RED's biggest problem

[Wesley Scoggins]

Hi,

I have to ask if you have ever been in a grading session at a top post house?
Everything happens in real time, I don't really see it being quicker or easier at home.

Stephen

Well I have been to production houses, and seen and done coloring work before. But I guess it depends on what you mean by "top post-houses", like I haven't ever been to WETA or Technicolor or anything like that, but of course that's part of the point I was making (Not everyone has had the opportunity or can afford that.)

In regards to "easier", I meant as in computers are going to get faster and smarter, and the user interfaces easier. We already have a HUGE amount of colorwork tools in "consumer" editing programs, stuff that 10-15 years ago cost far far more, and can do stuff that was almost impossible to do without tons of specialized equipment.

Also, the workflow will obviously be quicker simply because you won't have to send anything off. If I decide to shoot a big project and get it CC'd at a big post-house, it'll cost me A LOT, and i'll have to get things sent off. It's a temporal matter, not having to travel a large distance to get your stuff worked on, and having powerful enough tools to do it at home will (and already has) made a HUGE difference in how things will be able to look on a budget.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

enabled

enabled

RED and Software enable people to make movies and stuff...

The internet enables people who say dumb things to be read by millions...

 

[Tony Brown]

As much as I think the greater access to higher end imagery will cause a massive influx of material to the market that should never have been made, I also see the opportunities that this technology represents.

With cash-flow issues, this technology will also allow filmmakers who are brilliant at what they do - making films - but who are poor at shilling themselves to the mainstream or to investors, to make their films.

As with all advances in technology, those who are talented and able to adapt will always shine. And, isn't the film industry always about who can adapt? 'Cause making great images is a given.

I completely agree with that Chris, maybe my point was missed. The pointy end of the industry will not really be affected, good material is good material, rubbish is rubbish. Digital capture for me just offers a new tool. Thats excellent.

My point is that grading and editing can now be done by (for example) directors (maybe agency creatives in the commercials world) who think they can make a good job of finishing a project in the comfort of their office, even on set. The very best editors and colorists will always float to the top I fear but there is going to be a massive cull of very good technicians and facilities that are going to be eliminated. This may well result in the top end services becoming even more elite and moving further beyond the grasp of filmakers further down the food chain.

Talking to a colorist recently he commented that his job has pretty much changed from enhancement to rescue. thats very sad. Editors bring a slickness that may be lost on many projects

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that the middle ground will be dragged down, not pulled up.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I've already seen the middle ground getting amazingly better looking. There are thousands of things on YouTube that look like they could have been a professional high-end production, but were made for little to no money.

If a coloring job doesn't work, it won't look good, and people will notice it. But if a Director can do good colorist work on his laptop, on set, and improve the workflow and cut costs, I don't see why that option shouldn't be there.

People that are good at coloring will be able to lower their costs and shoot their projects on their own. People that aren't good at coloring will either have to hire someone who is, or be happy with mediocre to bad work, and have their work (and the reaction to it) suffer from that. Which means they will either get better at coloring on their own, start investing in getting a Colorist who knows what they are doing, OR learn nothing and continue producing mediocre/bad work, and thus I don't really see why they are someone to worry about since if they can't learn and adapt they will fade away.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Hey Tony,

I understand the sentiment, but I can't agree with the conclusion. While many DI colorists will feel threatened by the great digital leveling, the leveling will happen. As many of you pointed out, it happened in music, the graphic arts, publishing, television and now it finally breaks past the gate keepers of the movie industry.

But one need not worry about an overall decline of quality. Far from it. Software and hardware development is increasingly removing the ability of the end-user to f*ck things up quality-wise. Content is another issue altogether. There will be a flourish of content that will inevitably suck, but this boon will still produce the odd gem that defies the circumstances of its creation.

In every digital transformation, from music, graphic arts and publishing, and so on, as the digital tools propagate through the creative community there is a Renaissance of Mediocrity in which work and content are produced simply because it can be done with such ease.

This is followed by the Trials of Ambivalance, a period during which the audiences, feeling un-engaged by the plethora of dreck, exert their market power by ignoring the vast majority of new work and "new artists" in a renewed search for an emotional connection. During this shakeout, inevitably, a new aesthetic is born and becomes the new measure of quality and the mile-marker that tells us all just how far we've come since the digital changeover.

