Red Sighted in Wellington NZ

[Ruairi Robinson]

Gotcha! :matrix:

hehe

check yer black levels mate, they ain't matchin'

R.

 

[Adrian T.]

check yer black levels mate, they ain't matchin'

It was a five minutes job, don't be picky! :mellow:

 

[Ace]

Ace, I am glad that as an artist you are on the side of movies... but, and this is not in any way intended to be argumentative... but are you sure about that asertion you are making? I was under the impression that the ol' boxoffice was doing just fine. Here are a couple of quotes from last weekend's report from boxofficeguru.com:


"Overall, the box office was vibrant with five different pictures hitting double digit millions."


"The top ten films grossed $116.2M which was up 22% from last year when Inside Man opened at number one with $29M; and up 34% from 2005 when Guess Who debuted on top with $20.7M."


So I guess attendance is going up.



Original link:

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/032607.htm

I never said that cinema is going down. Entertainment in all areas is rising as a whole. Music, TV, Cinema, Radio. The rise in cinema ticket sales over the past 2 years does not mean that TV isnt having an effect on cinema, because it evidently is: The fact is that films have to be that much more competitive with TV now that people are accustomed to a certain quality of entertainment at a minimum level (TV). So this means better special effects, higher budgets for films, cleverer story lines, more star power (higher budgets), levereging franchises like marvel comics etc (higher budgets) and so on. So in the end, its actually good news for cinema, because TV is indeed giving cinema a run for its money, and keeping cinema from resting on its laurels (which it did a few years back)

 

[Manfred Lopez]

...So in the end, its actually good news for cinema, because TV is indeed giving cinema a run for its money, and keeping cinema from resting on its laurels (which it did a few years back)

Okay, I see. In this way I would have to completely agree with you. I think that everytime Cinema has received an open frontal attack it has always emerged stronger... The switch from double features to single features... The introduction of TV... The introduction of VHS... Even piracy has helped in making movies an unstoppable worldwide phenomenon...

Now we (as the current and future movie producers) have to survive and emerge stronger from the Internet and file sharing... it can and will be done. I don't agree with George Lucas in just 'giving up now because it will hurt more later'.

 

[Manfred Lopez]

Oh, and I also think technological developments like Red will asure the dominance of Cinema as the premiere medium for top quality entertainment. I am sure most people here are not buying the Red One to just shoot TV.

 

[Ace]

Oh, and I also think technological developments like Red will asure the dominance of Cinema as the premiere medium for top quality entertainment. I am sure most people here are not buying the Red One to just shoot TV.

As long as people go out on dates, cinema will survive. The ritualistic act of going to the theatre extends far beyond the film you see. One can even call it an integral part of modern day sexual courtship. This is why cinemas will be saving grace for studios in times of rampant piracy. All the more reason for studio's to support cinemas in converting to digital.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I never said that cinema is going down. Entertainment in all areas is rising as a whole. Music, TV, Cinema, Radio. The rise in cinema ticket sales over the past 2 years does not mean that TV isnt having an effect on cinema, because it evidently is: The fact is that films have to be that much more competitive with TV now that people are accustomed to a certain quality of entertainment at a minimum level (TV). So this means better special effects, higher budgets for films, cleverer story lines, more star power (higher budgets), levereging franchises like marvel comics etc (higher budgets) and so on. So in the end, its actually good news for cinema, because TV is indeed giving cinema a run for its money, and keeping cinema from resting on its laurels (which it did a few years back)

FWIW - I agree with you Ace. The motion media marketplace is evolving. The traditional "I'm a filmmaker, I wouldn't lower myself to do TV" attitude has been abandoned by a growing segment of high profile, crossover producers. Why? Economics and newly evolving technologies that enable producers to make a good living in television, consumers changing modes of viewing content, and the technology now enabling good production values in television programs.

In the February 26, 2007 issue of Newsweek magazine, IMO Devin Gordon makes some excellent observations on the changing landscape of the motion media marketplace:

"Why TV is Better Than Movies" - Newsweek, 2/26/07

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200496/site/newsweek/

As a longtime producer/director of international and national television programs, I'm welcoming the changes in the motion media marketplace. I think it would be fiscal and professional wisdom for those adopting RED One to keep an open mind on the production genre possibilities RED One enables - and in the process give themselves a better chance of effectively competing in a very competitive motion media marketplace.

