REDRAY Comments

[Eryc Tramonn]

The Avengers was shot in 1080p... they are fucked. Those other 2 that we are intimately involved with.... There may be some info you don't know yet.

Still need to go back to like page 70 and catch up, but this was too funny not to respond to...just saying, I don't know what prompted it, but it made me laugh out loud for real.

Eryc

 

[Bruce Allen]

Perhaps the reason they didn't master at 4k is because something like OdeMax and pervasive 4k projectors did not exist yet.

Of course this is a huge factor! It's a chicken-and-egg situation. And a reason why we're cheering ODEMAX on.

I'm in favor of 4K, in favor of RED, in favor of ODEMAX, in favor of audiences getting a next-generation high-fidelity theatrical environment ASAP.

At the same time, I feel that right now, 4K is not necessary for box office success at all, is not necessary to make a successful film at all, and that you are not screwing up royally if you shoot at a lower resolution and just focus on making a great 2K product that pushes your career forward - and gives you 4K projects and 8K projects and 3D light field holographic projects down the line...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

It's not computing time. It's a question of pipelines.

VFX films are not just a folder with a bunch of files in them. They literally depend on a very specific set of software versions, file dependencies, database entries etc to render properly. It's why you see 10 pipeline TDs on every project. Their job is to make sure that your scene file gets the correct animation file and renders using the correct software version so that it renders as intended. And then it goes to compositors who make thousands of tweaks--many of which are resolution dependent and all based on the assumption of a 2k deliverable.

If you want to re-render Prometheus you don't just open Prometheus.max and Prometheus.mb hit render, open the Promtheus.nk file and hit render and then hand off the new frames to Technicolor for them to to re-render into the DCP. Your fluid sim depends on the animation file which depends on the model file which depends on the camera database which depends on the match move--which might be too inaccurate for 4k. Etc etc etc.

Some of the companies who worked on Prometheus have since gone out of business even. Some of the work is hand painted and isn't in any sort of resolution independent vector format.

Like most of VFX: Computers are cheap, people are expensive.

True. All very valid points. The precision, and coordination between departments and artists needed at the studio level is intense. Not to mention all the legacy systems you have to work around, with, over, under. It's never ending.

But for an indie...We've match moved, and composited footage I didn't think was possible. We just figure it out. But yeah, we're not attempting anything as hyper detailed as Avengers, either.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Phil has real life experience to back up what he says. I saw his short film at the RED Film Festival last night and he had some VFX in there that blew your freakin' mind in 4k. If he can use 4k VFX in a no budget short film the big studios can't be far behind.

Exactly.


I think sometimes we get so sophisticated, pipelines get so complex...we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Whatever though. The move should be to simply figure it out, and then show. This is SHOW business, after all.

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil has real life experience to back up what he says. I saw his short film at the RED Film Festival last night and he had some VFX in there that blew your freakin' mind in 4k. If he can use 4k VFX in a no budget short film the big studios can't be far behind.

Thanks Justin.

He didn't have to complete 2000 VFX shots in less than 3 months. When you have the luxury of time, anything is possible. That is not the case in studio pictures with release dates.

Correct. But I did complete 4 3D shots on my own and integrated them within the rest of the post on that project within 3 days and finished in 4K. There's even a difficult comp in there. Part of the very reason I attempted to get that project done was to show what could be done. Not enough time for a fully rendered 3D lion or something like that, but it was more to get the thought across. Also, I know you were exaggerating, but I don't know of any production that has had 2000 VFX shots in less than 3 months. That's not totally realistic just yet.

However, earlier this year I finished 36 shots in a little over a month at 4K, which was overflow work on a feature because they were crunching on renders. Times are a changin'.

A) An enormous fucking headache.

In my "world" the last time 4K was a big freaking headache was somewhere in 2002. It's been a moderate headache for me up until about 2009. Now it's just been fun and adaptive experience. It's more about modifying pipelines to make way for the higher resolution material. There's been several shots and projects where we executed 4K and 6K VFX over the years.

At the same time, I feel that right now, 4K is not necessary for box office success at all, is not necessary to make a successful film at all.....

