Epic Will Have A Deep Impact On "Film" As An Artform

[Ketch Rossi]

Erik,

you are correct, but again, not all productions are the asme, and more then one production I have been participant of they kept 100's of 16GB CF cards till the end of the project, and only after the Editor received everything and was done with it all CF cards were Re-Formatted at once.

I am certain that this productions will do the same with SSD's, as I in fact already have heard of this been the case.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

For me it would seem like this is paranoia playing the trick. Wouldn't it be easier just making 110% sure the footage transfers alright? Doesn't have to be so extensively done on-set (after all, time is limited!) but could easily be done a day or two afterwards to ensure the media is A-OK. Then just make backups from that master? I don't know. Makes more sense to me.

Maybe it comes to a lack of knowledge, and therefore trust, in digital storage. A simple MD5 checksum comparison between the SSD and the duplicate would confirm whether or not the copy was successful. If the data in the copy is corrupt, then 99.999% of the time, the data on the SSD is also corrupt (assuming you did do a checksum comparison).

Also, how many backups does one need, and the idea of fire-safe's seems extreme. Wouldn't off-site transfer to a pair of datacenter's be more than adequate? Remember, the storage infrastructure in each datacenter would be completely redundant. The only threat to data loss would be external physical force, such as a bomb or a freak natural disaster - and you'd have to have this happen at both datacenters, and presumably on-set also, as you'd probably have at least one local copy also.

In all honesty, the need to keep the original media intact is a psychological problem. Tell your director to see a psychiatrist

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

One SSD?

That's Madness.

What if it fails? Then your production is out of business until you buy a new one.

More realistically, its important to get work to the ingest guys early, so the on set editors can star assembling footage.

Nobody cares about a fine cut on set... but they want to make sure they have all the coverage they need- and they want to do that quickly. Ideally before we strike a set for sure, but ideally before the 1AD calls "moving on."

Well, no one should care. I've been on shoots where the EP sits in ingest and starts dictating a fine cut- to the point where he stops ingest and eventually production because he's sat on camera's media for two days.

You also don't want to rush the ingest folks. You want them to be sure the footage is satisfactorily ingested and backed up before they have to give the mag back to the 2nd.

So, my ideal situation is to have at least two mags before and after lunch. 4 mags per day minimum.

I'd also like to have a two day supply of mags, plus two spares.

Per camera.

Now, I can use smaller mags... 128GB is fine for the sort of use I am putting them to. I'd take a couple of 256GB mags for when we run long, and I'd accept a couple of 64GB mags as "spares" because mostly I expect them to sit around completely idle.

So, my ideal set up for an low budget indy ($1000000 and under) is 6 128GB SSD mags, 2 256GB mags and 2 64GB mags.

That's only $19100, and if you are comparing to film you break even after a 120 minute feature. As pointed out you can amortize over several films of course.

Of course that is per operating camera. On low budget shows, I often use just one camera. I only break out multiple cameras when we have a stunt or pyro. Those are very slow days anyway- so I can often feed those cameras on a small show from A cams media stock.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...Wouldn't off-site transfer to a pair of datacenter's be more than adequate? Remember, the storage infrastructure in each datacenter would be completely redundant. The only threat to data loss would be external physical force, such as a bomb or a freak natural disaster - and you'd have to have this happen at both datacenters, and presumably on-set also, as you'd probably have at least one local copy also.
...

Tom - the only flaw I see in relying on datacenter backup (which is, I think, a great idea, in theory) is the kind of bandwidth needed to upload the footage. In the case of R3D files for any reasonable day of shooting, we are talking many gigabytes of data - as much as a few hundred gigs or even more, each day. Maybe I am thinking too small, as at my home studio I can only download around 16-20 mbps and upload maybe 3-4 mbps. I find this pretty good for most things but I think I'd need a hell of a load more bandwidth to upload 100 or more gigs to a remote location. No? How would I get the kind of bandwidth needed to make this approach practical. Is a post production facility likely to have such a pipe?

 

[Tim Hole]

Its a good pitch.

I really hope that people don't stop shooting on film though. I will still want to shoot on film from time to time, as I do love it. But it will be harder to get processing done as time goes on.