Why would someone choose to be a one-legged person in a fiscal ass-kicking contest by voluntarily restricting their production genres to just being a “filmmaker”? Open your minds and your pocketbooks and professional opportunities will commensurately open.

RED One has very few limitations…do you? If you do, are they chosen or imposed upon you? I see no professional or fiscal wisdom in self-imposed limitations on creativity, genres serviced, and the marketing of our projects. Swallow your pride, and “lower” yourself to doing some TV projects with RED One. A lot of celebrity workers in the motion media industry, with huge resumes, have recently done exactly that, for the reasons I’ve enumerated above.

I disagree with the title of the Newsweek article – TV is not “better” than Movies, but TV is no longer the redheaded stepchild of the motion media marketplace that nobody “important” wants to do. It’s a new marketplace out there…open your eyes and you’ll see it.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Gotcha! :matrix:

Finally!!!

 

[Manfred Lopez]

Gibby, I agree with you mostly. TV has become a 'repsectable' medium. But it has become so largelly because of HBO and Showtime which emulated Movie standards on television... After all, HBO stands for Home Box Office.

My gripe (if I even have one) is with the major networks who try to emulate HBO. That's two generations of copying and therefore doomed to get something wrong... which is, in my opinion, the tendency to only up the technical quality of the filming without paying attention to story structure. TV networks have not improved at all in this department.

So my point originally is that movies are in no danger of being overshadowed by TV programing. The advertising industry will guarantee that this won't happen any time soon (because of ad interruption in programing, like I explained in a previous post).

P.S. I have nothing at all against working in TV. It is a great place to earn a living.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

TV was ruling European film production from early 70's. Fellini, Fassbinder, Godard and Bergman were working a lot for different European TV productions. From our European perspective nothing new. The same old story: When the film production is in a financial crisis then TV is entering the game etc...obsolete and boring production film/TV world story...but it is going to evolve soon like a new media situation in this global warming age...and you will call it...???

 

[Manfred Lopez]

... Why would someone choose to be a one-legged person in a fiscal ass-kicking contest by voluntarily restricting their production genres to just being a “filmmaker”?

On this I must sadly disagree. Although poetically it should be this way, in the harsh unkind reality of the cruel, cruel world one would be wiser to choose one thing to specialize in and excel. If one wants to be a top tier director one would be better served to just focus on high quality cinematic projects (today still far easier to get going in the movie industry). In this scenario one has to be extremely careful of each project one chooses because one false move and your career (at this level) could be over.

If one just wants to be an equal-opportunity worker in any facet of the industry, then that is fine, but it will be very hard to grow in any one area. This, of course, doesn’t mean that once you make it you can’t ‘switch over’ to another medium, or even dabble with the occasional vanity project. But if people are serious about a high level career in film directing / production, then the initial choices are very important and I would recommend sticking to movies. I think this is largely because movies are still viewed by the public as being able to be the artistic vision of a single person.

 

[Steve Gibby]

TheThe,

Describing TV in terms of just HBO or Showtime is like describing the movie industry in limited terms like Horror flicks or action dramas. Cinema and TV both have a broad range of genres and sub-genres. Narrative cinema broadcasting is just one genre of television broadcasting. For TV, the obvious other genres are documentaries, sports, music, episodics, daytime, reality, and many more. RED One is technically capable of being used in the production of all of those TV genres. There are a vast number of channels and networks in the TV production and broadcasting universe that have nothing to do with HBO, Showtime, or broadcast networks trying to emulate them.

TV ad revenues are volatile. For high rated programs like American Idol or sports specials like the NFL Super Bowl, ad revenues are strong. Other genres and size programs sometimes struggle for ad revenues. The true darkhorse in the motion media industry is emerging revenue streams like IPTV, web downloads, mobile TV, etc. Web ad revenues have also been increasing. The effective marketing strategy looking forward will be to leverage motion media content out into every ancillary revenue stream possible, throughout every delivery technology possible. The old revenue model of simply making a movie and only marketing it in theaters, and nowhere else, disappeared a long time ago. Features must be leveraged through multiple delivery platforms in order to survive fiscally.