4K or any "K" isn't necessary for box office success. I worked on a production with a budget of $140 million that came out against a $35 million comedy that went on to make $460 million. Content is still king. However, what 4K is all about is visual quality and the sense of immersion. In many ways matching or exceeding the quality of a straight optically processed film. New 4K material projected at 4K looks better to me than Super35 ever did too. Not to mention the litany of things that laser project solves.


There's a lot of discussion in this thread about projects that have already been out in theaters, finished in 4K or otherwise. There are so many variables in this conversation that are being overlooked, and not just budget. A feature like Avengers was primarily put into production for a very fast turn around. It started shooting in April 2011 and was released in April 2012. Every decision was made to make that particular release date to strike while the iron was hot. And they did a great job at pulling off high quality work in that time frame. However, the last feature I worked on that's in theaters now started filming 2.5 years ago. Most post schedules on large features float in the 3-14 month range these days depending on the scale and scope of the work. Also, some of the features shot on Red this year and last year had some of the VFX done at 4K but was targeted for a 2K release to not absorb the additional cost of a 4K finish/delivery for theatrical release.

We really don't need to be focused on the past productions though. Next year more and more 4K will be coming.


One of the most exciting aspects of major motion pictures is that every production is different and poses different challenges. Large VFX studios scale both in hardware and personal when it comes to productions. Renting/purchasing more servers for their render queues and hiring additional freelancers when more projects come in. They also have opened up fully fledged studios all over the world to keep labor costs down and stay competitive. VFX bidding is possibly the scariest thing I've ever witnessed in this industry. More so then finalizing the budget on a production. It's highly competitive. Most big houses have to work on 5-15 features a year to stay in business. These days it's common for several houses to do work on a project to divide the work load and budget even further. The major studios that exist today are amazing adapters and they've had to be. I can't tell you how many studios I've seen shutdown over the last 15 years, but it's a scary number. But the ones that survive today survive and thrive for a reason. They will continue to progress and adapt. 4K provides more work and jobs overall. Industry-wise it is a good thing. Deadline-wise it's just another hurdle to problem solve.

 

[Scott Crawley]

It's not computing time. It's a question of pipelines.

VFX films are not just a folder with a bunch of files in them...

The point was made that a single frame of movie x would take 24 hours or some insane length of time to render , and my response spoke strictly to that. The idea was that it may be physically impossible to do today, but at some point it won't be. I appreciate that it isn't a simple thing, but as Bruce suggested if there is sufficient motivation it will be done.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Thanks Justin.




Correct. But I did complete 4 3D shots on my own and integrated them within the rest of the post on that project within 3 days and finished in 4K. There's even a difficult comp in there. Part of the very reason I attempted to get that project done was to show what could be done. Not enough time for a fully rendered 3D lion or something like that, but it was more to get the thought across. Also, I know you were exaggerating, but I don't know of any production that has had 2000 VFX shots in less than 3 months. That's not totally realistic just yet.

However, earlier this year I finished 36 shots in a little over a month at 4K, which was overflow work on a feature because they were crunching on renders. Times are a changin'.




In my "world" the last time 4K was a big freaking headache was somewhere in 2002. It's been a moderate headache for me up until about 2009. Now it's just been fun and adaptive experience. It's more about modifying pipelines to make way for the higher resolution material. There's been several shots and projects where we executed 4K and 6K VFX over the years.




4K or any "K" isn't necessary for box office success. I worked on a production with a budget of $140 million that came out against a $35 million comedy that went on to make $460 million. Content is still king. However, what 4K is all about is visual quality and the sense of immersion. In many ways matching or exceeding the quality of a straight optically processed film. New 4K material projected at 4K looks better to me than Super35 ever did too. Not to mention the litany of things that laser project solves.


There's a lot of discussion in this thread about projects that have already been out in theaters, finished in 4K or otherwise. There are so many variables in this conversation that are being overlooked, and not just budget. A feature like Avengers was primarily put into production for a very fast turn around. It started shooting in April 2011 and was released in February 2012. Every decision was made to make that particular release date to strike while the iron was hot. And they did a great job at pulling off high quality work in that time frame. However, the last feature I worked on that's in theaters now started filming 2.5 years ago. Most post schedules on large features float in the 3-14 month range these days depending on the scale and scope of the work. Also, some of the features shot on Red this year and last year had some of the VFX done at 4K but was targeted for a 2K release to not absorb the additional cost of a 4K finish/delivery for theatrical release.