I think there is arguments both ways and obviously at some levels money for stock and cameras is not even a blink in the eye when it comes to budget. I think its great that some of the biggest films being made right now are using Epic's and a testament to the quality of the cameras that RED are making. Truly incredible feat. RED is the independent filmmakers dream come true. I don't care about Hollywood or movies. I care about a handful of creatives artists who struggle within its walls but its not for me. The world outside of its walls is a far more interesting place and makes far more interesting films. Like many people, I would rather see 200 interesting independent films for a million than one blockbuster for 200 million. Its crazy. Its crazy how much it costs to go and see a film. Its crazy that the cinemagoer will pay £1 for a pair of realD glasses when a box of 800 costs a pound.

Sorry will get off my high horse and stop moaning.

I, however don't want to live in a world where everyone just shoots RED, and as a camera aficionado i'm guessing neither does Jim (although I'm sure he would get a certain amount of gratification from that). He simply wanted to create a camera that did all the things that none of his cameras did and release it at a price that us independents could afford. We do however need competition and other players in the game. What I would like is for companies to follow RED's lead and pull their finger out. Start putting something really interesting on the table.

The gauntlet will be thrown in the next few months when the camera is officially released.

On the otherhand the great thing about high end cameras and espcially RED, is its flexibility in creating an interesting look. The art of cinematography and storytelling can evolve regardless of the camera.

It is truly an interesting time to be creating films.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

while I agree Epic is a step in the right direction as far as form factor, module integration.. so on.. Image quality is already there.. we have the MX.. same sensor as the EPIC.. bit processing will out perform the RED ONE thus hopefully better latitude off the bat in non HDR mode.. but to the commoner.. the MX and the EPIC-X will look visually identical. I really dont see people slapping on HDR mode 24/7 and calling it a day..

so will EPIC kill film? not right away.. digital cinema is def nearing the forefront and will one day take over. but dont assume that epic alone will put film on the back burner. it would have happend with the MX (same sensor)

there are many old school DP's and Directors who will always shoot film..

its def a matter of time before film dies off, when the generation that grew up with the dvx100 starts making names for themselves and making it big in the industry.. film will pretty much be over

 

[Tim Hole]

I think that definitely film distribution will die off before acquisition does. Its more than halfway there in a lot of the world.

Which means that Tarantino will be pushed into exhibiting in his own cinema in LA or the odd speckle here or there...I'll enjoy that day. He can join his fellow mash up artists on you-tube.

 

[Peter Moretti]

This post will serve two purposes. First, to simply be my first post and introduction. Second, to be my 2 cents on why I think the "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company" is about to completely change the landscape of the "film" world.

I should probably start by introducing myself, but I won't.

Most of you probably noticed that in the first paragraph I had placed the word "film" inside quotation marks and you chuckled at this. Most of you are aware that with the Epic the Red Company has created not only a new camera but a new paradigm. A Game-Changer. Here are two quotes by Jim Jannard, a guy that has placed himself in a position to become the Steve Jobs of the "Film" Industry. He's an entrepreneur and an artist. I don't know if everyone already knows this but I just found out that Jannard started Oakley in 1975 with $300. For the first 20 years of the company, Jannard shot all of Oakley's ads and commercials. He then went on to sell Oakley for $2.2 billion dollars in 2007. Let's get back on topic. Here are the two quotes.





Here's what I think the reality of the situation will be in less than a year. Epic will be out and people will slowly realize a bunch of things.

1. Epic is visually superior to 35mm film. PERIOD. It has more resolution and in terms of dynamic range and lenses it's just as good or better.

2. Epic is cheaper. PERIOD. If we compare costs this is obvious. Now I'm talking about really comparing costs. Comparing apples to apples.

Let's start with the media we will be shooting into. On an Epic we have a lot of choices of media. For this example we will shoot onto an SSD. On Film we will use 35mm film stock. The average Hollywood production that uses film will at least spend $15000 on film stock. I'm talking about a 90 minute feature with a shooting ratio of 6:1. Here are the calculations.

A modest $15,782.

$3200. On the Epic all we need is an SSD. Now in order to not completely humiliate Film, I chose the most expensive option of media on the Epic. The glorious 256gb SSD. Film stock (90 minute feature with 6:1 shooting ratio) is almost 5 times more expensive than a 256gb SSD. Not to beat a dead horse even more.
:beatdeadhorse5:
But once you shoot film that's it! You can't erase and re-shoot. With an SSD you simply plug into your computer, transfer files, re-format and you're back to square one. This is exactly like what happened in photography. The minute you invent a storage technology that is substantially cheaper and re-usable it will end by completely taking over the old, more expensive and not re-usable technology.

