Open Letter to Variety - Warning: this is not a short 3 line posting

[Julian Banos]

Ted,

Those are great charts, and although everybody has different ways to deal with the details, the fact is that I am providing my clients with a robust solution in terms of imagery.

Also, I still have to face a situation where I cannot place the camera where the shot requires it. From Nascar stock cars to Blackhawk rigs, underwater, low oxygen altitudes, freezing points, melting points... Still I want to rig an Epic on a jet wing...

I frankly stop caring about articles such as this, because my experience is quite the opposite. So what if we need to change a thing or two about "traditional" workflows, I think in almost every sense we have achieved better solutions (HD Videoassist systems on set, RAW imaging on laptops, Multiple copies of "digital negative") than what was established before.

And we keep on improving the details and laying out this new frontier. Getting back to business the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

[Curtis Abbott]

How is shooting on the Red slower than film specifically?

The only reason I can think of that would make it slower is not having Red experienced personnel on set. I have been on many jobs and it's my goal to never have anyone waiting on the camera. I could see that it may take a little longer with lighting based on the rating of the camera, but once the crew is comfortable with the camera I can't see it being slower than film.

 

[TedRed]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm pleased to see the different points of view and thinking on the subject, as I was hoping all of the data I presented didn't just live in a vacuum on it's own, since production and post don't live in a vacuum, there are many variables that make it so interesting to watch evolve and change along with technology.

So let me try and address as many points you have all made here.

First off, Mark, Ketch and Brook, glad you like the new Avatar, seemed somewhat appropriate for those that know what's going on with me recently. I'm not sure why it shows up so big like that, I don't think I did anything different to make it so large (and trust me, while having a big heart might seem like a good thing… in actuality it's not

Ok moving on.

Ian, if you look at the 2 charts I provided, one is for a one week camera rental package and 10 hours of dailies and 10 hours of shooting over the course of one week. Which shows the RED budget coming in at under $8k and the Film budget coming in at over $40k. You or I can certainly run these numbers on other scales, I just need to know the changes in the parameters you would like. I think regardless of the scale and scope, the provability will be the same, and the larger the scope and the more you apply modern techniques to the file prep and post steps the more $ you can save with the RED.

To answer Chris Pickle - you are correct. On a big budget job, the savings of RED vs. film are much, much higher, since the biggest cost bullets are Film Stock and Processing. When you factor in multiple cameras, big action scenes where they shoot a ton of film, dialog scenes where they routinely have 2 or 3 cameras rolling - those costs mount very quickly, and stay relatively low with the RED, so the gap spreads even more on the budget. This is why when on the big budget action film, Book of Eli was looking at film vs. RED, they did a test with they heavy hitter producers to let them pick blindly between RED and Film - they knew there would be dramatic cost savings, but it wouldn't matter if the Hughes Bros couldn't get their vision on the big screen. in their tests, the large majority picked the look of the RED over the look of the film, so that in tandem with the cost savings was the big win. (This is documented in more detail in Noah's RED book, if you want to get more info on that particular case.)

And regarding the renting film cams cheaper and cut deals on telcine, conform, etc - well of course. I covered that quite clearly in the first post. Deals can be made across the board, with RED, Film, F23, F35, etc. and with all the stages of post production. We can run these numbers int the "best possible deal in town - regardless of quality" way, and discover that the cost savings can still be as wide, and in some cases much wider with the RED, since you can deliver the same quality dallies from a Mac on set vs. taking them to a high end post house, as long as you have the talent of the operator of that gear. With film, the quality of the telecine, the film processing, etc - makes a very big difference, and any Producer worth his salt would tell you hands down that you get what you pay for.

