer, and even then you had no real way of showing it to the world. It was not even possible to teach yourself editing, or special effects, or the art of color correction. You couldn't just "fiddle around" on After Effects or an NLE....

There's no question that it's much easier today, but 15 years ago there were loads of people making ultra-low budget 16mm movies, and no need of film school. Cameras were cheap to rent from non-profits or finagle from local universities, and you could put a Steenbeck in your apartment for $100 a month. Gus van Sant, Richard Linklater, Christopher Nolan, Kevin Smith (alas), and others launched careers with 16mm features well under $20,000.

Where you really see the difference today is the low cost and portability of video opening up documentary filmmaking to the masses, often to the good. But in the dramatic realm, it's not all that clear that technological change has altered the equation much. If anything, there may have been more possibilities in those days.

 

[James T Mather]

I don't think we are celebrating the death of film. Rather, we are celebrating the rise of digital cinema technology and all the democratizing benefits it brings to filmmakers....

It's not so much a celebration of the death of anything. It is a celebration of new opportunities.

Despite all of the above Tom your first post says this:

But I will go out on a limb and predict that Epic will engage in - and win - a decisive battle against cinema chemical film in 2010.

See what I mean about the Dickensian hand-wringing glee and delight in seeing film go (and I'm not just talking about you - it's across this board) - In general it makes this board sound a little juvenile and like amateur-night IMVHO. (no disrespect intended to you Tom, this is a general observation on camera boards). Any fervent zealotry in any field can only be met with derision - and the drum-beating fanboy thing makes people sound like Red Jihadists crashing into the "film" monopoly.

The Red is a CAMERA - that's it. It's a tool which should be able to co-exist with other tools. and before everybody claims that Red is the second coming of Christ almighty let me say that while the response to the system has been excellent overall, there are some issues with it (Digital cameras in general) that film beats hands-down at this stage - film is only dead to people who cannot afford it - but it also costs a lot to make a film - unless, like you Tom, they are a one-man timelapse show. Cameras and stock are a small percentage of a motion picture budget unless it's some guy making a movie in his auntie's kitchen with his sister in the lead role.

Right now, for general work on high end stuff there is no better format on the planet than 35mm film - it's bulletproof - no codec errors, no IR contamination, extended DR, good archival format (not to mention it's self archiving), wider range of ASA's available (as in digital cameras are really only good to about 500/640 and then look very "digital"), heat proof cameras, better daylight colour rendition, no shutter skew, no split screen strobe artifacts, proven workflow. There are reasons that Hollywood has been slow to adapt - too much money is at stake on a movie to risk it on a camera that hasn't got some road under it's tyres.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Red camera - - I've shot about twelve commercials on it at this stage - it's a great piece of kit and people love the pics etc but it's not a religion or a competition. The "film is dead" polemic just makes people on this board sound slightly unbalanced - as a consequence other opinions have no weight because this board is viewed as being a hotbed of Red fundamentalism.

And all of this is very respectfully IMVHO.

best to all - and Tom, I love your timelapse stuff BTW - incredibly cinematic.

James

 

[Häakon]

See what I mean about the Dickensian hand-wringing glee and delight in seeing film go (and I'm not just talking about you - it's across this board) and in general it makes this board sound a little juvenile and like amateur-night IMVHO. Any fervent zealotry in any field can only be met with derision - and the drum-beating fanboy thing makes people sound like Red Jihadists crashing into the "film" monopoly.

Right now, for general work on high end stuff there is no better format on the planet than 35mm film - it's bulletproof - no codec errors, no IR contamination, extended DR, good archival format (not to mention it's self archiving), wider range of ASA's available (as in digital cameras are really only good to about 500/640 and then look very "digital"), heat proof cameras, better daylight colour rendition, no shutter skew, proven workflow.

Hi James,

I completely respect where you are coming from and I understand the frustration you are expressing, although I don't think that calling anyone a juvenile zealot is likely to win you many points. This is, after all, a forum for discussing all things RED; it would be foolish to pretend that a chunk of those participating aren't going to want it to "win" over other options. Fighting that is like going on an Apple discussion forum and saying that Windows is far superior because it still has 90% market share and the widest selection of software and peripherals of any OS available. This may be true, but is such a battle worth waging there?