Now let's talk about the cameras. On one hand you have a big clunky film camera on the other you have the small Epic. I understand that there's a lot of types of film cameras so for the purposes of this post I'll choose the camera that is considered to be the most popular of 35mm film cameras. The Arriflex 435. This camera has been used on Best Picture Winners like "The Departed" and "The Lord of The Rings" trilogy.

The first thing we should consider is the price. Let's focus only on the price of the two cameras. The Arriflex 435 vs. The Red Epic-M.

Finding the price of an Arriflex 435 on the internet is not as easy as it sounds. Keep in mind this is the most popular 35mm camera and it has been shooting movies for 15 years. I go to the Arriflex website, find the product page for the 435 and look for the price. Nowhere to be found. I look in the PDF brochure, it must be there, I think. It isn't. I have to go on Google and type: "arriflex price list" to find a PDF of the official 2006 price list that isn't even on Arriflex's site. So finally what is the price of the most popular 35mm camera on the universe...

72 200... Euros. So today January 10, 2011 1 euro is worth 1.29541 USD. Meaning the Arriflex 435 costs $93,528.95

Now let's see about the Epic-M. We still don't know the individual price for the brain of the camera. But we do know you can pre-order a package for $58000. This package includes some things we have to subtract in order to get a fair comparison.

Here's the package:
1- Machined and hand assembled EPIC-M Brain with titanium PL mount
1- Bomb EVF
1- 5" Touchscreen LCD (machined)
1- Side Handle (machined)
1- Side SSD Module (machined)
1- REDmote (machined)
1- 4- 128GB SSD cards
1- 4- batteries and charger

The Arriflex 435 does not include any media, viewfinders or LCDs. So I'll substract:

1- Bomb EVF ($3200)
1- 5" Touchscreen LCD ($1700 the price was taken from the non touchscreen version)
1- 4- 128GB SSD cards ($1800 X 4 = $7200)

$58000 - $3200 - $1700 - $7200 = $45900

So the price of an Epic-M is $45900.

Epic is more than twice as cheap than the Arriflex 435. To put it on a new perspective instead of buying an Arriflex 435 you could buy 2 Epic-Ms and still save $1728. This might not seem like a big saving but for me it would be. That's more than I make in a month. I'm still in college.

So there you have it in terms of price the Epic clearly beats film. SSDs are better and cheaper than film stock. The Epic-M is better and cheaper than the Arriflex 435.

There's of course a large part of the equation that is still missing that is lenses and other equipment. In this department Red is still making great improvements. They're manufacturing their own lenses and also allow you to use Canon, Nikon and PL mounts. We are also seeing because of video DSLRs a lot of equipment (Rails, FollowFocus, Dollies, Steadycams) going down in price.

Digital has always been cheaper than film. What Epic is about to do is make it better.

What really blows my mind is this. I'm currently 18 years old. Let's say that I direct my first feature when I'm 28. That would mean I would shoot said feature in 2021, 10 years from now.

In 5 years all of us on this forum have gone from not knowing about Red to hearing about Red for the first time at NAB. We have gone from hearing about it to becoming very curious about it. We have gone from being curious to discovering the plans for the wonderful Red One. We have gone from reading the plans to seeing it's release and widespread success. This success includes shooting some of the most culturally and artistically important films of the decade that just finished. "Che". "Rabbit Hole". "J'ai tué ma mère". "The Social Network".

On July 3, 2012, we will see the release of the first feature shot on an Epic. I'm of course talking about Spider-Man. For most people it will just be the new Spider-Man movie, but for us on this forum and for any informed filmmaker in the world it will also be something else. It will be the day film dies. This is what will happen that day:

:anti-old:

The old guy will be film and the new guy will be digital. And of course digital is a nice guy so he won't shoot film in the head, he'll just send him to a retirement home. What I mean by this is that film will always be around. I mean film as in film stock. Not film as an artform. Because this artform that we all love will not be called "film" it will be called "cinema". You see how the Red team is calling the Epic a "Digital Cinema" camera? Well in the future it will just be a cinema camera. The digital part will be irrelevant. Here's a post by Chase Jarvis that talks about this but for photography:

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/11/drop-the-digital-from-photography/

So I guess my final question and what really blows my mind is if in 5 years (2006 - 2011) all of this has happened, what the fuck is going to happen 10 years from now?