One of the interesting trends I see with the RED, and HD cameras (not something I necessarily agree with) is shooting much more footage and much more coverage than with film, on smaller budget jobs. I personally recommend shooting on CF cards as the first choice, since it helps with the discipline of shooting film style, that can allow a very efficient and highly skilled production to show their true value. Just "keeping it rolling" is lazy in my opinion, and while it makes perfect sense for some purposes, (comedy movies where they are doing a lot of improv and shooting animals and kids where you need to be rolling to get that magic moment) it's not a cure all for directors and producers that haven't learned how to shoot properly. Use the RED Drives or RED RAM where it makes sense, but not rely on them as a crutch. As the more you shoot, you will discover there is a price to pay in post for that, both in hard costs of processing all that footage and the hardships you are putting on your editorial staff to slog through all that "just keep it rolling" footage to get to the actual, useable takes. I probably should just keep my mouth shut on this topic, as if you do have a gig with multiple cameras and a very loose shooting style, you will see a vast difference in cost between shooting film and RED, but since we are talking opinion here, that's mine.

I'll address Brook and Mike's posts (and the others coming in) when I get a bit more computer time.

Thanks for sticking with me on all of this stuff guys, it's a good, interesting interchange of ideas.

+ Ted

 

[BradWright]

There's always going to be a group of people out there who believe something is better because it costs more. This is especially true with people who like to talk about how much they've spent on a shoot or a deliverable. It's hard to fight against this type of mindset. The opposite group believes that everything cheaper is by virtue better. This group will suck the life out of you with endless amounts of support.

If I had to pick from the two groups, I'd want the first group that wants to pay as much as possible. From a marketing position, I think it's a mistake to promote the Red as being cheaper than other workflows. You don't want these guys as customers. Pushing the Red camera as a better shooting experience than film is the way to win. Pushing it as a cheaper solution won't attrat the attention of the high end customers. The last thing you want Red to be known for is a poor man's alternative to film.

 

[Jonathan Smiles]

Something to add, is with a RED shoot you can effectively remove the post house costs during production by doing offline rushes and QC in-house.

I have successfully setup multiple features films this way with the approval of the completion bond company.

 

[M Most]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm pleased to see the different points of view and thinking on the subject

I'm glad you took it that way, because certainly in my case, that's the way it was intended. No pro, no con. Just some thoughts.

One of the interesting trends I see with the RED, and HD cameras (not something I necessarily agree with) is shooting much more footage and much more coverage than with film, on smaller budget jobs....

I completely agree. This has been an unfortunate trend since HD came into the film style world, and has continued with the advent of newer digital cinema cameras. Unfortunately, to some degree you're seeing the result of early zealotry that professed that one of the "advantages" of HD was that you could shoot and shoot because the cost of the media was, for all practical purposes, a non-issue. And, as you rightly point out, that is true in certain specific situations, but it is not an excuse for a lack of directorial vision and skill. Equally as unfortunate is that the rise of this practice has led to a reverse problem of equal magnitude, and that is that even film shows today print upwards of 2 and 3 hours of dailies a night and run 2 cameras on almost every setup. That was almost unheard of 15 years ago, but is common today.

I'll address Brook and Mike's posts (and the others coming in) when I get a bit more computer time.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Yes totally appropriate in deed ted, now you are also a Surviver, welcome to the club !

I agree with you, and your way of putting this points down, but I must say I particularly agree with the your point in case were HD productions, and especially RED productions when using the RED Drive tend to keep rolling, "TOTALLY POINTLESS" I have done that only with "Sirens of TI" cause it was a SHOW, and had to shoot all cameras for the duration, but I have never and will never shoot or suggest to any one to shoot in such a style for any narrative film style shoot.

Not only as I said is pointless,m and lazy, but it creates an absurd and stupid amount of DATA to deal with during DIT and Post, and I find the CF approach, especially with the 16GB, and soon with higher and swappable media, absolutely a must, and keeping the workflow similar to that of loading film but far more simple and faster, is the way to go, goes without saying that transporting tiny cases across the set containing CF cards is far better then carrying Rolls of film , never mind when you are actually shipping the media.

 

[Paul Lee]

In my opinion, the RED works at it most effective and efficient, when you treat it like a film camera, and use the on board and off board monitoring like the video assist of a film camera.
+ Ted

That's exactly what we tell our clients and that's the best way to put it! It's like a video tap on a film camera. Don't do the video village BS unless you've got a big show. Trust your eyes and meters.

