Thom Steinhoff
Well-known member
I’ve been thinking about film vs. digital thing as a cost of camera, cost of processing vs. quality of capture argument then it hit me: It’s the workflow, stupid.
The thing that “killed” film for still photography, killed tape for studio recording and killed traditional film editing for post was not the cost of the cameras or development--but the cost of time overall workflow--and the speed in which everything can be finished. The same thing will happen here.
The cost of cameras or processing is insignificant next to the reduction of shooting days you will achieve with a dramatically faster workflow. Save a few thousand here or there? Yawn. Save a dozen shooting days while at the same time giving your talent a better work experience? Now you’ve got their attention.
This is why I think people are wrong by saying that Red is for the independents and big features will always stay film--I think big budget features will be very fast to adopt a workflow offered by Red--far faster than most people imagine.
Here’s why:
Look at HD use in features already by the early adopters: they see the inferior quality of HD as a small price to pay for the faster workflow offered by HD, i.e., full quality on-set monitoring, longer loads, instant replay, greater sensitivity and reduced lighting efforts. For those who are already drinking the digital Kool-aid it is already a done deal even with the inferior quality of HD and the existing HD “Monster Raid” workflow.
How much faster will a Red compact flash workflow be? What about with a 3 hour magazine? 1080p WYSIWYG lighting? Totally silent camera operation? Onset laptop playback? Instant turn around on SFX shots? “Hold on let me look at that key in 4K…perfect!--next shot” Onset instant 2K playback showing full impact of FPS, shutter speed, aperture, etc. What impact will RAW have to “lets move on” confidence?
All of this will be huge and offer far greater impact to a production than camera day rates or reductions on processing.
When the directors of big budget HD features talk about why they love HD movie making--they say nothing of rental or processing cost savings--they talk about one thing: onset workflow--instant gratification of onset playback, live camera lighting, longer shoot times etc. Just look at the confidence onset, full quality, playback offers compared to a low-res video tap where “are you sure” becomes “take-twenty-six”.
Re-read Peter Jackson’s interview and listen to how exciting the speed and flexibility of making movies like this is to him--it’s the workflow.
Time will tell, but the Red workflow, though in it’s infancy and relatively unproven, already appears to be light years ahead of any other feature film workflow out there, period.
The biggest reason people give for not using HD cameras in feature films is quality and Red blows that argument out of the water completely.
Does Red have to look better than film before it replaces it? In my opinion--no--it just has to be “good enough” so as to provide a rich platform for artists while not to be distracting. This “good enough” bar met by HD for the directors and producers of Superman Returns, Zodiac, Apocalypto and others. In my opinion, even though all three movies looked great –they would have “looked” better if the same footage had been shot on film--but looks aren’t everything. Maybe the onset workflow HD offered gave them the freedom and speed to capture things that would have never made it on film with its more cumbersome process? Actors love to work faster, stay in the moment and try more things--a workflow that offers this in spades may actually open the door to better features than could be made on film--all because of the workflow.
Yes, Red has raised the bar dramatically on quality to a level far beyond HD and to some above even film itself, but in the end--it doesn’t matter: It’s good enough.
The bar that really matters is the workflow bar and here is where Red has the potential indeed to change the world. Yes, the quality and resolution are amazing but, in the end it is the workflow that will win the hearts and pocketbooks of Hollywood.
Once people like Soderberg and Jackson start saying things like “Red cut 15 days off my shooting schedule, 10 days off my post and a cool million off my special effects budget ” you can bet the studios will be all over it. In my opinion, there will be a tidal wave of adoption very similar to what happened with non-linear editing.
To think that Red will primarily be used just by us indies--I think is naïve. Anything that can do to production what non-linear editing did for post will not be an option in five years--it will be the only way big Hollywood movies get made.
As with editing, Spielberg may end up being one of the few that is still allowed to shoot and edit on film but the onset digital “fast and free” workflow may be too seductive for even him and he too will join the revolution. Time will tell for him, but for the rest of us--I think film’s days truly are numbered.
In 5 years, if you want to shoot on film you’ll likely hear: “I’m sorry, no studio is going to pay for film any more—everyone goes digital. You’ll never meet your delivery window and it just isn’t practical. You still want to shoot on film—your only chance is to do it as an independent.” How ironic will that be?
