Epic vs Film - the Decisive Battle is looming

[Tom Lowe]

Listen, I agree with you guys regarding the whole issue of people thinking a nicer camera is going to magically make them filmmakers. Most of us here totally get that - we understand it. We understood it 5 years ago on DVXuser. That's why the lectures are getting tiresome. :bleh:

 

[James T Mather]

the lectures are getting tiresome. :bleh:

I thought I'd apologised for jumping on your "film is dead" thing a few posts ago. Take it or leave it. Plus I don't recall "lecturing" you (as you condescendingly put it) on the subject of "buying a better camera magically makes you a filmmaker" in the last few posts. I thought we were on the well-worn "film is extinct" lecture - which isn't getting tiresome at all.

 

[Bob Gruen]

No way by 2010...

The thing that must be understood is industry inertia. There are investments at every level: the DoP who has an educational investment, manufacturers that make cameras and duplicating equipment, production companies who have a history with a given workflow and technology...

Structured industries are always slower to adapt. The professional photography industry is different as it is made up of many independent individuals that have much less in terms of capital investment, and suppliers moving many more low cost units (when compared to motion pictures equip). Comparing Hollywood to the professional photography industry is so apples to oranges as to be ridiculous.

We (the small independent filmmakers) do have more in common with photographers in terms of how we are positioned in our respective industries. We are buying tools to build a low cost workflow that can ultimately be printed to filmstock and sent to theaters, but we will fight the uphill battle in doing so. An executive producer is looking at my project but sees the Red Camera as a major problem. I see it as a huge asset that will allow me to spend my time instead of dollars in getting to the final product. To me the fewer people in the workflow the better (fewer cooks in the kitchen). It will also allow me to attempt camera movements and special effects that I wouldn't dare with precious filmstock and know right away if it is working.

As for the democratizing effect of the Red Camera, also ridiculous. It is an improperly used word so I am assuming it is meant to mean that anyone, anywhere could get something into theaters. Not true in the foreseeable future and probably not true in our lifetimes. When 4K projectors become prevalent at theaters it will still not be true. There will be distributors who will have to pay for the advertising and you will have to sell your film to them to make it work. The only cost savings will be the print cost, but that unto itself is not a key to democratizing the process.

Bob

 

[Tom Lowe]

I thought I'd apologised for jumping on your "film is dead" thing a few posts ago. Take it or leave it. Plus I don't recall "lecturing" you (as you condescendingly put it) on the subject of "buying a better camera magically makes you a filmmaker" in the last few posts. I thought we were on the well-worn "film is extinct" lecture - which isn't getting tiresome at all.

We're here to discuss cameras, not to trade personal jabs. I suggest you move on and get back to the discussion of cameras instead of personal issues.

Bob, you make some good points about the investment a lot of people have in the current system.

 

[James T Mather]

What personal jab?

I was responding to:

the lectures are getting tiresome.

that's not a personal jab, no? Talk about the pot and the kettle.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Tom, you're the one who used the term "battle" -- i.e. conflict. So don't be surprised if conflict is one of the things your post generates! You set it up as a confrontation with a clear winner and a loser, and many of us don't think in those terms, not in regards to tools. But then, I don't really like sports either, let alone wars. I don't like us vs. them arguments, this vs. that, who wins, who loses, partisan politics, etc. It just as much confuses the topic under discussion as clarifies.

We are in a transitional phase in regards to technology, with a lot if hybrid approaches being used currently and a lot of people working with a wide variety of tools who don't particularly have to "take sides" when it's not an either-or world they work in.

I think what some of us find a bit distasteful is this constant betting on when film will die, as if we were at a dogfight or something. Film has such a rich heritage that when it does finally die, hopefully someone will take a moment to thank it for all the great images it brought us for over a century. In the meanwhile, constantly talking about it's impending death is a little like talking constantly about how much longer your parents are going to be alive. It's not something I feel comfortable with. I'd rather focus on the here and now, and just enough into the future to be practical.

