OK... Film vs. RED

[donatello b]

i think some of do you need script or not has to do with experience ..
when i started i use to shoot anything - any size crew .. we just did it ... as i got more experience i could see what crew position were key ...
as i got more experience if the Production didn't have those key positions i passed on the project ...
today - script supervisor, experienced AC , experienced gaffer & key grip, experienced sound & boom person just work alot better then PA's filling in on boom or AC ...
i remember one production where a investor wanted to be 1st AC ( no AC experience) - the producer said YES ( to 25k plus investor worked for free) ... after day 1 - we ( DP, gaffer, sound ) decided ( told producer ) we need a real 1st & a real script supervisor - so we promoted the investor to 2nd unit DP and brought in a experienced AC & script supervisor ..on day 3 we had them working .. on day 4 gaffer also took over duties of 1st AD - things went smooth until 2nd to last day when Director fired gaffer, key grip and audio dept but then that's another story ....
the investor did ok on picking up establishing shots ( no audio ) ... but when he was AC on last day he loaded camera with asa 100 (labeled it 500) when i asked for 500 ... month later we did reshoot -this time i lit for asa 100 and he loaded asa 500 in camera !!! we lived with it ...

 

[Thomas Mathai]

...and seasoned industry vets who are unwilling to rethink age-old practices always bring a smile to mine!

There is no reason a set decorator, who is not going to be doing anything during the actual shooting in all likelihood, can't watch for continuity. That's their job, too.

I don't think it's asking too much that people actually work when they are on set, to be honest. There's no reason someone who is otherwise sitting around can't handle another task while they are watching, I think. And if they can't maybe they shouldn't be on my set at all.

I agree that not all editors would ever want to be on set, but it depends. I mean I've written several books and I've been able to focus on what sections needed to be cut when I had a final product, even when I spent many, many hours writing those sections. On a film I am the same way. I don't care if I spent a whole day getting a shot right, if the movie is finished and that shot just doesn't work, it has to go. I understand not everyone has that discipline, but some directors do. I've seen Lucas do the same thing to shots that ILM had already finished effects work for, and that looked quite good, but that basically didn't work with the story overall or added too much time to the final cut.

Well it looks like you expect everyone on your set to be generalists instead of specialists. That's fine on smaller productions especially if you and your crew work well together.

I don't see it being as practical on a bigger production.

Also don't be so smug about how industry veterans aren't wiling to change age old practices. This industry isn't that stagnant, you can look at every decade of it and see how much things have evolved.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

you sound like a true techie but not much of a storyteller. by your logic, there also shouldn't be editing to direct audiences to key moments and characters in the story.

I'm going to stop you right there and remind you that there are techies who are storytellers. The list of camera techies, matte painters and compositors who are now big name directors is staggering.

I hear a lot of poopahing towards techies which is strange considering most techies in the film industry are extremely creative people and those special types who are capable of understanding how to compute a Quaternion matrix transform and sculpt a fine art portrait.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Jonathan, you clearly don't understand what a script supervisor does, or you wouldn't be writing what you're continually writing here. Keeping track of continuity is one part of a much larger and more responsible job. The script supervisor keeps track of visual continuity, yes. She/he also keeps track of screen direction, dialogue (i.e., adherence to the script), which takes are to be printed, and numerous other things (lenses, focal distances when requested, visual effect needs at times, etc, etc.). She/he creates a lined script as the shooting day unfolds, so that the information she/he is gathering can be communicated to editorial (and others) in a standard way, so that they all understand what material is available, how it was shot, how it's identified, and where to find it. When the company wraps, she/he then continues to work for about another hour, preparing and copying the lined script pages, any other notes, and various production reports. She/he is also responsible for reading and timing the script (on a series, this includes scripts that have just been published and are not in production yet), updating those timings as production progresses, running lines with the actors between setups, and other things I won't even go into.

So I guess if you, as the director, are also going to play script supervisor, you'll be doing all those lined script pages and production reports, as well as making sure you note the lenses, focal lengths, and lighting notes, and also running lines with the cast, because after all, you won't have to be answering any other questions during a production day, will you? And you'll never mess up screen direction or miss a shot because, after all, you've got all that covered. And the editor won't have to figure out what you did, because, well, apparently you're the editor too.

You really need to stop and think about what you're saying here before you hit the send button. And you need to think a bit about what you don't know, and clearly have little experience with, before you make pronouncements on how wasteful it is and how unnecessary certain production personnel are.

Wow. Too bad this guy has an opinion other than your own. It's obvious where you're from that's for sure. Anyone who comes to this message board and argues against the traditional, formalist filmmaking methodology is subject to bludgeon here.

I feel like there's a million different ways to work, and all that matters in the end is what YOU are comfortable with. And besides, the proof is in the pudding right. If it looks good, and the story is compelling...in the end who cares how you got there? Now if you're talking about playing double duty and the consensus is your films suck (obviously subjective - but that's why I wrote 'consensus'), then you might want to rethink your approach.

Robert Rodriguez is the epitome of a jack of all trades filmmaker. Now I'm NOT making any qualitative judgment on the man, so let's not go there. Just trying to say there are obviously a myriad of ways to shoot a film.

 

[Thomas Koch]

I admit, I didn't read all 55 pages.