Maybe by then, Red will offer cans of “essence du’ film” to spray film smell on set and in the editing room to help the old time directors feel at home.
The thing that “killed” film for still photography, killed tape for studio recording and killed traditional film editing for post was not the cost of the cameras or development--but the cost of time overall workflow--and the speed in which everything can be finished. The same thing will happen here.
The cost of cameras or processing is insignificant next to the reduction of shooting days you will achieve with a dramatically faster workflow. Save a few thousand here or there? Yawn. Save a dozen shooting days while at the same time giving your talent a better work experience? Now you’ve got their attention.
This is why I think people are wrong by saying that Red is for the independents and big features will always stay film--I think big budget features will be very fast to adopt a workflow offered by Red--far faster than most people imagine.
Here’s why:
Look at HD use in features already by the early adopters: they see the inferior quality of HD as a small price to pay for the faster workflow offered by HD, i.e., full quality on-set monitoring, longer loads, instant replay, greater sensitivity and reduced lighting efforts. For those who are already drinking the digital Kool-aid it is already a done deal even with the inferior quality of HD and the existing HD “Monster Raid” workflow.
How much faster will a Red compact flash workflow be? What about with a 3 hour magazine? 1080p WYSIWYG lighting? Totally silent camera operation? Onset laptop playback? Instant turn around on SFX shots? “Hold on let me look at that key in 4K…perfect!--next shot” Onset instant 2K playback showing full impact of FPS, shutter speed, aperture, etc. What impact will RAW have to “lets move on” confidence?
All of this will be huge and offer far greater impact to a production than camera day rates or reductions on processing.
When the directors of big budget HD features talk about why they love HD movie making--they say nothing of rental or processing cost savings--they talk about one thing: onset workflow--instant gratification of onset playback, live camera lighting, longer shoot times etc. Just look at the confidence onset, full quality, playback offers compared to a low-res video tap where “are you sure” becomes “take-twenty-six”.
Re-read Peter Jackson’s interview and listen to how exciting the speed and flexibility of making movies like this is to him--it’s the workflow.
Time will tell, but the Red workflow, though in it’s infancy and relatively unproven, already appears to be light years ahead of any other feature film workflow out there, period.
The biggest reason people give for not using HD cameras in feature films is quality and Red blows that argument out of the water completely.
Does Red have to look better than film before it replaces it? In my opinion--no--it just has to be “good enough” so as to provide a rich platform for artists while not to be distracting. This “good enough” bar met by HD for the directors and producers of Superman Returns, Zodiac, Apocalypto and others. In my opinion, even though all three movies looked great –they would have “looked” better if the same footage had been shot on film--but looks aren’t everything. Maybe the onset workflow HD offered gave them the freedom and speed to capture things that would have never made it on film with its more cumbersome process? Actors love to work faster, stay in the moment and try more things--a workflow that offers this in spades may actually open the door to better features than could be made on film--all because of the workflow.
Yes, Red has raised the bar dramatically on quality to a level far beyond HD and to some above even film itself, but in the end--it doesn’t matter: It’s good enough.
The bar that really matters is the workflow bar and here is where Red has the potential indeed to change the world. Yes, the quality and resolution are amazing but, in the end it is the workflow that will win the hearts and pocketbooks of Hollywood.
Once people like Soderberg and Jackson start saying things like “Red cut 15 days off my shooting schedule, 10 days off my post and a cool million off my special effects budget ” you can bet the studios will be all over it. In my opinion, there will be a tidal wave of adoption very similar to what happened with non-linear editing.
To think that Red will primarily be used just by us indies--I think is naïve. Anything that can do to production what non-linear editing did for post will not be an option in five years--it will be the only way big Hollywood movies get made.
As with editing, Spielberg may end up being one of the few that is still allowed to shoot and edit on film but the onset digital “fast and free” workflow may be too seductive for even him and he too will join the revolution. Time will tell for him, but for the rest of us--I think film’s days truly are numbered.
In 5 years, if you want to shoot on film you’ll likely hear: “I’m sorry, no studio is going to pay for film any more—everyone goes digital. You’ll never meet your delivery window and it just isn’t practical. You still want to shoot on film—your only chance is to do it as an independent.” How ironic will that be?
Maybe by then, Red will offer cans of “essence du’ film” to spray film smell on set and in the editing room to help the old time directors feel at home.
