Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

RED Scarlet and Epic, the new film school standard

Nesdon said:
Can you call my CEO?
Click to expand...

haha, I can't tell if you're serious or not... but if so, I'd be happy to! anytime, haha.

just send me a private message on here. and if I can be of any other assistance let me know!
 
My school is definitely (sadly) the for-profit type, and we have no Reds. We do have a number of the top public film schools nearby, USC, UCLA as well as AFI which is nonprofit, but not your regular university either. Other smaller private colleges here like Chapman and Loyola also have very well-regarded film schools as well, this is Hollywood after all.

I'll bet most of them have or will be getting Reds in the near future. There is a squeeze, but big public institutions (this is also California with possibly the largest, certainly the most comprehensive, and arguably the best public higher education system in the world) have some pretty deep pockets.

Are there any recent students on this board from any of the schools I mentioned who can comment on the equipment at their schools?
 
Chapman still focuses on film. I would say that most projects are shot on s16mm or 35mm. They invested a couple years ago into a Spirit 4K, so students don't have to pay for telecine. We have a couple higher end "video" cameras like the Varicam, but most students prefer to shoot on film in my experience...
 
The cost of film is a huge issue for our students. I think most of them would prefer to shoot on film, but probably only about 10% shoot their final projects on the SR16's and maybe 1 or 2% on the BL's or Panavision.

It is actually fairly sad that because they do so many of their exercises on video, most of them light to the monitor and do not really understand the technical side of using a lightmeters to establish and keep consistant contrast ratios. Consequently, many of the students who do invest in a film project, end up with very poor results.

I teach an on-stage production course where they build sets and shoot 5 page scenes from notable films. It is a 4 week course and they each shoot one scene per week in groups of 8-18. We use the P+S Technics, but do not allow a monitor out during the prelights, demanding that they light to a meter.
 
I teach and manage a small Media Arts program at Glendale Community College (CA) and plan to get a few Scarlet systems, likely the 2/3" fixed kits. I'm also hoping to set up an accompanying RED workflow course. Yes, funding is always tight and this year we've seen the worst budget from the state with no prospect of equipment money from that source. However, through Career and Technical Education funding (federal), we have been able to secure the funds necessary to modestly invest in the RED system. The Scarlet systems are well within our range. My only problem is that I have to spend these funds by the end of June 2010 -- the May-June projected release dates are cutting that very close!
My educational emphasis has always been on basic cinematography and editing in the service of visual storytelling. At our level of instruction (first 2 yrs. of college) and considering our (and our students') limited funding, it has always seemed impractical and unnecessary to invest in actual film gear. I remember my own experiences as a film student spending hundreds of dollars on very few minutes of shot and developed film. I still believe that students need to shoot and edit as frequently as possible in order to get their "chops" down and that is something they simply cannot do considering the high cost of film production.
On the other hand, we wish to give students hands-on experiences that will prepare them as best as possible for the professional arena. To me, the Scarlets and the RED system seems ideal for both goals. A Scarlet 2/3" fixed camera costs less than the DVX-100's I bought a few years ago and will likely not be outmoded as the DVX was in just a couple of years. Much more importantly, my students will be able to learn the RED workflow which they will then be able to apply after they enter the workplace on any RED system on up through the RED One and EPIC.
 
Jamie Havill said:
You officially run the richest film school I've ever heard of, ever. Maybe things are different in the UK!

Edit: In fact, this has made me realise something as well.

We need to distinguish exactly what kind of 'schools' we're talking about here. Because it seems that there are now effectively businesses, that are educating people in film (and thus being granted the freedom to be called a school) that have bigger budgets than most (that I have come into contact with in the UK) film schools could dream of.

When I say film school, I'm talking established, government subsidised educational institutions - primarily universities/colleges and old red brick film schools. The places (where a hell of a lot of people learn their trade) don't have this kind of money. It's great that you do Mike, and I'm completely all for it. But I think it's important to realise the vast differences in economical weight, that could, and indeed do, exist between two different businesses/institutions that both have the right to be called a film school.
Click to expand...

It seems almost as if you're saying that a private, for-profit company that teaches students about filmmaking isn't a film school... and as a student of said "non-film school," that's borderline insulting. I can tell you or a FACT, that regardless of where the money comes from, I'm getting a proper film school education

Now, what I have come to understand, and can respect, is that because my school (which is an accredited "University" by the state of Florida) has a HEFTY price-tag on tuition, they are able to put a good amount of that money into having top-of-the-line gear and facilities for us to use. Cages with a plethora of lighting gear, Chapman cranes and dollies, numerous sound stages, etc. Thankfully, it's all there for us to learn how to use it properly. Not many film students have that opportunity, which I find makes my tuition VERY worthwhile. The application of said equipment to our own projects the instructors leave up to us. Which leads me to...