Then we arrive at the glorious Restoration of Visionaries. The tools, now tested and refined, are used by the literati to produce works of undeniable brilliance, talent and emotional and spiritual relevance. While I invent my own terms to identify the phases, I've seen it happen in music, graphic art, publishing, and television through the years and now I see it happening in movies.

 

[David Rasberry]

In every digital transformation, from music, graphic arts and publishing, and so on, as the digital tools propagate through the creative community there is a Renaissance of Mediocrity in which work and content are produced simply because it can be done with such ease.

This is followed by the Trials of Ambivalance, a period during which the audiences, feeling un-engaged by the plethora of dreck, exert their market power by ignoring the vast majority of new work and "new artists" in a renewed search for an emotional connection. During this shakeout, inevitably, a new aesthetic is born and becomes the new measure of quality and the mile-marker that tells us all just how far we've come since the digital changeover.

Then we arrive at the glorious Restoration of Visionaries. The tools, now tested and refined, are used by the literati to produce works of undeniable brilliance, talent and emotional and spiritual relevance.

Beautiful summation, heh heh.:thumbup1:

 

[Liam Hall]

If you look at the professional photography business it will give you a good indication of where our industry is headed. There are people who promote themselves as a pro photographer ten minutes after buying a Canon 5D MKII and a Photoshop training DVD. There are also others who embrace the new technology and continually push their art into new and exciting areas.

You're right about production companies and agencies doing a lot of work in-house, but that's nothing new; in the early 80s I remember many top production companies had their own in-house film-editing.

Yes, we're set for an influx of newbies, wannabes and shamateurs as the barriers to entry continue to fall, but more high end tools in more hands will also mean a lot more quality work being accomplished and I'm looking forward to that!

 

[Mark Phelan]

Ironically is its brilliance.

Many many people now consider RED to be a one stop shop. While this for the low end of the market is fantastic, there can be no doubt that there is a significant sector of relatively high end companies that will see the opportunity to save huge portions of their budgets by containing the project workflow in house.

However this will result in not only the loss of specialist grading and (and thanks to the equally billiant FCP) editing expertise and hardware, but also the budgets allocated to said projects.

RED is going to be responsible for an overall dumbing down of quality across the board and I think this is a great shame.

Its difficult to refute this, as its already happening.

I've seen this first hand in the printing industry over the past 30 years. I began to compete with my clients. Countless times over the years on a photo shoot, we would inevitably have someone come over and say "I have that camera" which automatically meant that they could produce the exact same quality simply because they owned a Nikon, Canon or Hasselblad. It is like saying, "I have the same number two pencil" and we are to assume that they could then draw like Michelangelo. Absurd.

Tony, I agree with the point, but think it happened long ago, before the RED ever came into existence. Look at all the garbage produced by "Hollywood" under the guise of quality or experience. Those types miss the details and lest we forget what Mies van der Rohe said, "God is in the details".

 

[Jason Sinclair]

People pay with their bums. I've seen enough perfectly shot crap to last me a life time and some brilliant films shot badly on crappy cameras. The story is, and always will be, King. End of story...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think two things will happen.

1) The marginalization of the Ultimate(tm) setup. Sometimes good enough is good enough.
2) The return to talented artists as costs run over. Quality drops and clients start getting unhappy. It'll be up to the old farts to salvage all the disasters half finished and behind schedule.

 

[Tony Brown]

People pay with their bums. I've seen enough perfectly shot crap to last me a life time and some brilliant films shot badly on crappy cameras. The story is, and always will be, King. End of story...

Fair enough, Buy a book.

I guess we're from different worlds. I'll move on

 

[Shane Nassiri]

Tony,

You're right. RED should abandon their program and technology should not advance because we don't want to upset the natural order of things.

I think there is a term for people like you. It's "Luddite."

________
Shane Nassiri

 

[Tony Brown]

Tony,

You're right. RED should abandon their program and technology should not advance because we don't want to upset the natural order of things.

I think there is a term for people like you. It's "Luddite."