We really don't need to be focused on the past productions though. Next year more and more 4K will be coming.


One of the most exciting aspects of major motion pictures is that every production is different and poses different challenges. Large VFX studios scale both in hardware and personal when it comes to productions. Renting/purchasing more servers for their render queues and hiring additional freelancers when more projects come in. They also have opened up fully fledged studios all over the world to keep labor costs down and stay competitive. VFX bidding is possibly the scariest thing I've ever witnessed in this industry. More so then finalizing the budget on a production. It's highly competitive. Most big houses have to work on 5-15 features a year to stay in business. These days it's common for several houses to do work on a project to divide the work load and budget even further. The major studios that exist today are amazing adapters and they've had to be. I can't tell you how many studios I've seen shutdown over the last 15 years, but it's a scary number. But the ones that survive today survive and thrive for a reason. They will continue to progress and adapt. 4K provides more work and jobs overall. Industry-wise it is a good thing. Deadline-wise it's just another hurdle to problem solve.

Brilliant. Could not agree more.

 

[Björn Benckert]

The point was made that a single frame of movie x would take 24 hours or some insane length of time to render , and my response spoke strictly to that. The idea was that it may be physically impossible to do today, but at some point it won't be. I appreciate that it isn't a simple thing, but as Bruce said if there is a will it will be done.

It might be very possible today even, but then again if you lower your standards to 2k instead of 4k you get more than 4 times the amount of efx shots in your film... so how do you want to proceed...

 

[Scott Crawley]

It might be very possible today even, but then again if you lower your standards to 2k instead of 4k you get more than 4 times the amount of efx shots in your film... so how do you want to proceed...

Always in a manner that is fiscally responsible. So you finish in 2k until it no longer makes sense to do so. Then after you have made back your nut, and then some, if the property can make money on a re-release after the expense of re-making it... You do it. Right?

Hollywood re-makes everything already, so why not do it in this case? You recycle the assets that you can and recreate the work that can not be regenerated from the original models.

 

[M Most]

Also, I know you were exaggerating, but I don't know of any production that has had 2000 VFX shots in less than 3 months.

Avengers, particularly if you count 3D conversion as VFX. I do, because that's what it is.

I can't tell you how many studios I've seen shutdown over the last 15 years, but it's a scary number. But the ones that survive today survive and thrive for a reason.

I don't know of very many that I'd call "thriving" that aren't named Weta. Surviving? Yes, but it many cases barely. As you point out, the VFX business in today's world is very, very "challenging." That is the reality, however sad it might be.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Thanks for your reply here Bruce.

You bring up some good examples. One thing though... 4K monitors are going to flood the market sooner than we all expect. For the big "VFX" movies, where you have 1000+ shots, sure, they will be slow going. Profit margins in VFX companies, especially at that level are "marginal" at best and they fight the producers hard.

But of the movies that rely on moderate VFX, (True Grit for example, or any Cohen Bros. movie that Luma Pics does) are in 4K, and the result is certainly stunning.

You're right, 4K is not that big a thing. Especially in moderate amounts that are used to support a good story, rather than prop up mediocre ones. But let's look at the market dynamic shift we're trying to support here. Big Studios are definitely concerned as the increase in great independent, 'story driven' movies increase, it dulls their edge. So how do they respond? To quote a studio exec, and friend... "the only thing that we can do now, that no one can compete with is 'BIG'". Translated to mean, epic, spectacle, etc. RED and ODEMAX are working to give the independent studio, production company, director, etc. an edge as well... BIG SCREENS. Hmmmmm, who do we think will adopt that faster. Yep, the productions committed to great movies, that rely on good stories, great craft, amazing cinematography. Most of them don't have the budget anyway, to do massive CG comic books that all share the same story, and need for 1000+ shots. The VFX facilities, I'm sure can make a better margin (most survive on cashflow only) by doing more movies, with some effects, instead of some movies with a glut of them, and then struggle to ramp up and down to get them out.

Some of us actually working with R3D files realized this years ago. Everything you are writing is exactly how I see things playing out, and I have said the same many times over. As you mention, it's not difficult to project how the studios will respond -- they don't have too many options. At the end of it all, I think they'll simply try to embrace the tech in as many ways as possible -- and the people using it. You can't beat them, try to buy them out and make cash off their talent.