Zakaree Sandberg said:
I come from the school of thought that it isnt the gear.. its the story..

so I disagree.. You give students incredible gear, and they will just churn out shitty films..

The idea of being a student is to be inventive.. If you have a Camera thats "doing it for you" then how is that learning new things?
relying on gear will hurt the creativity!!!

Im not saying film schools arent going to get scarlets and epics to draw students.. cause they will. I just feel bad for the students in the long run
Click to expand...

As part of the ~2 year program at my school, we develop and shoot 5 different projects: 1 HD Digital Short(Sony EX1s), a 30min HD television program(Sony HDCAM System), a 35mm Silent Film (Arri 35-3), a S16mm film(Arri SR3 Advanced, Arri 416/416 Plus), and our "thesis" is shot on 35mm(Arri Studio/Lite/235). Are all of the end student products great? Hell no. It's a film school. It's all a learning process. Film schools teach skills, not talent. Talent is up to the students.

The quality of product created by the students does increase as the program progresses, as it should. I'm currently in preparation to shoot my "thesis;" a ~15min short that will involve: 9 principle talent, all with Russian accents, in 1940s Soviet Military wardrobe, with a 1/16th scale miniature of a T-34 tank, a full size turret(built of wood and paint) for close ups, special effects in the background of the battle scenes, and VFX to seamlessly weave in what we can't accomplish on the backlot. --- Could it turn out like crap? Possibly, but it's about the experience. That's what film school is for.

Back to the topic:

My school doesn't have any RED cameras, yet, but they are currently doing tests to overcome the workflow into AVID before making the investment(why they don't do a Final Cut workflow option, I don't understand). The "plan" is to purchase R1s or top-level Scarlets for use with the Thesis Course. Give the DPs three options: Shoot Film(limited amount, 6000ft), Shoot Digital, or Shoot Both(and blend them in the same project while making them match.)

I think it's a great idea, and a great tool for students to have. The hardest thing to convey to students is that both Film and Digital have their place. One isn't killing the other. They are different formats with different purposes. That's where I think the real learning curve has to lead to.
 
Nesdon said:
My school is definitely (sadly) the for-profit type, and we have no Reds. We do have a number of the top public film schools nearby, USC, UCLA as well as AFI which is nonprofit, but not your regular university either. Other smaller private colleges here like Chapman and Loyola also have very well-regarded film schools as well, this is Hollywood after all.

I'll bet most of them have or will be getting Reds in the near future. There is a squeeze, but big public institutions (this is also California with possibly the largest, certainly the most comprehensive, and arguably the best public higher education system in the world) have some pretty deep pockets.

Are there any recent students on this board from any of the schools I mentioned who can comment on the equipment at their schools?
Click to expand...


I go to a small, private university at the southern border of L.A. County that has extremely limited equipment availability (6 HD prosumer cameras and DV cameras). However, we just got our first R1 package this last semester and I can say that it is an amazing opportunity to have such a great tool at our fingertips, when our school certainly can't afford 35mm (or even 16mm) cameras or processing.

It is certainly exciting for me to see RED bridge the gap between film programs without a lot of money and the professional industry. As a film student myself, I feel that working with the RED is able to call students to a higher standard of learning and professionalism than an HVX200 or P+S Technik can.

However, I do agree with others that see the possible negative consequences of making RED <i>too</i> available to film students, because I would certainly agree that it is absolutely necessary to learn the critical aspects of filmmaking such as storytelling, lighting and necessary pre-production as well as learning to work with whatever is available. From seeing other students around me, I'm afraid that the ease of working with RED might lead some to cut corners (especially when it comes to lighting/ISO/DoF) rather than learn the craft to the best of their ability.
 
Robert Sloan said:
It seems almost as if you're saying that a private, for-profit company that teaches students about filmmaking isn't a film school... and as a student of said "non-film school," that's borderline insulting. I can tell you or a FACT, that regardless of where the money comes from, I'm getting a proper film school education
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that these film schools are essentially companies. No education (ONLY) institution can afford this type of technology.

Of course your getting an education, probably one that's better than mine. All I'm saying is these distinctions need to be made, before assumptions about film schools and their fiscal power are made.

Edit: Let's make that distinction right now. I pay £3000 a year (that's near $6000) and attend a very well respected University in England. For my 'thesis' (or final film) I'm having to RENT my equipment out of my own pocket. By this I mean work two jobs for the last two years, and beg and borrow money in order to shoot Red with a decent lighting package, grip package and location. This isn't an isolated case. I know of no film school (UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE) in England that shoots 35mm or high end digital.

