OK... Film vs. RED

[I Bloom]

It's out of our hands.

It's out of our hands.

I was watching a DVD extra on Bamboozled and it was described how Spike Lee talked to his chosen DP, Ellen Kuras, about what she thought of shooting on DV. And she replied that she didn't think about it. It was her choice to shoot 35mm, but as we know the film was shot on DV.

Even though you can make a case that Ellen Kuras pushed her career forward by being willing to shoot on DV and make it look more like film, she had no love for that format. So what's interesting to me is that this discussion, mostly by DP's I'm presuming, gives the pretense that format is really our choice. I think most of the time we shoot on the best format we can convince people to let us shoot.

So in the context of RED, the discussion of film vs. Red is a mute point for me. Once all the bugs are worked out and people feel they can trust the format and the workflow, producers are going to love RED. Only a select few are going to choose film over a digital competitor, and if you are working with them it's probably going to be luck. Most producers tell me what format we are shooting before they even interview me.

Film is better, I love it, RED can't touch it, really don't kid yourselves, I don't care how much grain you add in post. I've also forgotten all about film, if Kodak came out with Vision3 stocks I wouldn't even care. Because nobody is going to spend the money in the market that I work in. So whether you like RED or not, learn to love it and start calling Jim "Big Brother". Because if it works out as well as they are saying it is, for the price they are offering it, its either RED or an HVX for narrative filmmaking. Forget about film and for that matter forget about the Varicam, the Cinealta and the F23 (unless you are getting one for free).

IB

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Regarding whether audiences care about picture quality, what matters is that I care.

EXACTLY! In my narcissistic, self-centered, ego-driven fantasy world of personal creative filmmaking, the FIRST person I need to please is ME! And as hard a critic as I am on myself, I'm sure if I'm pleased, I just KNOW my mom will like it too!

 

[Tom Lowe]

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences, not only for the tone-deaf 13-36 year-old males one of my few defenders on this board cited, but also art house audiences looking for something new or different.

Again, if this was the case, all movies would be shooting on f900s right now, because according to you, no one sitting in a multiplex could tell the difference. Then why isn't this happening? Shooting digitally has many advantages, including budget, but also the ability to do immediate playbacks in full res on set, etc. The answer: Because film still looks a whole lot better than F900s. Depth of field and dynamic range are two cited differences.

The point we are trying to make, that you seem to be skirting (except admitting that it would make a difference for documentaries ?)... is that with all other things being equal, a filmmaker working in the $200k - $500k range could make a picture on the RED for far less money than 35mm that will still have the same image-quality -- ie, lenses, DOF, color, etc. What part of that don't you understand? If your budget is $400K, and you save 50 grand on film costs, guess what? That's 50k you can spend feeding the crew, buying wardrobe, location scouting, doing post sound, etc.

On the one in a million chance that the RED shooter actually makes a great picture for $400k, it will also be easier to distribute in multiplexes, and will look glorious living its on HD DVD and HDTV.

No person on this board has ever claimed that having a RED will make you talented. It is simply a way of achieving something close to a nice 35mm cinema look for a lot less money and hassle.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences, not only for the tone-deaf 13-36 year-old males one of my few defenders on this board cited, but also art house audiences looking for something new or different.

Not sure what your point is. But it's a little like telling a fine art photographer that he should shoot with a point-and-shoot, instead of a 4x5 view camera, since photography is really only about composition anyway. Or telling a painter, he should really use Sharpies instead of acrylics, since it's really only about color and form. In art, the medium does matter. Your arguments may be more appropriately directed toward first-time director/writers/producers, looking to make a financial decision. But many of us are image-makers, and to us, image is important.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, if it was up to krd, all the top photographers on Flickr would have to trade in their 5Ds for $200 point-and-clicks.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Not that you can't make great art with a point-and-shoot. Or that you can't make a cool-looking film shooting super 8. But you guys know what I mean.

 

[david farland]

Krd,
I think what you're really saying when it comes to the success of a film/video, technical production techniques factor quite low in the scheme of things and regardless of your budget, do not ensure financial success i.e. Waterworld.
And I expect your above the line elements would far outweigh the below the line ones.
Compelling story, truth in acting, creative designs and other above the line elements have a far greater impact on the success of your film/video than technical visual/audio elements.
In essence, I think everybody agrees with you and others much more qualified than myself have partly addressed the reason for technical skills.

But what are you saying anymore than this?

That we’re misguided and wasting our time and really shouldn't expend all our energy on these technical elements?….we should rebalance or redirect our energies?
That our amount of technical fervor doesn't fit into the scheme of a human storytelling paradigm?

What’s your point?

Cheers,

 

[Tom Lowe]

Not that you can't make great art with a point-and-shoot. Or that you can't make a cool-looking film shooting super 8. But you guys know what I mean.

Very true. But it depends on the type of shot you're taking. For example, I have taken some of my favorite landscape shots with a point and click, because I got lucky with a nice location or sunset, and with a wide-angle landscape shot the more depth of field, the better. If you are trying to shoot a portrait for the cover of Vogue, though, a point and click aint gonna cut it.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The reason I don't like these arguments that say we should care more about the story than the technical issues is that it's a false choice -- we don't proportionally expend more effort in one area at the expense of the other. It is possible to care about both.

However, I do agree that in narrative work, the story should drive everything, every choice, etc. But it is possible to think about what filter to stick into the mattebox without short-changing story concerns...