But Odemax promises to make things extremely interesting from that last standpoint.

It's a shame more people don't seem to get it. I am actually confused by how many people seem to have an issue with the platform.

 

[Phil Holland]

Avengers, particularly if you count 3D conversion as VFX. I do, because that's what it is.

I don't know of very many that I'd call "thriving" that aren't named Weta. Surviving? Yes, but it many cases barely. As you point out, the VFX business in today's world is very, very "challenging." That is the reality, however sad it might be.

I agree most aren't thriving, and even Weta deals with that. Those days are long gone. It is a very competitive industry and it is difficult. I can agree with that.

From what I recall Avengers had a post schedule of 7/8-ish months depending on how you look at it. Post began while the production was filming (and actually a little bit before hand too), common these days. I think over a dozen houses ended up working on it. I don't consider 3D conversion full blown post production; but more part of post production, and it does take time. Most of production wrapped in August 2011 and the extra bit they shot in New York finished up in September afterwords. I think there were a few pickups later on too. Can't remember. But post wasn't less than 3 months by any means.

If it was I'd be buying a lot of people drinks for that miracle.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

you are half right. iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Cinemanow, Epix, etc. etc. etc. are basically all the same. They cater to the top 1% of films and they all share the same content.. more or less. There are not very many exclusives with studios and distribution channels anymore.. unless these companies produce it themselves like Netflix. And if you are a nobody filmmaker..good luck getting in. The Studio films have almost become a commodity.. because they make a ton of money, which is good for everyone involved. There is nothing wrong with that, and ODEMAX will have those movies as well.. but the magic really happens when you start to open the doors to the rest of the 99% of the filmmakers out there. Of course, there will be a shitload of content that will not be worth watching.. that's inevitable. But you can say the same about some 200 million dollar hollywood films as well.

Youtube is powerful.. it shouldn't be discounted. Alot of stars have been born of of Youtube. It is how 99% of music videos are watched now adays, and alot of films. But the experience of watching, and finding content via youtube on your television is not an enjoyable experience, even with built in device apps, and there is no real revenue program for the producer except for selling janky ads, which nobody wants. Its just a bit clumsy. Vimeo I believe is a better experience.. but it is not commercial. Odemax almost cross-pollinates the best of all worlds.. and combined with REDRAY it provides you an outlet with no quality restrictions.

This levels the playing field like Jon said.. but to a whole different level. Instead of playing on the field, it is more like playing on the roof of the stadium.

This is the first time, that I can remember, Jarred laying it out this plainly.

It's cool that the studios are on board with the camera tech, but this has always been about the 99%. And it's rough to see some of the 99ers seemingly spitting in your faces, but I guess I get it -- people have a tendency to be skeptical and critical. But it's like most people don't see posts such as this...and it's the reason I include them unabridged in my replies.

Yeah, there will be a lot of bad content, but it will likely get better with time. And rather than solely focusing on any perceived shortcomings of the distribution model (which I don't really see), why don't we continue thinking about educating one another, and figure out to how make this new network the strongest that it can be. It should be easy to identify potential shortcomings, but the bulk of our thoughts should be offering solutions.

Independents need a bit more solidarity to make this work as effectively as it can.

Through all this, there is one area of the process that remains untouched...one very important area that will definitely need to be addressed. I hope/pray the RIGHT person hears that last statement. Again, I am convinced, there is one area of the process remaining to be addressed. And I'm not referring to this current topic.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

My cinematographer never could've done this without the EPIC -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ejyHzz3XE

He also shot Kendrick's first vid before Kendrick rose to "fame." Anyone ever stop to think how many other "Kendricks" there are? Of course not.

18 million views? I need to get off this forum for a bit. I'm starting to get agitated.

Filmmakers will be in a prime position to do this, AND DISTRIBUTE IT IN 4K WITHOUT STUDIO INVOLVEMENT. Are you kidding me? This is the most awesome shit ever. I tried explaining it to other filmmakers immediately following the announcement, and it's like no one is keying in on it.


--- as an addendum...you could theoretically shoot certain content as a loss leader in order to sell other stuff. The possibilities are pretty endless. Use the same marketing tactics and business practices that have routinely been used against us -- now they may work for us. Just go forward with a good heart, and you can't go wrong.

 

[Shane Betts]

Thanks for your reply here Bruce.