 

[Tom Lowe]

David, my prediction was specifically about market share. That's a zero-sum game. There are winners and losers. Similar to the SLR vs DLSR situation.

Sorry if my whole thread title was too dramatic. Maybe I was being a little mischievous

 

[Stephen Williams]

, 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.
Häakon

Hi Häakon,

With those problems clearly working with film did not suit you. It's 7 years since I have had a hair in the gate on 1 take, I never had a light leak or registration error in 29 years, and once a lab lightly scratched some neg that could be printed without any problem in a wet gate printer.

My best,

Stephen

 

[jpp]

Trying to guess the year in which 50.1% of studio productions are shot digitally is about as interesting as predicting next year's corn harvest, or the year when not one American believes the sun orbits the earth. So your post was quite naturally read as subtext, dancing on the grave of film.

Listen, I agree with you guys regarding the whole issue of people thinking a nicer camera is going to magically make them filmmakers. Most of us here totally get that - we understand it. We understood it 5 years ago on DVXuser. That's why the lectures are getting tiresome. :bleh:

Since you're probably referring to my lecture - not jtm's - here goes: I wonder how many people really do understand this? How many of those DVXUSERs are still waiting for "better" cameras? How many "filmmakers" with zero experience have decided that nothing less than 6K is up to their standards?

Needless to say, these views are unimportant, it's nothing worth flogging here. But one does hear a lot of it on the boards.... Or so it sounds, anyway.

 

[Sean]

I think in some instances a better camera does make the difference for a filmmaker. The camera can be the difference between a film going far and a film disappearing from sight completely. There are a couple of DVX100 features that were done so brilliantly five years ago, and I know they never got any semblance of distirbution, even on DVD. I mean these films are REALLY good, in terms of script and performance. They were low-res, muddy SD movies though, and I believe the same people would be shooting on a borrowed Red now, and I bet those films would be distributed. A camera doesn't make a filmmaker, but a camera can make a difference to the filmmaker's film.

I'm a huge fan of Inland Empire, shot on the PD150, so there are lots of examples of great filmmakers showing their brilliance with any camera you put in their hand. But the low budget film we want to make won't have the benefit of Laura Dern and a brand-name like Lynch to attract the budget and the public notice.

 

[jpp]

I think in some instances a better camera does make the difference for a filmmaker. The camera can be the difference between a film going far and a film disappearing from sight completely. There are a couple of DVX100 features that were done so brilliantly five years ago, and I know they never got any semblance of distirbution, even on DVD. I mean these films are REALLY good, in terms of script and performance. They were low-res, muddy SD movies though, and I believe the same people would be shooting on a borrowed Red now, and I bet those films would be distributed. A camera doesn't make a filmmaker, but a camera can make a difference to the filmmaker's film.

This might be true in individual cases - impossible to know - but it's not true generally. If a film is "REALLY good" (or marketable) the format has proven to be irrelevant in the marketplace. Whatever you think of it, "Once" was a far bigger hit than all the 35mm and HD productions which never got distributed in the first place. And of course Blair Witch was/is the most successful indie of all time, except maybe for porn.

This is not an argument for shooting DV, if you've got access to Red. Just a marketing observation.

 

[Sean]

Nah. A really really good DVX100 drama still won't get distribution. I thought it would, but if you saw a couple of these films (at fests) and then watched them disappear. Yes, there are exceptions. They're just really truly miniscule exceptions. And yes, so few films get distribution anyhow. But I still believe a few of these awesome DVX films shot on Red WOULD have got distribution, even if straight to DVD.

Blair Witch was shot on film for the most part. And the video parts were supposed to be "consumer video" in appearance.

I'm talking about movies shot as movies with DVX100, not docs or films incorporating a look that is supposed to be a video camera.

Anyhow the discussion was about whether a camera makes the filmmaker. And it obviously doesn't. It never will, no matter how good a camera it is. And who is gonna make a DVX feature now anyhow. You could make an EX1 feature, and that's got a shot. So I guess my point is sorta moot. It's old news.