________
Shane Nassiri

You're not understanding my point. I'm all for advancement. The world will never stand still - thats all good.

Its going backwards I'm concerned about. Too many people will give (systems like) RED a bad name by attempting to eliminate exactly the expertise that can take it all the way. Do you really not see that?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you're right to be worried about a drop in quality from a lot of poorly-trained people attempting their own CC and whatnot, but one can hope that we'll pass through that period just as we did in other transitions involving digital technology in other fields. But it's a bit painful to go through.

I did a low-budget HD feature back in 2002 that was color-corrected by an editor on the new (then) Avid DS-type systems -- that was a disaster and the movie was never properly color-corrected later.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

RED is going to be responsible for an overall dumbing down of quality across the board and I think this is a great shame.

Its difficult to refute this, as its already happening.

RED is a tool. Responsibility lies in human nature. Process like that is nothing new.


These two comments said it the best, IMO.

There's always some initial dumbing down as the market adapts. It happened with the graphic arts and pro audio industries, and many others at some point. Once the market adjusts to the new paradigm, the playing field will have become much larger. The cream always rises to the top and those with the real talent have nothing to fear, but should revel in the new era of digital cinema. Change happens in every industry, it's only a matter of time. Lots and lots of new opportunities being created right now. Complaining about it and trying to desperately cling to the old way of doing things (as in last year's way of doing things) will kill you.

In every digital transformation, from music, graphic arts and publishing, and so on, as the digital tools propagate through the creative community there is a Renaissance of Mediocrity in which work and content are produced simply because it can be done with such ease.

This is followed by the Trials of Ambivalance, a period during which the audiences, feeling un-engaged by the plethora of dreck, exert their market power by ignoring the vast majority of new work and "new artists" in a renewed search for an emotional connection. During this shakeout, inevitably, a new aesthetic is born and becomes the new measure of quality and the mile-marker that tells us all just how far we've come since the digital changeover.

Then we arrive at the glorious Restoration of Visionaries. The tools, now tested and refined, are used by the literati to produce works of undeniable brilliance, talent and emotional and spiritual relevance. While I invent my own terms to identify the phases, I've seen it happen in music, graphic art, publishing, and television through the years and now I see it happening in movies.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Too many people will give (systems like) RED a bad name by attempting to eliminate exactly the expertise that can take it all the way. Do you really not see that?

That is not important. Any "bad name" RED will get will be in the eyes of, and at the cost of - those who don't get the full picture.

RED in general will be fine, so will those who learn to use RED tools properly and run business properly.
You forgot to mention the arrival of Scarlet and all that follows with it. Does that mean we should ditch technological evolution ?

I understand what you mean, but I'd be more worried about broadcast quality criteria, then about new tools.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

It would also be wise to point out that going against the tide of change for some short term gain such as stopping upcoming competition or lazyness to learn new things will remain on a public forum for a long time affecting one's professional aptitude.

We are already seeing amazing works coming from Red. A lot of creative play, a lot of mistakes and also the introduction of a new level in the language of cinema.

Two recent cases in point:

1.Slumdog: While not shot on the Red, But rather the S1-2k, the camera is similar in respect of the original posters main argument, as it is to the Red. Handheld, full of grain, wins 8 Academy Awards in 2009, grossing over 100 million for it's investors.

2.Vietnams highest grossing film of all time shot on Red.

Countless others coming in every day...

People have enough CSI etc... etc... style formulated photography to last them a life time right there on fox or hbo; at least a couple of hundred channels.

The revolution comes not only in cost savings, making film making more egalitarian (much like the novel) but also in many other countless ways such as size and connectivity. There can be a whole book written on these benefits alone.

Another historical event worth considering is the invention of the portable printing press which created a renaissance in the world of literature giving us some of the greatest writers ever to flourish as a result and also giving human beings the ability to tell stories that are outside the paradigm of political pressure which naturally eventuates when people with large sums of money use it to influence a large populous.

The road of history has shown that this is not only beneficial for the advancement and evolution of the human condition but also is a time when the greatest quality of work is created.

Every emerging artist must always go through the trials and tribulations of creating their craft. I am sure David Mullens will readily admit he has shot a lot of bad stuff in his long and arduous journey, specifically in his early years.

