Michael Kontaxis
Well-known member
Hi everyone,
Today David Fincher is filming a scene of his latest film, "The Social Network", on my school's campus. As part of the agreement, he participated in a Q&A for the students, so naturally I decided to go ask him questions about his use of the RED (and mysterium-x sensor) for the film, and his thoughts on digital media as a whole. Tonight I'll be on the set behind the camera, so I'll be able to see live footage taken with the Mysterium-X sensor. I'll be sure to post my thoughts later on this thread. For now though, here's the question I asked him about the RED, and his response.
Q: Your past couple of films, Zodiac and Benjamin Button, were primarily shot digitally on the Viper FilmStream, but I read on a blog post by RED CEO Jim Jannard that you're planning to shoot The Social Network on a RED One with the new Mysterium-X Sensor. I was wondering what factors influenced you to make this switch, and what your initial impressions are.
A: Well... I really liked it, I think its a very beautiful picture, and I think my decision to shoot digitally... I know everyone wants to get in the middle of a fight. I'm not rescinding any respect or love that I have for film or cinema by choosing to [shoot on RED]. I mean for the most part this film will be distributed on film, but the writing is on the wall. If you don't believe me, I have some stock in Kodak I'd like to sell you, because this is just not the way motion pictures are gonna be made three years from now. I mean distribution wise its always been the cheapest and most... you know there were more avenues and more people experienced in handling this media and this form. That's so quickly going away. We really like the images that we're getting out of the RED, we really like... I really like the sense of what the picture is, I like that its not so clean that it looks like video tape, like "digital", and when I put airquotes around it, I mean that it doesn't have that plasticky waxworks-like look that makes faces look oddly plasticky. But for me, its so much more than just about the camera. I enjoy an extremely fast-response relationship with RED, they've been incredibly helpful. I think in terms of what I've seen, where the Epic is headed, it looks to me like the Model-T of digital recording devices. I really think its gonna be the defacto standard for what we're gonna be doing: you just flip a button and decide, are you doing reality television, here it is at 1k, here it is a 2k, here it is at 5k, you can decide to ramp up the resolution as you need it. It's an amazing, amazing tool, but for me the decision to go digitally, whether or not you record your initial performances on film, or on some sort of digital media, has more to do with the back end, and what it allows us to do in post, and how it allows us to think about the filmmaking process. For me, being digital means that, in talking to collaborators, instead of drawing a stick figure on a napkin, I'm taking a photo off my iPhone and sending it to them, and they're writing on it and sending it back to me and we're talking in pictures, we're talking in terms of Quicktimes, we're talking in terms of, if its tracking shots, 'it should start here and move here, and it should be very slow and elegant, and... here's an example of it'. That's what I'm looking for, I'm looking for a view out of a window of a helicopter going over the trees, and this is the image I'm looking for. So we're collaborating and talking about things not in terms of 'Let me find the word, or let me find the adverb to describe what it is', its 'Here's a picture of it. Here's a picture of the shorts I was thinking about for this character, or the sandals'. Instead of it being this thing where you're one layer of the onion removed, you're constantly dealing in pictures, and that's far more important to me than even the sensor that's recording the performance. I still think there's plenty of room for people who choose to film stuff with the Panaflex, and then take it and laser record it, and bring it to disc-ray, and hold on to that image and throw the film on it, you can do it that way. I just prefer to go end to end.
I have more quotes from him, including his thoughts on 3D, that I'll post later along with images of the RED he's shooting on, and my thoughts on how the footage looks (its a night shoot, so I'll be able to give information on low-light performance.)
UPDATE 10/27: (I posted his thoughts on 3D on page 3 of this forum... I'll reprint it here)
Me: We're talking about industry standards, there's been a lot of talk in the industry lately about 3D, particularly with James Cameron's Avatar slated for release later this year. What are your thoughts on 3D in film?
Fincher: Well, Avatar's pretty cool... (long pause)... I'm sure in the wrong hands 3D will be just as irritating as it ever was. I think 3D is a really interesting way of making the Friday night, Saturday night, 3000 people in one room experiencing something at the same time more impressive, or more immersive, or more assaultive, you know, so in that perspective I think it will make the big movies, and the movies events more eventful than ever. I can't imagine making this movie currently in 3D... it would be kind of like... (he makes typing sound effects)... I'm not sure that added dimension would really help put it over the edge. I think 3D's great, and I thought 3D for Up was... that was insane, it just looked amazing, and I can't wait to see what they do with Finding Nemo, I mean that movie will just be amazing to see in 3D. But I also think that there are a lot of movies that you just don't have to see in 3D. So I'm an early fan, but maybe not an early adopter. I just can't come up with something that makes use of that 3D house-of-pancakes technique.