 

[jpp]

Nah. A really really good DVX100 drama still won't get distribution. I thought it would, but if you saw a couple of these films (at fests) and then watched them disappear. Yes, there are exceptions. They're just really truly miniscule exceptions. And yes, so few films get distribution anyhow. But I still believe a few of these awesome DVX films shot on Red WOULD have got distribution, even if straight to DVD.

Blair Witch was shot on film for the most part. And the video parts were supposed to be "consumer video" in appearance.

I'm talking about movies shot as movies.

The odds of getting a DVX100 film distributed are extremely poor, but the same is true of an indie HD or 35mm production. If the productions don't have stars, the determining factor will be the nature of the drama or the festival audience response, not the acquisition format. Saying otherwise may seem more reasonable or just, but that doesn't make it true. Look at the distribution history of non-celebrity indie film, and draw your own conclusions about the importance of production value.

Straight to DVD is a still weaker argument, since production value is even less crucial.

Not more than few minutes of Blair Witch was shot on 16mm, some of the mock interviews. The rest was consumer hi8. Whether it was supposed to look like "consumer video" or not, people went to see the film. I don't think they were concerned with the format.

 

[Steve Sanacore]

Dynamic range did not stop DSLRs from overtaking SLRs.

But in the still world, most of us had to shoot reversal film, which is the print industry standard. There's not much dynamic range on transparency film and exposure had to be perfect, so it wasn't hard to improve on with digital. Once still cameras reached 10 megapixels digital replaced film in less than a year for most jobs. It was amazing how fast it took over.

Negative film is a different animal with lots of dynamic range but much more grain. And it looks fantastic when projected where I think the grain gives it an organic feel. I think digital will replace film for sure, but it's not as cut and dry for movie work.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Nah. A really really good DVX100 drama still won't get distribution.

That same drama shot on film wouldn't have gotten distribution either. Drama's don't sell without stars, and even with stars they have a very hard time getting off the ground.

 

[James T Mather]

I think that regardless of the tech specs the truth is that digital will replace film eventually due to the simple economics involved. The eventual decison will not be made by cinematographers but, in fact, I think, producers. All digital images needed to reach was a position where, broadly speaking, Joe Sixpack cannot differentiate between it and film - It's pretty fair to say that we've arrived at this stage.

Producers are hot on the Red because it's cheaper - no labs, telecine costs, no couriers, no buying filmstock, no directors out of control shooting highspeed, etc - it will spiral budgets downwards in a competitive marketplace as we head into a global recession. Producers aren't interested in dynamic range etc. that's the DP's job as far as they're concerned.

 

[Emanuel A.]

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

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 remember someone on DV.Com predicting that the DVX100 would kill film -- and then he said that the Canon XL2 would -- and then he said that the Varicam would kill film. He also said that 2001 was the year every household would buy HDTV sets. Then he said it would be 2002. Then he said it would be 2003.

Eventually he's bound to make an accurate prediction. He only has to be right once, no one is going to remember the fifty times he was wrong.

 

[Emanuel A.]

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.

Well said, too. As implied, 'this' vs. 'that' is so stupid as not to celebrate a whole world in changing progress. In the case, the technology opening up doors to non-technology issues. Not necessarily just a mere 'dying'. The only 'dead body' here seems to me the technology itself or the 'vices' from there. Or yet its limitations -- that's all.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Another major point here, that I fear might be getting overlooked, is the CONTROL directors and DPs gain over their images with the RAW workflow specifically. It will be a driving factor.

Like I said earlier, I remember handing in film and crossing my fingers that the lab would do things right. At that point, control was out of my hands, literally. One of the main reasons DSLRs swept SLRs away so quickly is the control photographers were suddenly granted over their images. The same will become true with digital cinema. How many RED shooters are already becoming spoiled to the control and flexibility they are getting with the RAW workflow?

How many DSLR shooters who shoot RAW are willing to go back to JPEG or film?

 

[James T Mather]

I, for one, miss cross processing. I used to shoot all my snaps that way.