 

[Deanan]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. In the independent feature world, I'm sure you're right. In the L.A. based studio world - especially in television - that's just not the case. And even in the case of producers that attempt to change that, the studio will often nix it, or the circumstances of production will force the issue. Part of that is because the infrastructure here is so built up, so well known, and so efficient that changing it is considered more trouble than its worth for what amounts to a rather minor financial gain. If you don't believe me, talk to Brook.

From our experience lately, the studios that are now starting to push this more aggressively. The next year will be interesting for sure.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Something to add, is with a RED shoot you can effectively remove the post house costs during production by doing offline rushes and QC in-house.

I have successfully setup multiple features films this way with the approval of the completion bond company.

THIS is the future.

 

[M Most]

From our experience lately, the studios that are now starting to push this more aggressively. The next year will be interesting for sure.

There are issues we haven't touched on - security, for one - that also tend to favor the status quo to some degree. I think changes are likely, I also think that one year is too short to see the true impact of them, at least in the world of network television.

 

[Stephen Strangways]

I don't think shooting on RED can be considered slower because of the camera, it really depends on the crew. I was just on a very run n' gun documentary TV show pilot with a crew that was used to shooting that type of program on the HVX200, and they were moving just as quickly with the RED.

Really, the only differences were:

1) A lens change here or there, but it was going from a standard zoom to a wider zoom, or a longer or faster prime, something that they would not have been able to do on the HVX, or would have required just as much time to attach a converter lens.

2) A couple of battery swaps during shooting (but most during breaks), which added a minute of re-booting time here or there.

3) A heavier camera that left the operator a little more tired and sore at the end of the day.

4) The number of CF cards was limited by the budget, so we usually had an extra person to dump cards. This was no different than the early days of HVX shooting with only a few 4 GB cards, and could easily be remedied with a bit more cash.

The same crew used to shoot TV commercials on 35mm film, and when they shot a recent commercial on the exact same RED camera, sure enough, they shot it like a film camera. A tent was set up with an HD monitor, the camera was built up to the nines on a full-size O'Connor tripod, they had a 2-ton truck full of HMI lighting and grip equipment... and it sure didn't take them any longer to shoot than it would have with a film camera.

 

[Jonathan Smiles]

THIS is the future.

My present since 2008 :smiley: speed has really improved since the early days!

 

[Jonathan Smiles]

There are issues we haven't touched on - security, for one.

I have found doing more in-house resulted in better security with regard to footage leaking, unauthorised viewing and data security.

 

[M Most]

I have found doing more in-house resulted in better security with regard to footage leaking, unauthorised viewing and data security.

You probably wouldn't believe the security demands of major studios, and what the post houses do to accommodate them. Any facility working on studio material must get studio approval, not always easily obtained. Regardless of whether there's data on drives, data on data tape, data on cards, data on videotape, audio data on optical disks, or physical film, there are always physical assets to be stored, accounted for, and secured. That's what the studios are concerned with. I've never seen an editorial department with a secure physical vault, complete with surveillance systems - but every post facility has one, or more than one. I'm not talking about opinions as to how to prevent leaks here, I'm talking about the reality of securing physical assets.

 

[Jonathan Smiles]

You probably wouldn't believe the security demands of major studios

I am fully aware of studio requirements and yes we are increasing physical security in editorial (RFID passes/tags, asset tracking, fireproof safes etc.) as well as encrypted data transport drives and LTOs. Not got as far as video surveillance yet but have had armed guards.

 

[M Most]

I am fully aware of studio requirements and yes we are increasing physical security in editorial (RFID passes/tags, asset tracking, fireproof safes etc.) as well as encrypted data transport drives and LTOs. Not got as far as video surveillance yet but have had armed guards.

That's not the case on a typical US network television program, in which editorial is usually housed either with production or in an editorial room on a studio lot or elsewhere. In either case, I still think we're talking about two very different situations and two very different mentalities. It's a bit difficult to explain if you haven't worked in Los Angeles on this kind of material. I'm not saying that the way it's done in L.A. is any better or worse, it's just rather unique because of the extensive infrastructure that's already in place.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I'm not saying that the way it's done in L.A. is any better or worse, it's just rather unique because of the extensive infrastructure that's already in place.

And that infrastructure will change, Mike.