Now if we compare this to your course, where your money is being put upfront to expect these type of privileges, it becomes clearly obvious where these distinctions should be made. Great gear goes to those who can afford it. AKA those who can pay the top tuition fees. An educational institution does not under any circumstances discriminate over financial background and prowess. If your film school has hefty financial requirements, whilst it can be considered an educational institution, on the other hand it must be considered a business. It requires you to put money up fron to pay for these privlidges.

All the power to you, but not everyone is in the position to front masses of gold before they walk through their University's doors.
 
Last edited:
Jamie Havill said:
No, I'm saying that these film schools are essentially companies. No education (ONLY) institution can afford this type of technology.

Of course your getting an education, probably one that's better than mine. All I'm saying is these distinctions need to be made, before assumptions about film schools and their fiscal power are made.

Edit: Let's make that distinction right now. I pay £3000 a year (that's near $6000) and attend a very well respected University in England. For my 'thesis' (or final film) I'm having to RENT my equipment out of my own pocket. By this I mean work two jobs for the last two years, and beg and borrow money in order to shoot Red with a decent lighting package, grip package and location. This isn't an isolated case. I know of no film school (UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE) in England that shoots 35mm or high end digital.

Now if we compare this to your course, where your money is being put upfront to expect these type of privileges, it becomes clearly obvious where these distinctions should be made. Great gear goes to those who can afford it. AKA those who can pay the top tuition fees. An educational institution does not under any circumstances discriminate over financial background and prowess. If your film school has hefty financial requirements, whilst it can be considered an educational institution, on the other hand it must be considered a business. It requires you to put money up fron to pay for these privlidges.

All the power to you, but not everyone is in the position to front masses of gold before they walk through their University's doors.
Click to expand...

Now I'm a rich kid? I don't understand how the distinction is anything other than a backwards declaration of superiority. There's a saying, "You get what you pay for." I wanted the best hands-on education I could get, so I got scholarships and student loans(which will keep me in debt for a number of years) to go to the best school that fit my learning style.

Interestingly enough, for the amount of time I am in school for my Bachelor Degree, 21 months straight, I pay far less than a grad from USC, UCLA, or NYU(three of the well-regarded "top film schools" in the country). There's a lot of money in the tuition because the nature of the degree. Filmmaking is expensive, as you've become painfully aware through your fundraising.

And I hate to break it to you, but all schools are run like businesses (Even the education ONLY ones). They have to, otherwise they won't survive. Is the school I attend better than yours? In some respects, probably. Is yours better than mine, also, quite possible. No need for the pissing match.. it leads to nowhere.
 
Robert, for some reason you seem to think I'm insulting you. This isn't the case. My point is that some film schools have more money than others, and they have differing interests. Where as your money goes solely on probably equipment for the students, paying the staff and maintaining the school, my money gets spent mainly on research. I am nowhere near naive enough to beleive that my University ins't essentially a business, I'm merely addressing where the money goes and how it is spent.

My point is merely that there are different kinds of film school, with different perogatives and that many, many of these schools simply couldn't yet support the Red way of doing things.

As you said yourself in a pervious post, your paying for the privlidge (essentially what I'm doing by renting outside of the University for my final film), and I think that's great that you are in a school where you have access to such brilliant equipment, but you should realise you are in a very lucky position and make the absolute most of it.

Please, please,please stop thinking I'm attacking you, your education, or your situation. I'm not.
 
Fair enough.

- - -

Regardless of a film school's financial capability in doing so, I would say that acquiring RED DSMC cameras would provide an excellent learning opportunity for students. I wouldn't go so far as to consider it a "standard" for film schools, as I still believe that students should understand the limitations and preparation required for shooting on film before a digital capture format. Students, from my experience, tend to shoot anything and everything because the digital capabilities are only limited by storage space(which is often pretty high). Once it is understood to only shoot what is needed, and to put thought into the decisions made, then a digital capture method, such as RED, should be used.
 
My humble opinion is that RED is not a camera for film schools. Why? Because the delivery of the project has nothing to do with what you actually shot. There is a lot of post and a lot of grading involve.
What do I mean? For example American Film Institute uses Sony F900. Because its the better one? We all know is not (i liek 5d more). BUT! you are there to leanr and to see what you shot in the more really way. And Sony F900 what you shot is waht you have and you can play it back 2 minutes later and edited 5 minutes later. And have it done the next day with a simple color correction to talk in class about it.