Red kills less cows than film.

TRUTH! not that i don't mind a nice tasty cow every now and then.

 

[David Battistella]

Good point, Boothba.

In my opinion, RED has the advantage there. Film can be kept in great condition over the years, but it requires a lot of work and protection. All RED will need is a long-term storage device. While the options available today are ok... they're not perfect. The beauty is that old RED data can bounce from drive to drive and storage system to storage system until the end of time without losing one bit of data.

Whether this formula will actually work is really not understood. There is a good deal of data supporting the notion of "digital decay" where every time a file is copied or transferred it actually does "loose" something.

This is also evidence in CD's, many of the CD's I bought 15 years ago, despite being well cared for and stored are starting to skip and jump and have problems reading the data.

This can be tested and I hope that somebody weighs in with a great archiving solution very soon otherwise al of this great stuff is going to fade into the matrix.

David

 

[David Battistella]

IMHO - Whatever the budget, $500K or $100 million - as a producer, I want my director to keep his or her focus = less downtime between takes and set-ups = less distraction = "better film" - yeah, I know, very subjective stuff, but when you see a director who has a vision, who can get the camera moved to where he wants efficiently, and keep rolling ... without three guys swarmed around his camera ... it's a beautiful thing. I suspect there are many folks on this website that understand what I am talking about.

Bingo! This is not subjective at all. It's the crux of the issue. Less time and space will also mean the opportunity for more/better/different takes with a bit less film making coitus interuptus.

David

 

[David Battistella]

Cost of a RED camera body $17 500.00
Cost of T stop marked PL mount glass $ 6 800.00
Accessories (give or take) $ 6 000.00
Cost of a rewritable CF Card $ 200.00


Cost of creative freedom PRICELESS
Being Part of a Revolution PRICELESS

 

[david farland]

Whether this formula will actually work is really not understood. There is a good deal of data supporting the notion of "digital decay" where every time a file is copied or transferred it actually does "loose" something.

This is also evidence in CD's, many of the CD's I bought 15 years ago, despite being well cared for and stored are starting to skip and jump and have problems reading the data.

This can be tested and I hope that somebody weighs in with a great archiving solution very soon otherwise al of this great stuff is going to fade into the matrix.

David

Time is by far the greater factor in loss of data on your CD's, not the number of times you read them!

Cheers,

Dave



Love Dove

 

[Seung Han]

I've made four shorts - 2 on 16mm and 2 on DV, and I have to admit I was much happier with how the film images turned out not in terms of technical quality but with how much the film workflow made me focus on getting the best possible shots. Strangely, however, my DV films have better performances and tell stronger stories but the shots are definitely looser and not as focused.

I know a lot has been written about how these different workflows effect filmmaking but I think it really becomes apparent on low budget shoots with major time and money constraints. With film I would stress about each shot not having coverage because of lack of time and money. I would really be involved with the lighting, camera movement, focus.. Then I would always be surprised in post how well things cut together because I was so concerned on set.

With DV, I was much looser and really focused on actor's performances and getting more coverage, wide, medium, cu... I know this sounds bad, but I just interacted with my video production in a very different way. I would do more takes and almost adopt TV style like shot selections, master to medium to cu. The complete opposite of how I approaced my film projects which was usually a few select shots that best conveyed the feel/drama of the scene in an interesting way.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I am hoping Red's workflow will help me find this balance in my future projects...

 

[Ramesh Jai]

I've made four shorts - 2 on 16mm and 2 on DV, and I have to admit I was much happier with how the film images turned out not in terms of technical quality but with how much the film workflow made me focus on getting the best possible shots. Strangely, however, my DV films have better performances and tell stronger stories but the shots are definitely looser and not as focused.

I know a lot has been written about how these different workflows effect filmmaking but I think it really becomes apparent on low budget shoots with major time and money constraints. With film I would stress about each shot not having coverage because of lack of time and money. I would really be involved with the lighting, camera movement, focus.. Then I would always be surprised in post how well things cut together because I was so concerned on set.

With DV, I was much looser and really focused on actor's performances and getting more coverage, wide, medium, cu... I know this sounds bad, but I just interacted with my video production in a very different way. I would do more takes and almost adopt TV style like shot selections, master to medium to cu. The complete opposite of how I approaced my film projects which was usually a few select shots that best conveyed the feel/drama of the scene in an interesting way.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I am hoping Red's workflow will help me find this balance in my future projects...

I totally agree with you. In my opinion video makes you 'lazy'. You take as much footage as possible and the story gets told in post. With film, you make sure the story is told on location. Generally speaking that is.

 

[RivaiC]

Digital Cameras can be good and bad depending on the person using it. I got one director that shoot 150-160 HD 40 minutes tapes. :angry02: :angry02:

And this is bad..as u said, story told in post instead, and not to mention freedom of NLE, spoiled !

 

[ChrisLyon]

Shalom aleichem! I've never shot over a 15:1 ratio (hours recorded to one hour of screen time). That's like 50:1 if he was making a 2 hour feature.

 

[RivaiC]

It is 2 hours feature. So subclip itself will take weeks, and yes there're lots of hell and unimaginable things !

 

[P Andersson]

aocalypse now 95:1

turned out pretty good with both character and visuals paid attention to