When I theoretically shoot my first feature at the age of 28.

To end this post I'd like to briefly introduce myself. I'm Daniel Silva, an 18 year-old living in Montreal, Canada. I'm originally from Colombia and migrated to Canada at the age of 9. When I was about 15, I decided that I wanted to direct movies. Since then I've been relentlessly pursuing that goal. I'm now in college and I'm planning on going to film school.

Unlike most kids my age I don't work at a McDonald's making minimum wage. I work for an online company (tweople.com) that makes web spokespersons. They send me green screen footage and I then remove the green screen, clean the audio and output an FLV. I do this from my home and make a decent amount of money out of it. I'm also now thinking of creating and selling After Effects templates. My goal for 2011 is to start my templates business and make $16000 this year.

I haven't done much artistic work yet. Most of what I have done has been for clients not for myself. Here's a little video I made for college last semester.

http://vimeo.com/17751199

If any of you on this forum take a look at it, I would greatly appreciate some comments. I get a bit star struck with some of the names on this forum.

So all of this to basically say: "Thank You!"

Thanks to Jim for starting this revolution.

Thanks to this forum for providing priceless knowledge.

Thanks to cinema.

Have they started selling matching black shirts, black sweatpants and black Nike Windrunner jogging shoes with white swooshes in the Red store yet?

J/K, welcome aboard .

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Tom - the only flaw I see in relying on datacenter backup (which is, I think, a great idea, in theory) is the kind of bandwidth needed to upload the footage. In the case of R3D files for any reasonable day of shooting, we are talking many gigabytes of data - as much as a few hundred gigs or even more, each day. Maybe I am thinking too small, as at my home studio I can only download around 16-20 mbps and upload maybe 3-4 mbps. I find this pretty good for most things but I think I'd need a hell of a load more bandwidth to upload 100 or more gigs to a remote location. No? How would I get the kind of bandwidth needed to make this approach practical. Is a post production facility likely to have such a pipe?

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck loaded with hard drives.

Also, many home studio's (like mine) offer much faster Internet connectivity. I have 50Mbps down & 20Mbps upload. Would that change the picture for you?

I am passing around uncompressed 10 bit 1080p today online. Redcode 42 is lightweight by comparison.

 

[Tim Hole]

I think this kind of thing will only grow over time, just as online outsourced render farms are starting to take hold.

 

[Daniel Silva]

I, however don't want to live in a world where everyone just shoots RED, and as a camera aficionado i'm guessing neither does Jim (although I'm sure he would get a certain amount of gratification from that). He simply wanted to create a camera that did all the things that none of his cameras did and release it at a price that us independents could afford. We do however need competition and other players in the game. What I would like is for companies to follow RED's lead and pull their finger out. Start putting something really interesting on the table.

Neither would I. I'm all for diversity. But here's what I think will happen. Look at photography. Can you still buy a film still camera? Yes. It's not as easy as before but you can certainly do it. Can you still develop film. Yes. Costco still develops film rolls.

Can normal people tell the difference between a digital picture and a film picture? If the film picture was well taken, developed and scanned they will not be able to tell the difference. Now look at the usage of both technologies today by both professionals and non-professionals. I would say that 98% of non-professionals only use digital. Showing an almost complete takeover by digital.

Now for professionals and artists it certainly is a different story. I really have no idea how many photographers still use film. But I'm sure the number is a lot higher than 2%.

Here's what I do know though. 25 million digital cameras were supposed to be sold in 2010. How many analog cameras do you think were sold in 2010?

Very very few, I think. At least when compared with 25 million.

What does this mean? Well it means that 15-year old Johnny who got his first camera for Christmas got a digital camera and he'll grow up in a digital world. Do you think he'll ever want to shoot film? Who knows? But most probably not unless he becomes an artist and decides to experiment with the old technology he heard about called film.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

Tom - the only flaw I see in relying on datacenter backup (which is, I think, a great idea, in theory) is the kind of bandwidth needed to upload the footage.