Today David Fincher is filming a scene of his latest film, "The Social Network", on my school's campus. As part of the agreement, he participated in a Q&A for the students, so naturally I decided to go ask him questions about his use of the RED (and mysterium-x sensor) for the film, and his thoughts on digital media as a whole. Tonight I'll be on the set behind the camera, so I'll be able to see live footage taken with the Mysterium-X sensor. I'll be sure to post my thoughts later on this thread. For now though, here's the question I asked him about the RED, and his response.
Q: Your past couple of films, Zodiac and Benjamin Button, were primarily shot digitally on the Viper FilmStream, but I read on a blog post by RED CEO Jim Jannard that you're planning to shoot The Social Network on a RED One with the new Mysterium-X Sensor. I was wondering what factors influenced you to make this switch, and what your initial impressions are.
A: Well... I really liked it, I think its a very beautiful picture, and I think my decision to shoot digitally... I know everyone wants to get in the middle of a fight. I'm not rescinding any respect or love that I have for film or cinema by choosing to [shoot on RED]. I mean for the most part this film will be distributed on film, but the writing is on the wall. If you don't believe me, I have some stock in Kodak I'd like to sell you, because this is just not the way motion pictures are gonna be made three years from now. I mean distribution wise its always been the cheapest and most... you know there were more avenues and more people experienced in handling this media and this form. That's so quickly going away. We really like the images that we're getting out of the RED, we really like... I really like the sense of what the picture is, I like that its not so clean that it looks like video tape, like "digital", and when I put airquotes around it, I mean that it doesn't have that plasticky waxworks-like look that makes faces look oddly plasticky. But for me, its so much more than just about the camera. I enjoy an extremely fast-response relationship with RED, they've been incredibly helpful. I think in terms of what I've seen, where the Epic is headed, it looks to me like the Model-T of digital recording devices. I really think its gonna be the defacto standard for what we're gonna be doing: you just flip a button and decide, are you doing reality television, here it is at 1k, here it is a 2k, here it is at 5k, you can decide to ramp up the resolution as you need it. It's an amazing, amazing tool, but for me the decision to go digitally, whether or not you record your initial performances on film, or on some sort of digital media, has more to do with the back end, and what it allows us to do in post, and how it allows us to think about the filmmaking process. For me, being digital means that, in talking to collaborators, instead of drawing a stick figure on a napkin, I'm taking a photo off my iPhone and sending it to them, and they're writing on it and sending it back to me and we're talking in pictures, we're talking in terms of Quicktimes, we're talking in terms of, if its tracking shots, 'it should start here and move here, and it should be very slow and elegant, and... here's an example of it'. That's what I'm looking for, I'm looking for a view out of a window of a helicopter going over the trees, and this is the image I'm looking for. So we're collaborating and talking about things not in terms of 'Let me find the word, or let me find the adverb to describe what it is', its 'Here's a picture of it. Here's a picture of the shorts I was thinking about for this character, or the sandals'. Instead of it being this thing where you're one layer of the onion removed, you're constantly dealing in pictures, and that's far more important to me than even the sensor that's recording the performance. I still think there's plenty of room for people who choose to film stuff with the Panaflex, and then take it and laser record it, and bring it to disc-ray, and hold on to that image and throw the film on it, you can do it that way. I just prefer to go end to end.
I have more quotes from him, including his thoughts on 3D, that I'll post later along with images of the RED he's shooting on, and my thoughts on how the footage looks (its a night shoot, so I'll be able to give information on low-light performance.)
UPDATE 10/27: (I posted his thoughts on 3D on page 3 of this forum... I'll reprint it here)
Me: We're talking about industry standards, there's been a lot of talk in the industry lately about 3D, particularly with James Cameron's Avatar slated for release later this year. What are your thoughts on 3D in film?
Fincher: Well, Avatar's pretty cool... (long pause)... I'm sure in the wrong hands 3D will be just as irritating as it ever was. I think 3D is a really interesting way of making the Friday night, Saturday night, 3000 people in one room experiencing something at the same time more impressive, or more immersive, or more assaultive, you know, so in that perspective I think it will make the big movies, and the movies events more eventful than ever. I can't imagine making this movie currently in 3D... it would be kind of like... (he makes typing sound effects)... I'm not sure that added dimension would really help put it over the edge. I think 3D's great, and I thought 3D for Up was... that was insane, it just looked amazing, and I can't wait to see what they do with Finding Nemo, I mean that movie will just be amazing to see in 3D. But I also think that there are a lot of movies that you just don't have to see in 3D. So I'm an early fan, but maybe not an early adopter. I just can't come up with something that makes use of that 3D house-of-pancakes technique.
Last edited:
