OK... Film vs. RED

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Haha actually KRD I didn't ready any of your posts so I wasn't exactly responding to you so much as the general topic at hand.

But I just went back and looked at the last film I shot on DV. And we have a shot in an apartment where the only way we were able to keep the window from going crazy behind an actor was to cover an entire wall of windows in .5ND + CTO since we couldn't afford HMIs.

At our price range the HVX let alone the RED was out of the question so I think you have a really good point that the RED isn't really competing with DV. If all you can afford is DV then DV it is you really have NO choice. Our entire shot plan was designed around how much gel we could afford and install in a reasonable amount of time.

Thankfully I can afford better than DV now. I can afford film for my personal projects but the question then becomes: If I'm going to spend thousands of dollars a day already why should I have to compromise with a mediocre image? I'm willing to compromise to a point, but DV forces me to take too many compromises. I could shoot film for the same equipment costs but then I know every extra take, every extra angle not only costs me on time, but I'm going to get screwed on processing and my inevitable DI, so to me RED is the onset cost of Film (which I can afford) without doubling my budget in post.

 

[Gbabymogul]

First of all, thanks to my defenders (all 2 of them!)

Taking your rebuttals and expressions of impatience in no particular order:

1) I never suggested that Lawrence of Arabia be shot on DV. I thought we were talking about films that non-Hollywood people are likely to make, within 5 or 6 figure budgets. If you've got the money for Lawrence of Arabia, what are you doing here? On the other hand, "Saltmen of Tibet" *was* shot, with epic vistas, with the VX1000, and nobody complained.

Since this is probably from my comment, i'll try to reiterate the point i was making.

Let's take budget out of the equation for a moment. The point is that certain stories, like Lawrence of Arabia, with certain treatments, require different image quality (namely 35mm characteristics) to fully explore the themes and script. Sure, you could tell Lawrence's story with a different script, shot selection etc... and work within DVcam's limits to make a great movie. But, it wouldn't be the same movie. I don't get why you can't see that different stories and treatments demand different imaging decisions, even in the under a million budget range.

I've said this numerous times in this thread (after this i'll defer), but the digital films that are exhibited theatrically, use the medium to underscore the story and theme. It should be self evident that if your theory was true we would see a wide variety of digital features that didn't use the medium as the subtext. There would be narratives mirroring 35mm story telling aplenty. That's not the case. On the other hand i can think of a dozen examples of the opposite.

Obviously, i'm not going to convince you that there isn't one shoe that fits all in the under a million budget paradigm, or that distributors put a real dollar amount (i've seen it first hand) on the format a project was shot on (with exceptions). RED may suit my needs as a storyteller. For all the rest; i'll rent. I have no desire to put DVcam footage on the big screen. Mostly, because i don't have a story that would be served by dvcam. For those that do, i say great, it's the craft, not the tool...

To sum up; find a story your passionate about, get others to believe in it, pick a format that underscores the story (which includes image) the best, and go tell it.

That's the ticket!, mi amigos

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are all kinds of movies, and not all are intended for mass-consumption, i.e. wide release. We live in a world of niche markets on TV and to some extent, even in theatrical features, there are films aimed at smaller niche markets. No one expects a movie like "Venus" to do the same kind of business as "Spider-Man 3".

I went to see "Tears of the Black Tiger", that bizarre Thai western-romance and I'm not sure even what the target audience was for that film... other than people who want to see Thai actors playing cowboys in bright colors in some sort of Douglas Sirk-like meledrama, against a backdrop of day-glo painted cycs and a corny pop-music soundtrack.

But I would even consider that less of an obscure art film than some other movies released in theaters.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Do I really need to point out that narrative film is not a fine art, in the sense of classical painting or drawing?

I would hesitate to characterizes an entire art form in such a narrow manner.

A film is a mass-market medium, and it has to move. Otherwise, the viewer suffocates, and the thing is relegated to museums. Believe me, it's been tried.

Well, again, you generalize far too much. All filmmaking is not narrative! "Relegated" to museums? Again, your terms are far too narrowly defined, IMO. We are not all USC Cinema grads intent on making the next dramatic opus, intended for a necessarily "mass" audience. Again, I'd love to continue this discussion, but perhaps under a different thread title.

 

[krd]

I've said this numerous times in this thread (after this i'll defer), but the digital films that are exhibited theatrically, use the medium to underscore the story and theme. It should be self evident that if your theory was true we would see a wide variety of digital features that didn't use the medium as the subtext. There would be narratives mirroring 35mm story telling aplenty.

It's a good point -- many digital films do seem to have a self-referential quality, though I believe that's true of low-budget productions in general, including 16mm. Chuck and Buck was among the first theatrically released features shot on the VX1000, but I don't recall any particular "digital" characteristics (apart from the miserable look of it). The script was written for film, but the only way they could afford to make it was on DV. If it attracted a digital subtext, it was one acquired after-the-fact.

And it makes sense that low budget filmmakers would be preoccupied with their medium. But that may be less a function of the format, than of working with inadequate resources and being acutely aware of that fact.

Anyway, I think this subject is played out....

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Anyway, I think this subject is played out....

Well, thanks for playing, krd! At least you stirred up the thread a bit. I was getting kinda sleepy before you came along!

 

[krd]

Well, thanks for playing, krd! At least you stirred up the thread a bit. I was getting kinda sleepy before you came along!

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[Clint Johnson]

krd,

I agree with most of what you say while respectfully disagreeing with your conclusion.

I feel that while the camera doesn't make the story better and the story doesn't make the camera better... it is no more valid than saying that the sound doesn't make the camera better. It is true but irrelevant. They are all needed to make the movie better.

Of the thousands of indie films that have failed to even get distribution, some non-zero number failed because they were considered unwatchable and shooting with the Red would have been the difference between a distributor picking them up or not.

It all starts with the script. After that, everything else conspires to make it less than it could be, especially in the indie world. The producers insist on using a higher profile actor than the one who is actually best for the part, the locations you can get aren't the ones that support the story like you'd hope, the car alarm out on the street runs under the least bad audio track, you can't get the lighting package you want because Stupendous Six Episode III is in town and has everything over 1kw booked, they also have all the studio space so you book a warehouse... the one with the corrugated steel roof and they are calling for rain the entire week you will be shooting there.

There are so many things that choke down the movie, unless you have no choice, why compromise on the one thing that everyone will be staring at for an hour and a half? If I was being completely honest, sub par audio hurts more indie productions than sub par video. But you fix the things you can fix and hope it gets closer to the ethereal perfect manifestation of the script.

I feel that the Red camera will take one more stumbling block out of the way. The camera isn't as important as the script but it still ranks up there in the top five and compromising with it will hurt the story, hurt your chances of getting picked up and hurt your chances at the box office.

 

[Joel Kaye]

For these unofficial productions, with small production budgets, and no stars, audiences do not look for (or demand) high production values,

You write off any of these movies as having wider audience appeal beyond a small group "Indie enthusiasts".

There is the possibility that mainstream audiences would be MUCH more likely to give smaller productions without stars a chance IF they looked like real movies they are used to seeing. RED will be the first time we'll actually get to test that in the real world. It's not been tested so I don't see how you can assume RED won't make a difference for some people. Personally, I'll take the other side of that bet. RED WILL help some people make careers for themselves they wouldn't have otherwise had without access to low cost, very high quality gear.

Regarding "stars": there are MANY examples of mainstream audiences embracing TV shows and Movies that did not have stars that they knew in them. Most people didn't know anyone in "Friends" the first day it aired. Who was in "300" again? I certainly didn't go see that for the stars. Low budget greenscreen movies are a few years away. Add RED 4K footage to really fast desktop computers and the next generation of software and people will be building some amazing movies.

I am a big believer that marketing will remain critical - along with creating a marketable stories. Many Indies fail there... even if they shot on film.

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences

And I think RED is that point. Maybe the F-900 or Varicam was, but even those cameras were out of reach for a lot of people that can get into RED. Perhaps in a couple years the "certain threshold" will drop to $5,000 and even more people will be able to participate. I think the evolution will follow the desktop publishing model. Macs, postscript, laser printers, Illustrator and Photoshop allowed a whole lot more artists to create things they wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Maybe krd's threshold for acceptable image quality is different from that of others? Maybe a certain project someone wants to shoot demands a near-35mm quality image? As Mullen and a million others have pointed out, it goes by projects. Some demand 35mm. Some will be fine on an F900, especially if that's all you can get.

This is just off the top of my head, but let's imagine you have a great idea for a beautiful movie set on an island -- kind of like The Blue Lagoon, but without the suckage. You've got an amazing, literary script and two beautiful actors. Your uncle owns an island near Belize, and he's agreed to let you shoot there for 30 days. Your crew is willing to work for peanuts (and a month on a beautiful island). Based on the quality of the script you were able to raise $300,000 for your first feature.

In your mind this will be an extremely beautiful picture. You imagine the gorgeous sunsets and sweeping island views. You even set aside $30,000 to have sharkguy shoot some underwater stuff, like Almendros and Toll.

Now, what camera are you going to use? Film? 35mm would drain your $300k budget faster than a biker drains a Budweiser. F900? Sorry, but no thanks. This picture, in large part, is based on its beauty. The beauty and the love story are the selling points. You don't want to put that shit on an XL2. Frankly, to me, a picture just like I described wouldn't even be worth shooting on a crummy camera. I'd rather hold out for 35mm or RED. Again, it depends on the project.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Do you really have an uncle like that?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Do you really have an uncle like that?

Lol, I wish. But I am down to join you and sharkguy for the 4K bimbo shoot in Cabo.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'd work for free. And then stay to help with post and sky replacements etc. Lol. It would be a funny experiment. Put 50 talented film makers and 10 actors on a beautiful island with unlimited electricity, decent accomodations, A year's worth of food (You could easily buy a year's worth of food for a couple $k each.) Then make like 10 features and 50 shorts. Relax on the beach, edit on your laptop.

"So which feature set on a tropical island are we going to shoot today?"

"I got this really great idea for a war epic" Sweet! Let's do it.

Whats so great about digital is you can shoot indefinitely, it's not like we would run out of film or even tape. Actually now that I think about it. That's not a bad way to spend a year. A group of people who just want to shoot movies all day every day. Save up a few $k and all work together for free in some third world country where the cost of living is peanuts. Shoot every day for a year and just make as many movies as humanely possible."

Your expendables budget would be almost nill if you used existing environments.

I wonder if North Korea would be willing to host a group of film makers. I imagine it's not expensive to live there. And the publicity they got would be incredible. Win Win! It would need to be a poor country but a safe country. I think despots would be the best bet. But despots with a tyrannacal hold, you don't want one who's just bad enough to stir up rebellion, it has to be like soldier on every corner despotic.

The more I think about it. The more I desperately want to do it. That sounds like the greatest year ever. I'm seriously thinking about doing this now. Where could you live for about $4,000 a year?

 

[Clint Johnson]

Hmmm, I have an aunt who lives on Grand Cayman and a couple of the guys I work with own several hundred acres in Belize even if it isn't on an island... hell, I live in the Coastal Mountain Range on the largest natural lake in British Columbia and there is some nice visuals right in my back yard.

The Red will capture that while my old DVX100... not so much.

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

Paper has been cheap for a long time, but I'm told good, high concept scripts are still hard to come by in any budget.
There will be bad movies made as well as good, just as there always have been.
The difference will be in who has the opportunity to make them.
US!
Good Shooting!! May the distribution gods smile apon thee all!!

 

[Tom Lowe]

haha, im.thatoneguy. well there is always Hunan island in China -- dirt cheap!

 

[david farland]

I watch most movies and see so many flaws in the plot/subplot, acting, sound, vision, sets etc…If the movie has one good element, to me it redeems itself. This is all I can reasonably expect.
So I dumb down and let myself be taken out of the present and told a story, or shown something beautiful, or listen to a beautiful sound, be shown a new feeling or reaction etc, etc. Any one of these will do!

And the techniques and skills to show these elements are usually entwined and it's elitist and ignorant to think otherwise!