With the whole concept of owner operator giving many upcoming DOP's the ability to hone their craft off set in a creative and unpressurised environment, you are going to see, contrary to your proposal I believe, A flowering of emerging talent that will be unprecedented in the history of moving images.

Like many others have suggested, there are those who will dedicate themselves better and the cream will rise to the top.

In the world of cinema, story always remains king, there's no debate on that worth considering for any other reason than wasting time. In the world of television and commercials then maybe yes, there are other influences at work that proceed story. However, it is probably worth mentioning that these fields follow the trends of cinema sooner or later and are not necessarily different worlds

At the end of the day, the producer looks at your showreel. It's the way it has always been and there have always been hundreds of young DOP's fresh out of college or trying to make their way up through the arduous ranks of production with their showreels in hand, and depending on the needs of the producers, which in cinema is ultimately the needs of the audience, they will or will not get hired.

I really don't see why it needs to get more complicated than that.

 

[Adil Lahoulou]

RED and Software enable people to make movies and stuff...

The internet enables people who say dumb things to be read by millions...

Dan,

Thanks for making me smile.

I gotta say though your site is egyptian hieroglyphics. Indiana Jones would have a tough time navigating.

 

[joakim_hansson]

Ironically is its brilliance.

Many many people now consider RED to be a one stop shop. While this for the low end of the market is fantastic, there can be no doubt that there is a significant sector of relatively high end companies that will see the opportunity to save huge portions of their budgets by containing the project workflow in house.

However this will result in not only the loss of specialist grading and (and thanks to the equally billiant FCP) editing expertise and hardware, but also the budgets allocated to said projects.

RED is going to be responsible for an overall dumbing down of quality across the board and I think this is a great shame.

Its difficult to refute this, as its already happening.

I think this problem will be temporary, the same fear was on the market for still photography where a lot of inhouse photographers springed up when digital really broke through. On the wedding side of the business it was even worse - wedding photographers påopped up everywhere claiming to be pros - since they had "pro" tools in their hands. Lots of fine memories from weddings got spoiled that way by amateurs not knowing the esthetic part of photography.
Sure there is money to save by having an inhouse photographer euipped ith a full red set, but what quality do you get by appointing the "filmer" in the office in mot cases? I´ve seen A.Ds shooting inhouse with great equipment and then bragging about their skills in photography, the only thing is that the results often don´t correspond to the talk..

Photography and film is about so much more than being able to handle a camera and you don´t automatically get quality just because you give quality tools to a craftsman.
So in my opinion there won´t be a danger in the long run.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Another historical event worth considering is the invention of the portable printing press which created a renaissance in the world of literature giving us some of the greatest writers ever to flourish as a result and also giving human beings the ability to tell stories that are outside the paradigm of political pressure which naturally eventuates when people with large sums of money use it to influence a large populous.

This is a GREAT point to bring up, and I think it's definitely applicable here.

Not many illuminated manuscripts are created anymore, definitely far more than before the printing press.

It is not necessarily a "lost" artform, it's just simply been vastly overtaken by the printing press.

People went with the easier solution, the one that can save them money, but because of it we have THOUSANDS of novels a year, many hundreds of novels up for major awards. Even if we've seen a decrease in hand-drawn manuscripts we've seen an overall improvement in the quality of life on the planet because of all of the new ideas and art we've gotten the chance to be exposed to because of it.

Things have changed, even though the illuminated manuscript took more time, and energy, it can now largely be replicated by the printing press. Now art is allowed to flourish in different ways, even if the old artform has mostly faded away.

What's more important, anyone being able to write a novel and get their ideas out into the the world?

Or keeping all that suppressed, and only allowing the elite to own and read books?

Why can't we have both the ease of the printing press, but try to remember the art of the illuminated? Combine the best of both worlds?

Even though more people will be doing their own inhouse coloring, and we'll most likely (in the short run at least) have far more bad coloring jobs, we'll still have far more people being able to undertake a film project that wasn't able too before.

And I think that is something that needs to be fostered, like I said earlier, the cream will float to the top, just as the bad will either learn a lesson of fade away.