So RED for thesis films? Just like any other big boys cameras. Im shooting my thesis in 35mm Panavision.... But Red will not become part of the "daily uses"

:)
 
JonathanF said:
Am I the only one here that's thinks, 'what someone gets out of film school has about as much to do with what camera they use as the color underwear Coppola wears on Tuesdays or what brand of toothbrush Walter uses?'
Click to expand...

It's not quite that unrelated. RED is a big player in low budget independent film, and those are the type of projects 90% of graduate film students work on after the graduate. It helps to be familiar with a camera that is widely used. But the point of film school, at least from a cinematography standpoint, is to learn to be able to apply the art of lighting and composition to any number of cameras - so it pays to have experience with all of them.
 
Not sure if experience with ALL of them is possible during film school. Personally, I think that what matters more is that you learn the fundamentals basic to all camera types and cinematography in general. In film school for me, back in 1988-1991, I used an Arri-S, Eclair NPR, and 3/4" U-Matic and 8mm video, plus Super-8 film. That gave me a grounding in basic film and video cameras. A year after graduation, I was shooting features in 35mm and EPK's on Betacam-SP.

Unless you are training to become a camera assistant, learning the particulars of every camera body is not necessarily the purpose of film school, though you do need to learn the details of the cameras you actually have to use in film school.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Not sure if experience with ALL of them is possible during film school. Personally, I think that what matters more is that you learn the fundamentals basic to all camera types and cinematography in general. In film school for me, back in 1988-1991, I used an Arri-S, Eclair NPR, and 3/4" U-Matic and 8mm video, plus Super-8 film. That gave me a grounding in basic film and video cameras. A year after graduation, I was shooting features in 35mm and EPK's on Betacam-SP.

Unless you are training to become a camera assistant, learning the particulars of every camera body is not necessarily the purpose of film school, though you do need to learn the details of the cameras you actually have to use in film school.
Click to expand...

Because in 6 months Larry Ellison may take a fancy to cinematography and give up yacht racing. He may take his saved billions and develop a new magical 10k S35 camera that sells for $299 with an open unencrypted codec and 3200 ISO sensitivity.

Then all that effort you put into learning the 'new film school standard camera' will be meaningless.

Better to learn the basics on a host of different camera systems (mostly because it gives you something very important in this business, perspective) than to get all caught up in one camera system.

Then when the technology evolves (and it will) you'll have the knowledge and flexibility required to adapt.
 
LOL... wooo.... "Larry"... "Open Codec"... inexepensive...

Thanks for the laugh! [1]

-sc

[1] I know Larry was just an example billionaire in order to make the large pint... but man :)
 
I'm in the process of learning to use the Red One as an MFA film student at Florida State University. I will be required to shoot my next short movie this summer on the Red One. The school has been doing this for a couple years now. As I understand it the main advantages of using the Red One that the school cares about is becoming comfortable with new digital technology in regards to capturing images, and post workflow. The advantage here is that many low budget movies are being done on Red One, and knowing how it works is advantageous. Working digitally also gives us a way to learn about how digital cinema works in general as opposed to film. The Red One also allow us a higher shooting ratio, which is great to learn on after dealing with a limited shooting ratio on Super 16mm for our first movies.
However, we have been learning that you do have to battle and trick the Red One into producing the highest quality images, which is frustrating and at times makes shooting film sound much easier. I feel that the Red One does not promote a "Fix it in post" mentality, because you cannot simply correct a shot that has been light lousy with no regards to the Red One's characteristic cure.
In the end, to me, Red seems to offer a good way for student filmmakers to become comfortable working digitally.
 
Kyle reid said:
I'm in the process of learning to use the Red One as an MFA film student at Florida State University. I will be required to shoot my next short movie this summer on the Red One. The school has been doing this for a couple years now. As I understand it the main advantages of using the Red One that the school cares about is becoming comfortable with new digital technology in regards to capturing images, and post workflow. The advantage here is that many low budget movies are being done on Red One, and knowing how it works is advantageous. Working digitally also gives us a way to learn about how digital cinema works in general as opposed to film. The Red One also allow us a higher shooting ratio, which is great to learn on after dealing with a limited shooting ratio on Super 16mm for our first movies.
However, we have been learning that you do have to battle and trick the Red One into producing the highest quality images, which is frustrating and at times makes shooting film sound much easier. I feel that the Red One does not promote a "Fix it in post" mentality, because you cannot simply correct a shot that has been light lousy with no regards to the Red One's characteristic cure.
In the end, to me, Red seems to offer a good way for student filmmakers to become comfortable working digitally.
Click to expand...

What's going to happen when you get a job where you need to work with an Arri 535?

Digital is here to stay, but cameras come and go and the process of working with a variety of different technologies will imbue a flexibility and adaptability that is a very important aspect of any formal education.

J
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top