It's basically a matter of "whatever way will get it there". Upload it on-site, upload it back at base, drive it to the nearest fiber connection, ship it, etc. It all depends on the budget and location of the shoot. Obviously, you'd want to have a few copies handy between the time you shoot the footage, and when it gets to the datacenter.

Once it's at the datacenter however, you can easily and quickly duplicate the data to however many other datacenter's you wish, virtually guaranteeing data safety.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, it's always a bit misleading when one compares sales of digital cameras to sales of film cameras -- people shoot movies on 35mm cameras made 20 or 30 years ago... as long as the cameras are quiet, shoot crystal-sync, and are steady, then the image quality is more a function of the film stock and the lenses.

If someone invested in a good 35mm still camera decades ago, there isn't much incentive or reason to buy another one, unlike digital still cameras which keep improving every year. So the fast obsolescence of digital naturally means that sales HAVE to be higher than with film cameras -- it's not the best indicator of how often each type of camera is being used, it partly just means that people feel the need for the latest model of digital when it comes out because of enhanced features or more resolution, etc. Film cameras sales are always going to be lower.

Look, of course digital is taking off, no debate there. Most people are going to shoot digital in the future. But there is always a bit of a countermovement to any big movement in art or technology, the more that film disappears, the more some people are going to want to recreate that look -- just look at the popularity of the Hipstamatic iphone photo process. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Of course, once the people who grew up in the day and age of polaroids and instamatic film pass on, I wonder who will be left to be nostalgic? On the other hand, I'm fond of silent era movies, Gershwin melodies, 1940's Technicolor musicals... all of which predate my birth.

 

[Daniel Silva]

Look, of course digital is taking off, no debate there. Most people are going to shoot digital in the future. But there is always a bit of a countermovement to any big movement in art or technology, the more that film disappears, the more some people are going to want to recreate that look -- just look at the popularity of the Hipstamatic iphone photo process. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Of course, once the people who grew up in the day and age of polaroids and instamatic film pass on, I wonder who will be left to be nostalgic? On the other hand, I'm fond of silent era movies, Gershwin melodies, 1940's Technicolor musicals... all of which predate my birth.

That's a beautiful paragraph right there, man. Nah but seriously, you're totally right! I guess that's what explains the whole Hipstamatic craze. It's people trying to recreate an analog look... but it's digital! Crappy digital even. Haha. I thought it was hipsters trying to be hip. But then again irony is a big thing for hipsters and it doesn't get more ironic than someone trying to recreate the analog look with the digital camera on their iPhone.

Humans are interesting creatures.

 

[Tim Hole]

Neither would I. I'm all for diversity. But here's what I think will happen. Look at photography. Can you still buy a film still camera? Yes. It's not as easy as before but you can certainly do it. Can you still develop film. Yes. Costco still develops film rolls.

Can normal people tell the difference between a digital picture and a film picture? If the film picture was well taken, developed and scanned they will not be able to tell the difference. Now look at the usage of both technologies today by both professionals and non-professionals. I would say that 98% of non-professionals only use digital. Showing an almost complete takeover by digital.

Now for professionals and artists it certainly is a different story. I really have no idea how many photographers still use film. But I'm sure the number is a lot higher than 2%.

Here's what I do know though. 25 million digital cameras were supposed to be sold in 2010. How many analog cameras do you think were sold in 2010?

Very very few, I think. At least when compared with 25 million.

What does this mean? Well it means that 15-year old Johnny who got his first camera for Christmas got a digital camera and he'll grow up in a digital world. Do you think he'll ever want to shoot film? Who knows? But most probably not unless he becomes an artist and decides to experiment with the old technology he heard about called film.

I think though you have to make a definition between snappers and photographers. There is also the market of digital backs and dual format cameras but they are of the more expensive breed.

But David states the best point as usual. My Olympus OM-1 which was a gift to me when I was eight is now over 25 years old and is still as good today as it was when it was bought. It has been maintained and I have had parts of it replaced over the years. The same goes for my Bolex's one is 16mm the other converted to s16 but because they are mechanical if maintained properly and last as long as I will. Back then though I don't think it was that uncommon for a family to own an 8mm camera and a 16mm. But then film was easy and cheap to process.

Technology (without sounding like my Dad) is not built to last today its not in the interest of the companies.