You totally lose me when you start declaring film as the "best" format because it's "bulletproof" - I can tell you that for every codec error and "IR contamination" problem I've had shooting with RED, I've had plenty more hairs in the gate, registration errors, light leaks, lab f*ups, scratches on the negative (the list is endless) with film. No medium is perfect. And while you make some valid points about film image properties like extended DR or wider usable ASA values (debatable), you completely fail to take into consideration all of the severe workflow advantages that digital brings to the table - not the least of which being able to see exactly what you're shooting while you're shooting it. That's a feature that you really can't trump no matter how you spin it.

There is no question that digital acquisition still has a ways to go, but what I think people are latching onto is that the improvements being made in the technology are so exponential on a year-to-year basis that it is clear to see an end-of-life for traditional celluloid on the horizon. That's a glaring new reality for our craft (even though as David has pointed out, many have "predicted" such an outcome for years), and as it's a sharp detour from the singular way things have been done in this business since the inception of motion picture, it is bound to be a little disruptive!

Again, it all depends on how one chooses to define "the death of film," but I am with many others that at some point in the not-too-distant future, the majority of motion picture releases will be shot with digital equipment. That alone is a fairly revolutionary idea worth discussing whether you're excited about it or not.

Best,

Häakon

 

[James T Mather]

I'm not anti-red - I happen to own one (another on order) and shoot regularly with it - it's great - I'm saying that it's only a camera not a religion. - It's all a bit "Manchester United is better than Liverpool" - a bit school boyish. Live and let live.

you completely fail to take into consideration all of the severe workflow advantages that digital brings to the table

The workflow is not up to spec yet as far as the post houses are concerned with all the (ludicrously slow) Redcine processing of rushes - the ability to manipulate the data directly from the camera is an absolute necessity and not just in FCP (which is a desktop package, albeit a good one I understand) but from all major editing systems in professional use (eg: AVID). Also maintaining access to the full RAW data until the final step of colour grading is also a priority. The shooting workflow I think is great - it's about the easiest camera in the world to learn. Just clean up the codec stuff and we're rocking in terms of shooting.

image properties like extended DR or wider usable ASA values (debatable)

I personally thought Apocalypto looked awful with the overcranked noisy chip resulting in poor latitude and awful video noise characteristics - it's entirely subjective. Great movie - poor format choice, given they were shooting in a place where contrast control would be a problem. IMHO.

I can tell you that for every codec error and "IR contamination" problem I've had shooting with RED, I've had plenty more hairs in the gate, registration errors, light leaks, lab f*ups, scratches on the negative (the list is endless) with film.

I haven't seen a hair in the gate for about four years, no registration errors for about ten years, light leaks (sure, mostly pilot error in terms of assistants blowing a mag) labs etc. In fairness, digital has been on the road for only a couple of years while film has been going for a century - as such more stories will abound regarding errors because it's had more time to gather them. Digital will have it's day too - corrupted data, drive errors, codec problems, people erasing cards accidentally etc.

Look back at Lawrence of Arabia - still one of the most beautiful films shot - it stands up well even today. Blade Runner, The Duellists, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - all still great looking movies. I can't see those early Blondie and Rolling Stones videos shot on video looking too hot these days.

No medium is perfect.

Agreed. That's exactly my point. A bit of balance.

not the least of which being able to see exactly what you're shooting while you're shooting it

That's never particularly been a problem for me - but then I make my living as a cameraman. All I'm saying is that rabid fandom creates a situation where the opinions are no to be trusted because it comes from a place where there is no balance. If I wanted to learn something about Islam, for example, I wouldn't talk to a fundamentalist who thinks that all other ways of life should be terminated in favour of his vision. In the end of the day Red is great - but it is a camera (and, all things being equal - a very good one)

 

[Harry Clark]

James,
Couldn't agree more. Rabid fanboy-ism blocks intelligent discussion no matter what the subject.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Tom Lowe]

jtm, this whole passive-aggressive "you're a zealot... no offense" gets kind of old, dude.