Convergence is here…in production genres, their delivery platform, and their revenue potential. RED One fits quite nicely into that paradigm…

 

[Craig Schober]

medium is not the problem

medium is not the problem

I never said that cinema is going down. Entertainment in all areas is rising as a whole. Music, TV, Cinema, Radio. The rise in cinema ticket sales over the past 2 years does not mean that TV isnt having an effect on cinema, because it evidently is: The fact is that films have to be that much more competitive with TV now that people are accustomed to a certain quality of entertainment at a minimum level (TV). So this means better special effects, higher budgets for films, cleverer story lines, more star power (higher budgets), levereging franchises like marvel comics etc (higher budgets) and so on. So in the end, its actually good news for cinema, because TV is indeed giving cinema a run for its money, and keeping cinema from resting on its laurels (which it did a few years back)

all the things you site go into the actual film or movie but not the viewing experience. tv and home theater experience have been increasing in quality but i don't see the same improvements in the movie theater. no one (movie going public) knows or cares about digital projection vs. film, audiences are too rowdy and ticket/candy prices have steadily risen with no substantial improvements in actual theatrical experience. i think that's what people complain about when they say movies today are no good.

tv viewing experiences have improved along with tv production values. only film production values (arguably) have improved.

i have a 180" screen at home and i still go out for the "big screen" experience but less and less. the commercials, cell phones, annoying people, candy wrapper crinkling and overpriced everything just barely outweigh the experience and ability to see first run features. and no one i know is much different. like younger moviegoers we all have plenty of expendible income but unlike that young demographic, we are getting older so maybe that's it.

 

[Kenn Christenson]

There will always be a place for long form (feature) entertainment. The question is - where will it be viewed?

I believe (with the advent of larger, less expensive screens and Blue Ray/HDDVDs) viewers will be increasingly inclined to skip a theatrical run and wait for the "DVD release." We're already seeing the shift in the older demographics.

While it is true there is "something" about seeing a film in a theater, I think people are opting out of the rude person kicking the back of your seat and talking during the film - not to mention the Coca Cola coated floors.

 

[Manfred Lopez]

TheThe,

Describing TV in terms of just HBO or Showtime is like describing the movie industry in limited terms like Horror flicks or action dramas. …

Gibby, I think you missed the original argument / discussion which started a few pages back. It started when Acehole said that TV was giving movies a run for their money.

To that I answered that Movies where safe from extinction or irrevelance because they are the only format where one can tell a well-told, uninterrupted structured story. I never said anything negative about the TV as an industry. My only complaint is that when the large TV networks (the big three) venture into Cinema's turf, they still have a ways to go. This is primarily because the commercials that interrupt the 'cinematic' shows render them episodic. I never had anything to say about the rest of the TV programing. I am just defending Movies and that they still hold the top place as far as entertainment quality is concerned (not quantity).

It is quite clear to me that the average teen will rather spend his time in front of the computer or tv. But this is mostly due to lethargy. The moment he or she actually musters enough energy to actually get up and be entertained in a good way, chances are that they will go see a movie.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Oh man, Jarred is living the high life! :matrix:

Not so high, coz he dont fit in that plane. He is slightly taller. ;p)
High life with pain in neck and couple lupms on head

 

[PaulClements]

Interesting debate about film and tv, however, any news from Jim or Jarred about there interesting day out? Would love to hear Jackson's opinion about the camera.

 

[Dan Blanchett]

That RED can be used for virtually any type of production has become, by now, a truism. It goes without saying. How you choose to use your RED, however, is a personal choice and depends on where your ambitions and dreams lay.

At this point in my life, I personally want to make movies, because the stories I write lend themselves to that medium. And for me, there is still a certain kind of magic in the movies that I just don't see in TV. I don't see that ending anytime soon (as much as I enjoy Battlestar Galactica).

Now if I were a working DP, rather than a writer/director making indie films, I might have a more pragmatic view of the world. And I might not.

(sorry if this keeps straying off-topic-- hard to believe the RED is possibly in Peter's hands. What an endorsement!!)

