Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Peter Jackson interview...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I miss film about as much as the cost. I'll take $1 a gig any day for my digital cinematography over a $1 a foot of 35mm film.

Oh, and don't forget the hungry Moviolas. They would love to eat film and tear the sprocket holes to death - not to mention, the artistic beauty of a strip of splice tape every few seconds.
 
Greg Voevodsky said:
I miss film about as much as the cost. I'll take $1 a gig any day for my digital cinematography over a $1 a foot of 35mm film.

Oh, and don't forget the hungry Moviolas. They would love to eat film and tear the sprocket holes to death - not to mention, the artistic beauty of a strip of splice tape every few seconds.
Click to expand...

And then running your neg through yet another one-light process to get new workprint material because you need to completely rethink your edit and the old print won't get through a projector without falling apart because there's too much tape holding it together.
 
Yeah I'm really glad I didn't come along like 30 or 40 years ago, because I'm not sure I really would have gotten into film. I probably would have stuck with what my dad does, real estate, because filmmaking is a big enough challenge without having to deal with shooting a bunch of rolls of film and editing on ancient machines, etc. I knew years ago when I wanted to get into the film industry that it was my goal never to touch film, but I wasn't sure quite how because at that time it seemed more like if you wanted professional quality you either needed a few hundred thousand for the Sony F900 or you needed to shoot on film.

Now RED has changed everything.
 
Congrats, Jim... It doesn't get much better than this.

Aloha,

Keith
 
JonathanLB said:
Yeah I'm really glad I didn't come along like 30 or 40 years ago, because I'm not sure I really would have gotten into film. I probably would have stuck with what my dad does, real estate, because filmmaking is a big enough challenge without having to deal with shooting a bunch of rolls of film and editing on ancient machines, etc.
Click to expand...

Changing a mag only takes a minute, not very time consuming or difficult if you enjoy your job and the film making process....

And as far as editing goes, that's not your job anyway! Let the editor deal with the specifics and tools used to edit, you just worry about the cuts, not the tools used to cut.

JonathanLB said:
I knew years ago when I wanted to get into the film industry that it was my goal never to touch film,
Click to expand...

Why? Really, if you haven't ever shot on film then where's the bias toward digital coming from?

I for one LOVE film. You can't argue that film isn't absolutely beautful when shot right. After all, YOU grew up watching and loving FILMS!

Name some of your favorite movies, or movies that motivated you to attempt a career in the motion picture industry, guess what, they've ALL or atleast very many of them have been shot on FILM.

The only real problem with film is its initial cost and post costs.

JonathanLB said:
but I wasn't sure quite how because at that time it seemed more like if you wanted professional quality you either needed a few hundred thousand for the Sony F900 or you needed to shoot on film.

Now RED has changed everything.
Click to expand...

The F900 IMHO looks hardly like film, if you want the look of film.....shoot film, if you enjoy the beauty and clarity of 4k RED, then shoot RED, just don't go around making neive comments about tools you've never even used, it makes you sound like a fresh out of college film school noob.
 
JonathanLB said:
Yeah you definitely don't NEED more than one camera to film a movie, but if you were doing action it makes a *lot* of financial sense to have four or even five cameras shooting something at once. Imagine you're like all set to go with your great pyrotechnics sequence and you're spending $1 million on this one shot, you have your one camera setup, there goes the explosion... and someone left the lens cap on. haha, j/k, but the point is you can't very well say, "Yeah that was a good explosion, let's do it again though because we didn't really get it perfect."
Click to expand...

Actually it's normal practice to round up as many cameras as you can get your hands on for "when all the dynamite goes off" scenes. Most of those huge rolling explosions you see in movies, that seem to go on forever, are actually all over in a couple of seconds. By having multiple over-cranked cameras shooting from all sorts of different angles they can stitch all the footage together so that it looks like multiple explosions.

Older cameras like the Arri 2C and Arri 3 are popular for this, because apart from being built like brick sh!thouses, their replacement cost isn't so high if something goes wrong. Also you can switch them on by a simple 2-wire remote control cable, and they don't draw any battery power in standby. This is very important because once all the explosives are in place, nobody is allowed near the set. A lot of newer model cameras have to be left switched on standby for the remote control to work. If the pyro crew spend several hours setting up, the camera batteries can go dead before the shooting starts, and you can't go up there to change them!