Almost built in life span so they can sell their new android with go-faster stripes (No silicon heaven).

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck loaded with hard drives.

Also, many home studio's (like mine) offer much faster Internet connectivity. I have 50Mbps down & 20Mbps upload. Would that change the picture for you?

I am passing around uncompressed 10 bit 1080p today online. Redcode 42 is lightweight by comparison.

I think the truck might be the answer. :001_smile:

I couldn't help myself, even at the 20 mbps upload speed, an hour of REDCODE 42 would take more than 16 hours to upload. Yikes! :crazy:

 

[Craig Parkes]

It's basically a matter of "whatever way will get it there". Upload it on-site, upload it back at base, drive it to the nearest fiber connection, ship it, etc. It all depends on the budget and location of the shoot. Obviously, you'd want to have a few copies handy between the time you shoot the footage, and when it gets to the datacenter.

Once it's at the datacenter however, you can easily and quickly duplicate the data to however many other datacenter's you wish, virtually guaranteeing data safety.

The reason for tons of recording media in a large scale production isn't cost of back up or transfer solutions - it's labor costs and on on set efficiency.

If you are shooting on the side of the mountain, where most of the crew has to be helicoptered up, and you have a narrow window to shoot what you need, then you want enough mags to get you through the whole day because if your offload cart went down you'd be bleeding the cost of 30+ crew and maybe 2+ choppers for an unknown amount of hours.

It's about not having to worry if the DIT trips and breaks their leg - they get shipped off to hospital, there is enough media on site to keep shooting no matter what.

I remember hearing about an event on a film where a cam assist 4wd moving to location, filled with the next days stock, rolled off a cliff. No one was hurt, but the stock was deemed written off.

The solution was to wake up someone at Kodak in the middle of the night, get them to drive to the warehouse, box up more stock, get it on a chartered jet, fly that chartered jet to the nearest airport to the remote location, and then someone to drive however many hours to that location in the wee small hours of the morning so that production didn't lose a day.

Because for that scale of production, losing a day is more expensive than all of the above.

You would have media to cover you for the entire shoot for a similar reason - because getting another batch SSD's from RED in the states, if they went off a cliff in a van, is not going to happen in a day if you are shooting in New Zealand, and especially if you are in a remote place in New Zealand.

 

[Ravi Kiran]

I have to laugh when I see thread titles with such grandiose predictions as this one. Seems like a lot of people in this industry wants to be seen as the Nostradamus who predicted this or that. I guess we can't be content with saying that "The Epic will be a quality camera that is used on productions with varying degrees of success, depending on who is using it"

Technology (without sounding like my Dad) is not built to last today its not in the interest of the companies.

Almost built in life span so they can sell their new android with go-faster stripes (No silicon heaven).

Red is the first camera company I know of to offer an upgrade of the sensor without having to buy a whole new camera. That's not exactly the same as using a 30-year-old camera with modern film stocks, but its a great idea, and I assume they'll continue that trend with the Epic and Scarlet.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Welcome to the cult, Daniel-San. We look forward to completing your training.

Your main argument is extremely correct. At this point, however, the debate about film vs digital is essentially over. "Circumstances on the ground" are overtaking the chatter. Anyone who is still arguing that film will remain the predominant format for cinema for the next 5 years would remind me of the Iraqi information minister, who was holding press conferences declaring that "The Americans are 100 miles from Baghdad" while his own TV cameras were showing American M1 tanks in the background right behind him.

Most of the topics being discussed here have been discussed over and over again. There is no more debate. Things are moving fast now. The switch from film to digital is now taking place a very rapid pace. Once Epic drops, the rate of adoption for digital cinema cameras is going to increase at a staggering rate... a near vertical climb on an exponential trend chart. At some point when you start to see the absolute takeover of digital, then what is the point in having the conversation anymore? It just becomes the new reality, and we start talking about other topics, like 3D vs 2D, IMAX vs FF35, etc.

 

[Antonio Forjaz]

Just my experience...when I shot my first film on the Red I only had one 8GB CF and one 16GB CF... And we made the film, and I still have all the files in my MAXX 16TB drive... So, from personal experience, on small productions, it is possible.not that it was easy...not that I would like to repeat the experience... But it is possible... I did not even have a Rocket yet...and the MAXX came later....