i have stated very clearly, on this forum, that right now, 35mm beats Red for feature films. does that make me a blind zealot? when most of the people on this board claimed Red One was going to put film out to pasture, i was one of the few people here saying that it would not. for a couple of years now i have thought that it is Red's second offering (which we recently learned would be the 5K Epic) that would tilt the balance and start an exponential trend toward digital adoption. along with Panavision, Sony and other companies coming out with new cameras in the near future.

what i am predicting is similar to what has already taken place with SLRs. i don't think anyone actually denies that this is going to happen. so it's a matter of when.

if i came on here and predicted with glee that 10-core CPUs were going to replace 8-core CPUs, does that mean I am anti-8-core? No, it just means I am pro 10-core. nerds are sitting around discussion boards all day predicting when some new technology trend will occur. Kurzweil has made an entire career out of it. so just because i predict that digital will overtake film by the end of 2010 on studio features i am automatically tossed in with all the stark raving clowns who have made bogus predictions about digital in the past?

sometimes it seems like the guys who feel the need to defend film are sort of shadow-boxing against strawmen. anyone who says digital is going to do this or that is automatically lumped in with all the trash-talking pro-digital loudmouths who have ever graced the internet. you know, it is possible to have a nuanced view on these matters, and it does get a little tiresome to be lectured continually on the same two subjects: 1. More resolution won't make your script or actors better and 2. People have been predicting a digital takeover for 20 years.

most of us here are well aware of these two facts. i addressed point number 2 in the op of this thread.

 

[James T Mather]

Sorry Tom - it just caught me on an off day - and another "film is dead" thread just caught in my throat. Apols if i offended as it wasn't your specific post that I was responding to but rather the "film is dead" argument on general principle.

I agree that digital will make massive inroads (hell, if the past month is anything to go by, I might be surprised if I ever get to shoot film again) - it just seems that some people seem to want it to go that way. (yourself respectfully excluded of course :wink: )

and in fact more resolution will make your script and actors better - everyone knows that.

Best - James

 

[jpp]

Most of the anti-film fundamentalism, present on the board (though not in this thread), seems more of a consumer fantasy than anything else: the belief that owning a high quality non-film camera is tantamount to access to the feature film market, because film is the gate (so they say) that Hollywood uses to keep the rest of us out. The fact that visual beauty rarely has anything to do with the success of low-budget non-Hollywood movies, even assuming it can be achieved on low budget, and that resolution per se has next to no market influence, is easily forgotten.

Those who found 16mm too daunting or expensive, or believe DV isn't good enough, or that Scarlet won't be good enough, are likely to find reasons not to shoot anything with Red or Epic either. And those reasons could be excellent: for example, there just isn't enough to money to pull the film off, even if the camera were free. It's also true that most of the low-budget non-Hollywood film successes, most of them shot on 16mm, aren't very good. Making those films turned out to be a life-transfiguring decision for the directors, but few of these productions could be justified on aesthetic grounds today or yesterday.

In the end, the drive to make films seems to have very little to do with technology or even money. Determination and fearlessness are far more important than any camera. Spoken by someone (me) who will almost certainly buy a Scarlet, but can't readily explain why.

Hope this doesn't sound like another lecture on why resolution won't improve the script or the performances, or make the film more marketable, but too much interest in equipment, in a camera, can be another kind of impediment, an avoidance of reality. Anyway, I speak from personal experience of this malady, no imputations of others intended.

 

[James T Mather]

jpp - wow! hmy: that gets my vote for post of the year - never a truer word spoken, er, typed.

Kudos.

In fact - getting your hands on a free camera to shoot is pretty easy once you have everything else in place. A friend of mine planned shooting on DV - I talked him out of it and we made the short on 35mm for 5000 euros - camera package provided for free by Panavison, stock donated by FUJI, he even got a discount processing rate and free TK. Most of the five grand went on production expenses such as getting actors to the set, catering, lighting rental, location fees, props, costume, etc. The camera is the least of your worries when making a narrative film.

Last year myslelf and a friend put together this little 3 minute thing - all greenscreen. Got the studio for free, lights for free, crew for free, Arri donated a d-20 camera for free, editing was free, I did all the post effects myself - a cast of around six people for a three day shoot - actors got only expenses. It still cost 18000 euros making it. In short, the hidden costs of shooting only become apparent when one is shooting - things like catering, locations costs etc tend to cost a lot and the bills mount up pretty fast.