I wonder if the RED will have a "hibernate" mode like my Compaq laptop, where you can switch it completely off, and have it come back on with exactly the same setup conditions, rather than simply re-booting to a default condition.
 
there is a god and he decided to dabble in a thing called RED! = ) thank you PETER JACKSON
 
Alexander Nikishin said:
The only real problem with film is its initial cost and post costs.
Click to expand...
And that it degrades with each copying step and during traditional projection. Copy you must and mechanically project you must unless you go all digital after scanning the negative.
 
Had a long discussion today with a postproduction house owner in Switzerland. He is convinced that:

1. Peter Jackson and Soderbergh are payed by RED in the millions to shoot with RED
2. RED don't deliver real 4K
3. I won't get my RED 222 end of october (he bet a beer on that)

And the best: He is a fresh reservation holder

RED realy shake up the world of filmmakers. Don't matters what's the truth, RED forces to engage in discussions about the future film technologies and behaviors between traditional film and digital cinema.
 
artbeatsart said:
1. Peter Jackson and Soderbergh are payed by RED in the millions to shoot with RED
2. RED don't deliver real 4K
3. I won't get my RED 222 end of october (he bet a beer on that)
Click to expand...

1) If they did pay to get 'em to shoot the cameras it would be smart business. Not saying they did - but I sure wouldn't hold it against them. Kodak is falling all over themselves to give away film to up and coming filmmakers. Does film suck because of that?

2) Based on the resolution side by sides so far it looks like 35mm isn't delivering RED resolution. 4K or not is almost irrelevant when you consider that point.

3) You can still toast RED on the 31st regardless of who's paying.
 
artbeatsart said:
Had a long discussion today with a postproduction house owner in Switzerland. He is convinced that:

1. Peter Jackson and Soderbergh are payed by RED in the millions to shoot with RED
2. RED don't deliver real 4K
3. I won't get my RED 222 end of october (he bet a beer on that)

And the best: He is a fresh reservation holder

RED realy shake up the world of filmmakers. Don't matters what's the truth, RED forces to engage in discussions about the future film technologies and behaviors between traditional film and digital cinema.
Click to expand...

Tell your buddy in Switz that it is time for his medication.

We don't pay Peter Jackson or Steven Soderbergh anything to shoot RED.
Define "real 4k". Whatever the definition he chooses, RED has more than film. So what is his point?
222 will be close. If you lose the bet, I'll pay for the beer.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Tell your buddy in Switz that it is time for his medication.

We don't pay Peter Jackson or Steven Soderbergh anything to shoot RED.
Define "real 4k". Whatever the definition he chooses, RED has more than film. So what is his point?
222 will be close. If you lose the bet, I'll pay for the beer.

Jim
Click to expand...

Love it. The secret to Jim Jannard's success? He's an original.

Maybe there's hope for me yet.
 
Jannard said:
Tell your buddy in Switz that it is time for his medication.

We don't pay Peter Jackson or Steven Soderbergh anything to shoot RED.
Define "real 4k". Whatever the definition he chooses, RED has more than film. So what is his point?
222 will be close. If you lose the bet, I'll pay for the beer.

Jim
Click to expand...

I like your style, Jim. Thanks.
 
what happens to all those sony , panasonic etc sales /engineers that swore it was not possible , told persons on floor at NAB 2006 ( some still in 2007) RED is never going to happen . ...probably told their higher ups it ain't ever going to come to market and when it does it would never be Red building it etc ...

seems the CEO's or head of those division has got to be wondering what kind of persons they have working for him/her ??? if i had a engineer working for me that swore up & down it ain't gonna happen and then i look at today i'd be calling for a meeting ... would i take the persons advice in the future ??? or would it be time to clean house ???
 
artbeatsart said:
Had a long discussion today with a postproduction house owner in Switzerland. He is convinced that:

1. Peter Jackson and Soderbergh are payed by RED in the millions to shoot with RED
Click to expand...

Hell Jim I'll cut you a great deal and shoot a red for 100-grand.

Where do people get this shit? Sure it may be a good hype bussiness plan but if you have a good product you don't have to pay anyone anything. If you have a crappy product no matter how much you pay a figure head to hype it the truth would come out real fast after it is released. In the end it would be a bad bussiness decision and what bad bussiness decisions have you seen Jim make.
 
Can't believe I missed this thread the first time around. Thanks JasonAvalos for resurrecting it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top