But it’s not about some story element, acting portrayal, clever theme/plot nuances is worth 10 points and shots/clarity of an early morning sunrise, mountains, Baraka etc, ethereal background music is worth 1 point…


Cheers,

 

[Tom Lowe]

So true. Several people here are already gearing up to use RED for some Baraka-style fun. Since I'm a Malick worshipper no one will be surprised that half my first feature is going to be beautiful cutaways.

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

Survivor red addition, on a deserted island
Everyone split into teams.
No food budget,foraging for food between takes.
Due to possible fishing advantages, sharkguy and camdiver on opposite teams
First team to achive mass distribution wins.
Losing team has to shoot a year long doco on the road crossing habits of the north amarican skunkhmy: :waaa:
Good luck

 

[Thomas Mathai]

i guess it depends on how you define long term. To reiterate, I'm not saying digital archiving is "better", I just think its more cost effective and is really my only option..as I can't afford to archive on film. Additionally, archiving might be a "inconvenience" but so is forking 20,000-100,000 dollars. As always, if money is no issue.. back on on both if thats the case.

Below is a possible option I read on Mike Curtis' blog.

"Mike Curtis discussed had this quote on his blog:

"“You walk into a film archive, and what you smell is the image coming off the print,”

....and then went on to advocate for lossless digital backups, with a schedule for migrating that data, checking that data for problems, etc:

Sun’s motion-picture archiving model is based around an enterprise-class tape library with a front-end server and disk drive. A studio would maintain two complete libraries in different locations, and each library would include two complete copies of each movie. The library would comprise components that would be changed out on a regular schedule – every five years for the computers and disks, every 10 years for the actual tapes (with an audit of each tape to be conducted every six months to keep on top of any developing problems), and every 20 years for the library systems. Data would be stored in an open tarball data format; as it’s copied from tape to tape, it can be recorded in whatever file format the current tape system uses. Content would be kept in the clear (unencrypted) and uncompressed for maximum readability in the future. The archive would have no network connectivity."

the lto option by quantum:
"Easy to Deploy - With its included gigabit Ethernet interface and built-in FTP, A-Series data tape drives can be easily attached to any network where they become instantly accessible to every workstation and server through Windows Explorer and standard browsers. The system can be used in stand-alone, rackmount and table-top configurations and the new SuperLoader 3A can be integrated into the full range of robotic tape libraries.

Flexible - The data tape format of the A-Series data tape drives includes a file system on the tape, making any cartridge readable anywhere, anytime. Traditional video archiving uses proprietary management software, which dictates that tapes must remain locked in a library system in order to restore any data. Quantum's Super DLTtape II cartridges are free from this restraint; they can be easily moved between libraries, stand-alone drives and even video facilities. With this flexibility, A-Series drives are ideal for serving the full range of video applications -- from hand-carrying video content out to a truck for live production to a facility-wide, long-term and secure archive.

Secure Yet Accessible - Quantum's Super DLTtape II data cartridges have a robust 30-year archival life that ensures the longevity of precious video content. At the same time, the A-Series is an ideal solution for archiving content because the files remain easily accessible. The A-Series enables partial restores of subclip files by timecode or even metadata with an ease unlike any other data tape solution – establishing a new level of accessibility in data tape that defines "working storage."

Unmatched Performance and Capacity - At a native 36 MB/s, data transfer is many times faster than real-time, even in HD. At a native capacity of 300GB per tape, a single tape can accommodate more than six hours of 100 Mb/s HD content.

Cost-Effective - In addition to its file-based, faster-than-real-time access to HD, SD and data assets, the A-Series data tape drives are a much more cost-effective storage solution than video tape. Because it is built on Quantum's popular, industry-leading DLT platform, the A-Series platform benefits from significant economies of scale."

Long term by my definition is at least several decades easily.

I read the same quote from the guy from Sun. The problem is that it's from a guy who wants to sell you a whole lot of SuperDLT drives.

Read this article from Variety.com

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963533.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1

All archive methods have flaws, be it film, paper, digital etc.

The thing is that there isn't a real archive protocol for digital media.

Buying a bunch of cheap drives is just a workaround, not a real solution.