The problem I see sometimes with indie filmmakers sometimes is the whole cart-before-the-horse syndrome. They first look for a camera and then look for a story to tell with it. That's a little like buying a washing machine first and then looking for the right house to buy where it will fit. Owning a camera doesn't make you a filmmaker -- making films makes you a filmmaker. Owning a camera just makes it easier but it doesn't mean a whole lot in itself if you don't start doing something with it.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Hey, before all this RED stuff started to happen, I was SERIOUSLY considering buying one of Birns & Sawyer's used Aaton A-Minima packages.

 

[ChristopherKenworthy]

I think that once you get past a certain quality threshold, in terms of dynamic range, resolution and depth of field characteristics, what you do on set is more important than the camera. There is so much ugly 35mm film being shot these days. I think Red gets over the quality threshold. Used well, a good Red project will look better than half the crap coming off the Hollywood conveyor belt. Of course, people are free to shoot crap Red footage as well. But there's enough quality here to be better than a lot of 35mm out there.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Technologies give rise to new story telling possibilities, and stories drive new technology - it's the happy cycle of art and storytelling. One thing I love about video, film and photography is that it IS a blend of science and art, and art informs the science, and science informs the art.

Graeme

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I've just been out taking photos of the moon. If I didn't have the technology (500mm lens 1.4x and 2x extenders) I don't think I could tell the photographic story. Science enables stories. Stories drive science.

Graeme

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

The problem I see sometimes with indie filmmakers sometimes is the whole cart-before-the-horse syndrome.

Wow, David! That's my whole screenwriting and production methodology! My real name is actually Ralph Cart-Before-the-Horse Oshiro. From an economic standpoint, writing backwards helps me maximize my production value. First, I scout my locations, figure out what I can steal, then write to those locations. I remember buying a hi-hat before I even owned a fluid head. I bought a $1,500 B-stock Anton Bauer charger from Bexel for only a grand, and I didn't even own any batteries! And then there was that whole key grip-hostess tray debaucle!

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

That's a little like buying a washing machine first and then looking for the right house to buy where it will fit.

Oh yeah, like I'm the ONLY one that does THAT!

 

[Jason Murphy]

OK, to jump to KRD's defense here a bit, most of your replies seem to misunderstand his main point in all of this.

I am NOT advocating that anyone shoot on an inferior format. I'm asserting that the perceived differences between formats -- once a reasonable standard of quality is satisfied -- is of far less importance (all else being equal), aesthetically and commercially, than people here want to admit.

He's clearly not arguing that art photographers should use a point and shoot digital instead of a 4x5. Or the cinematic equivalent. However, he IS arguing that the format in which a film is shot makes less overall difference in terms of its artistic and (often) financial success than most people on this board seem to think it does. And he's right about this. Great technology won't make great art, though it may occasionally enable new aesthetic possibilities that great artists can exploit.

And he's also right that the mass commercial film audience at large really doesn't care what a film was originated on. Some movie lovers will, but most people won't, as long as the movie doesn't look like absolute crap. Blair Witch was a huge success, so the standards for what people think looks like absolute crap are pretty low here.

People with money in the industry who are able to finance films WILL obviously care what a film looks like, and how image acquisition happens (as they well should). But they also usually don't care about this as much as doing things by a tried and true method. It will take powerful players in the industry to push something like RED forward, because it's an unknown quantity thus far. Now with people like James Cameron, David Fincher and George Lucas all pushing digital acquisition (not to mention that Peter Jackson seems to be impressed with RED), the shift away from film may happen relatively quickly. But don't expect for an entire industry to be dismantled and rebuilt particularly quickly, no matter how major a breakthrough the RED is.

Anyway, if people put as much artistic energy into shooting movies on the RED as they put energy into being excited about the RED, we'll be in for some great movies. But, as excited as I am about the RED (and I'm pretty excited, as any of my friends who have talked with me recently will no doubt attest), I gotta side with history and say I'm not holding my breath for movies to get that much better.

Edit: So, while I was writing this, it looks like a bunch of people responded in ways that made much of what I said redundant. Apologies. Pick anything out from what I've written that's useful to you.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

So we go to Home Depot and find the LAST TWO front-loading Samsung washer/dryer models left in Los Angeles county on sale in that cool Titanium color. It was last year's discontinued model. They deliver it to the house--and guess what? DOESN'T FIT into the washer dryer closet in the house!!!

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

He's clearly not arguing that art photographers should use a point and shoot digital instead of a 4x5. Or the cinematic equivalent. However, he IS arguing that the format in which a film is shot makes less overall difference in terms of its artistic and (often) financial success than most people on this board seem to think it does. And he's right about this. Great technology won't make great art, though it may occasionally enable new aesthetic possibilities that great artists can exploit.

Yes, but it's OFF-TOPIC. It's stating the obvious. And it's repetitive. And, it's OFF-TOPIC. It's like those incessant, "It's all about story," posts. Not arguing with your post, or you, for that matter, Jason. I'm in general agreement with what you said.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Yes, but it's OFF-TOPIC. It's stating the obvious. And it's repetitive. And, it's OFF-TOPIC. It's like those incessant, "It's all about story," posts.

It doesn't particularly seem off topic in a thread about the relative technical, artistic and workflow merits of film vs. RED. And given the level of excitement seen in some of the posts on this forum, it doesn't seem particularly obvious to a number of people here (not the majority, but certainly a few).

But it IS repetitive. Granted.

PS. Also not trying to argue with you either, Ralph. That Aaton looked pretty sweet as well. I've wanted an Aaton for a long time. But now that RED is cheaper than an Aaton...

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Technologies give rise to new story telling possibilities, and stories drive new technology - it's the happy cycle of art and storytelling. One thing I love about video, film and photography is that it IS a blend of science and art, and art informs the science, and science informs the art.

Graeme

Leave it to Graeme to say something neat.