Wasn't too long ago it was all editorial was all flatbeds and moviolas - and when non-linear editing appeared everyone said - "we'll cut on film for next ten years" ... you know the rest of that story.

Things change. We are doing a film for SONY right now - and they are getting dailies from us via iPhone.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Man the timing of this is great TED, thanks so much for the detail!

This is a particularly interesting comparison for our market, as our rates are a lot lower than LA (except for film, as we rent all PANNY gear from LA or SF) so the cost differences are even greater...

Like Mark P, I come from a 35mm film background, and I have to say we just shot a 2 Camera shoot this past Sunday (double system sound for speed) and managed to get 25 sets ups in 7 hours of light outside with Silks and even Kino's on the beach...

PLUS add the X factor, we had an untrained golden retriever that needed to fetch a lit stick of fake dynamite and retrieve it...

In my experience, there is no way we would have got that many set ups on film. Especially with the long master shots and takes we employed. The mag changes alone are much faster with a CARD.

I should also mention this was a "challenge" shoot from an investor and he gave us 5 days of prep. No location scouting and on a river with no electricity. Not to mentiona crew of 15 people.

We also shot Build 21 Rec 42 ... and the footage is incredible, coverage was fantastic
and syncing the sound to dailies took only 6 hours.Even though we forgot to record a guide track in camera to aid the syncing.

thanks again, and as much as I agree with Mark P about it changing, Mike is also correct that Hollywood is notoriously a late adopter. That has not changed since the advent of "talkies" or "color" or VHS... or ... or...

 

[M Most]

And that infrastructure will change, Mike.

Probably, over time. But it's not going to happen in the next year or two.

I think some facts are probably in order here, just because I seem to be getting attacked left and right. The fact is that this season, if you look at network dramas, it's about a 50/50 mix between shows shot on film and shows shot on, well, anything else. Out of the "anything else" shows, the vast majority are on either F35, Genesis, or D21, with only one that I know of on Red ("Southland"). Out of the shows on the three cameras I just mentioned, close to 100% are being recorded on SRW videotape recorders. Whatever one wants to believe about in house file based post, it just does not apply in that world. And I just don't see radical change in that world happening either this season (which is a fait accompli), or this pilot season, or, in all likelihood, next season. After that, it's anybody's guess, and yes, signs point towards more file based acquisition and the choices that would likely accompany that. But if we're talking about the real world as it currently exists, none of that is an issue because it just isn't being done in the specific industry niche I'm talking about. The major post houses in L.A. (and, BTW, I'm including sound houses here) have established themselves over a very long period of time as good, reliable, and trusted custodians of studio materials, and as technically capable organizations capable of delivering reliable product on very tight schedules that meet network delivery requirements. If one wants to talk about 2 years out, one can say just about anything is possible. If we're talking about the here and now, everything I just said is true, regardless of what one might regard as "possible." For every studio based motion picture that's being shot on a digital format, there are probably 7 or more that are being shot on film, just as for every television drama being shot on digital formats - and getting a lot of attention for it - there's an equal number still being shot on film, at least this year. And there is more than one reason for that, but that's not what this thread is about, at least I don't think it is.

All I'm trying to point out is that in a well established system like we have in Los Angeles for network dramas, change is something that comes very slowly. There are issues that go far beyond the technical or even logical. There are long established job descriptions that are tough to break. It's very difficult to get a film educated television drama crew to record sound on the camera. That may not be logical to some here, but it's true none the less. It's very difficult to convince a production to sync their dailies in the cutting room, even though that's probably where it should be done. Not sensible, perhaps - but true. For years, editorial has gotten dailies from the post facility, either in the form of videotape or already digitized files, but always with sync sound and all metadata already in place, with things like DVD's and other duplication (including files) already taken care of as well. Faced with the choice of doing that on their own or continuing to have post facilities do it, well, for that answer, refer to Brook's post. That's just the way it is, today, in October 2009. Will it still be that way in October 2010? In my opinion, probably. October 2011? Now we're into prognostication. And I'm not a prognosticator (almost said prestidigitator - that would be very different).

So, while I actually agree with your conclusion, I'm a lot more conservative about the timetable.