 

[Steve Gibby]

On this I must sadly disagree. Although poetically it should be this way, in the harsh unkind reality of the cruel, cruel world one would be wiser to choose one thing to specialize in and excel. If one wants to be a top tier director one would be better served to just focus on high quality cinematic projects (today still far easier to get going in the movie industry). In this scenario one has to be extremely careful of each project one chooses because one false move and your career (at this level) could be over. .

Life is full of choices. If someone wants to limit themselves to a single genre within the motion media industry, fine, but along with that will come the inevitable financial struggles that are the by-product of that limiting choice. As media has converged, I’ve seen it as an opportunity to move horizontally in skill sets, while moving vertically in experience within them. In a non-union, indie production environment that is possible. I’ve professionally lived what I’ve just described. In non-union national television I started as a PA, then worked progressively upward to being a cameraman, scriptwriter, editor, director, producer, and executive producer, and paid dues and learned at every step. I specialized and excelled in all those positions. The end result? National awards in every one of those job positions, 800 national TV programs on 12 networks, multiple Emmy Awards, and scores of other awards. I quote none of this from ego, but rather to let you know that I have professionally lived the opposite of what you are recommending. Be a specialist? Too often a specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less - until they know everything about nothing!

I’ve also spread my industry skills into many other mediums (see below)

If one just wants to be an equal-opportunity worker in any facet of the industry, then that is fine, but it will be very hard to grow in any one area. This, of course, doesn’t mean that once you make it you can’t ‘switch over’ to another medium, or even dabble with the occasional vanity project. But if people are serious about a high level career in film directing / production, then the initial choices are very important and I would recommend sticking to movies. I think this is largely because movies are still viewed by the public as being able to be the artistic vision of a single person.

I disagree (see above). With media convergence most mediums are now digitally related. The technology is very relative from one digital media industry to another. There may be a certain percentage of people who simply want to channel their energy into a certain niche of the motion media industry. That’s fine, but they choose a narrow set of skills, they need to be prepared for commensurately narrow chances to progress, professionally and financially. I started in films stills 40 years ago, added in video and film 30 years ago, added in web design 12 years ago, and added in digital cinema 10 years ago, and added in digital photography 5 years ago.

High level film director/production career? Nobody will “film” anything with RED One. They will “record” or “shoot”, but not “film”. If a project is acquired digitally, edited digitally, mastered digitally, and delivered/marketed digitally, and is projected digitally in a theater, is it a “film”? No…it’s a movie, or a digital cinema piece. If it is produced digitally all the way through, with a film-out at the end, is it a “film”? No…it’s a movie or a digital cinema piece. Film will be around for some time to come, but the inevitable future of movies is digital.

Movies viewed by the public as the artistic expression of a single person? IMO all motion media projects, whether film or television, are the collective effort of a group of people. The producer/director portion of my career has been almost entirely as an “indie”. Even when the networks contracted my services for one-offs and series, it was freelance. I balanced that with multiples of my own branded series and one-offs, that I personally self-syndicated for national airings. I don’t think the public views film-originated movies any different than digital cinema originated movies, or any different than television programs in the sense of them being the creative vision of one single person. In publicity, movie producers, directors, and other above the line people are held up to the public as identity pieces for marketing, but those same producers and directors, just like television producers and directors, will generally be the first to acknowledge that the production was a team effort.

----------------------------------


We’re off-thread here. To get back on-thread, I think it is awesome that well-known feature directors like Peter Jackson are apparently embracing the possible use of RED one. And why not? RED One should be an excellent new tool in the toolbox of any digital cinema producer, director, DP, or cinematographer. Along with that, it should also be a great tool for a broad range of television genres. It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see Peter Jackson also produce/direct some specialty television programs using RED One...

TheThe, you’re passionate about the niche you’ve chosen in the motion media industry. To each their own. I’ve chosen to spread my skill sets and genres with what technology enabled progressively over the years. I sincerely wish you the best with your career path. I’ve enjoyed mine…

 

[Clayton Harper]

Gibby,

Please keep in mind that not all of us mere mortals have your god-like skill set.



I don't think it hurts anyone working in production to broaden their knowledge. Otherwise, you risk being obsolete. Just think of all the people who have stayed willfully ignorant of Red to this point.

I hope some of us have the good fortune to meet you in person at NAB and soak up some wisdom.