You bring up some good examples. One thing though... 4K monitors are going to flood the market sooner than we all expect. For the big "VFX" movies, where you have 1000+ shots, sure, they will be slow going. Profit margins in VFX companies, especially at that level are "marginal" at best and they fight the producers hard.

But of the movies that rely on moderate VFX, (True Grit for example, or any Cohen Bros. movie that Luma Pics does) are in 4K, and the result is certainly stunning.

You're right, 4K is not that big a thing. Especially in moderate amounts that are used to support a good story, rather than prop up mediocre ones. But let's look at the market dynamic shift we're trying to support here. Big Studios are definitely concerned as the increase in great independent, 'story driven' movies increase, it dulls their edge. So how do they respond? To quote a studio exec, and friend... "the only thing that we can do now, that no one can compete with is 'BIG'". Translated to mean, epic, spectacle, etc. RED and ODEMAX are working to give the independent studio, production company, director, etc. an edge as well... BIG SCREENS. Hmmmmm, who do we think will adopt that faster. Yep, the productions committed to great movies, that rely on good stories, great craft, amazing cinematography. Most of them don't have the budget anyway, to do massive CG comic books that all share the same story, and need for 1000+ shots. The VFX facilities, I'm sure can make a better margin (most survive on cashflow only) by doing more movies, with some effects, instead of some movies with a glut of them, and then struggle to ramp up and down to get them out.

HOLY CRAP! You guys have really thought this through and I love the angle you're coming from.

Also, I know next to nothing about what's required for VFX on high end CG movies but one thing I've not seen mentioned here, that is plainly going to have as big an impact, is frame rates (and 3D). If it takes 20 hours to render a frame at 2k, it might take 80 at 4k(or would that be 40?). But, go back to 2k, make the movie 3D, shot at 48 or 60 fps...

As Jon says, small, independent, non-studio, character and story driven, VFX lite movies in 4k @ 24fps = WOO HOO! And, if these movies can suddenly start to actually turn a buck instead of being locked out by the studios, there could be a hell of a lot more movies being made, which has got to be good for all of us not tied to large studios and broadcasters for our business.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Soon our content will be cruising the Odemax network.

5 million views

Again, qualitative judgments aside...I don't think it matters whether you enjoy this aesthetic or not. The point is: Produce content. Be seen. Potentially get paid. What's the problem? It's not that hard. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

HOLY CRAP!

As Jon says, small, independent, non-studio, character and story driven, VFX lite movies in 4k @ 24fps = WOO HOO! And, if these movies can suddenly start to actually turn a buck instead of being locked out by the studios, there could be a hell of a lot more movies being made, which has got to be good for all of us not tied to large studios and broadcasters for our business.

YES! Another soul unplugs from the Matrix. Awesome, sir.

 

[Shane Betts]

YES! Another soul unplugs from the Matrix. Awesome, sir.

I was about to post exactly the same reply to you!

Seems to me there are two kinds of people on this thread my friend. Those within the system and those without. Someone once said that most people are too busy working for a living to ever make money. I guess the same can be said about making movies. This is THE SHIT!

 

[Shane Betts]

Ed Burns says he's now getting his movies in the can for under $10k. Exchange his DSLR for a Scarlet and open an ODEMAX account. How many indie cinemas do you need across the US, Europe, Asia and Australia to make money on THAT business model?

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

I was about to post exactly the same reply to you!

Seems to me there are two kinds of people on this thread my friend. Those within the system and those without. Someone once said that most people are too busy working for a living to ever make money. I guess the same can be said about making movies. This is THE SHIT!

I have a lot of intellectual brothers on this thread...most of them just aren't aware (or maybe they are). Pleasure to meet you, bro.

And your quote could not be more befitting for the situation.

I used to work at a major studio, Shane -- There's a reason I don't anymore, and it was my own choice to leave. RED's camera system played heavily into that decision.

After working in that environment, trying to advance and direct -- I started feeling like I was in a scene plucked straight from Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s Men of Honor. No matter what superhuman feat you pulled off, you started to realize Master Chief was NEVER going to let you graduate. As a matter of fact, Master Chief and his cronies like watching the rats run the gauntlet. It amuses them. Screw that shit.

I'd rather be homeless than work in that position, but now maybe I won't have to. Thanks to all these beautiful people.