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 :)

Ridley Scott and Dariusz Wolski...

Jannard said:
The cool thing is that an Indie filmmaker can afford to own and shoot the same camera that is being used on the biggest budget/blockbuster movies. I can't remember that ever being the case...

Jim
Click to expand...


that right there is why I am here - I hope after I see the updated price on the EPICLight I will still be here :/
 
Congrats guys. Happy to see Red reaching all this.


Jannard said:
From Dariusz Wolski ASC:

"In my opinion, the new Red Epic camera is about to revolutionize all spectrums of the film industry.
Click to expand...

16 bit 5K RAW juice pouring out of Mysterium in a small cam size.

Epic would do that even without 120 fps in 5K. Glad Dariusz shares the same opinion though... :)
 
Revolutionize ALL spectrums. Does that includes the craft services table too?
:emote_couch:
 
Daniel Aragão said:
Seriously, i don't care about the fact that these industry big guys are making films with EPICS IN 3D, it can be good for us to see these big guys praisin for the Epics but in the end, these films don't have nothing to do with cinematography, they are just banal products that are easily forgotten over the years and it doesn't matter with what they film, its all about the franchising and the actors, just that. When RED announced that Sodenbergh was going to shoot CHE with a Red One, to me, it sounded more important. You people got to offer a EPIC RED to OLD CINEMA GUYS "WHO USED TO SHOT IN PANAVISION" like Terrence Malick, Paul Thomas Anderson. and other great people out there who does author films like David Lynch, Manoel de Oliveira, Godard, Herzog, …
Click to expand...

Well, I beg to disagree 100% right there. A camera is a tool to tell stories, not just stories with a particular meaning, sensibility or style, but stories, period. And the films and/or cinematographers mentioned above are RENOWNED as some of the best visualists in the business, not just Hollywood, so any kind of ringing endorsement those people could give the camera carries a LOT more weight than whatever those auteurs you refer to could ever achieve, in as much as the merits of a camera as a technical tool for acquiring images are concerned. Riddley Scott is probably known as the strongest visual director we have working today, and everybody agrees that whether he makes a masterpiece (Blade Runner) or forgettable inconsequential garbage (Robin Hood, etc, etc, etc) his films ALWAYS look gorgeous. And he has the clout to shoot on film, to incur the time, the expense and the extra work that comes with it, because it is generally agreed, or it was until now, that the quality and aesthetic of film as a medium was one of the things that gave his work its distinctive visual seal. So for him to accept shooting RED, or digital for that matter, will go a LONG way, a much longer way in fact, to prove the validity of RED as a genuine film replacement than the whatever Soderbergh, Herzog, Lynch or PTA could do. Those directors are known for the dramatic quality of their work, but not the quality of their cinematography. They are, in fact, known mostly for being people that put plot and characters in front of every other technical aspect, chiefly the quality of their cinematography, for the sake of telling their story. And good for them, and for those of us who value a great story, but master painters they are not. The only one that is accepted as a a true visual story teller is Malick, but he is such an isolated force of nature, such an anomaly that creates by contravening every commonly accepted rule in the book, that his acceptance of digital will surely be noteworthy but not fundamental. Now, Darius Wolszki, the Jack Cardiff of his generation, Rob Marshall, the Bertolucci of today, Dion Beebe, the second incarnation of Storaro, John Schwartzman, Storaro's pupil, and Riddley Scott, who needs no comparison, are all people whose work is at the absolute top of the heap when it comes to the beauty, transcendence, quality and all around wow factor of their IMAGES, so their endorsement of a camera is all that camera company could ever ask for to shut mouths and make fodder irrelevant. No auteur cinema could ever do that.
 
Addaboy Mr. Herbert.

Great post.
 
...and by the way, Pirates of the Caribbbean, however menial anybody may find the films to be, are a throw back to what made Hollywood films great: a grandiose spectacle, an adventure of epic proportions (pun intended) and films whose imagery is so spectacular, those viewers that manage to suspend their disbelief, will surely find themselves transported into those fabulous and forbidden worlds. POTC is one of the few SURE bets in Hollywood, and with their amazing visuals being one of their trademarks, I am AMAZED they were brave enough to go RED, because those films rely on exquisite visuals, which means that the creative forces behind the film were CERTAIN they could use RED instead of film and they convinced the studio exces signing the $270 million of checks that the look of their cash cow would not be compromised, even enhanced, by using the $17500 cameras that have become all the rage with the indie crowd. In my opinion, POTC was the first truly fundamental film to show that RED is indeed the best digital camera out there today, the turning point if you will, and I don't think many people really realize that.
 
Nice one, Rudi. Respect.



EDIT: Nice two.
 
Last edited:
Rudi Herbert said:
Well, I beg to disagree 100% right there. A camera is a tool to tell stories, not just stories with a particular meaning, sensibility or style, but stories, period. And the films and/or cinematographers mentioned above are RENOWNED as some of the best visualists in the business, not just Hollywood, so any kind of ringing endorsement those people could give the camera carries a LOT more weight than whatever those auteurs you refer to could ever achieve, in as much as the merits of a camera as a technical tool for acquiring images are concerned. Riddley Scott is probably known as the strongest visual director we have working today, and everybody agrees that whether he makes a masterpiece (Blade Runner) or forgettable inconsequential garbage (Robin Hood, etc, etc, etc) his films ALWAYS look gorgeous. And he has the clout to shoot on film, to incur the time, the expense and the extra work that comes with it, because it is generally agreed, or it was until now, that the quality and aesthetic of film as a medium was one of the things that gave his work its distinctive visual seal. So for him to accept shooting RED, or digital for that matter, will go a LONG way, a much longer way in fact, to prove the validity of RED as a genuine film replacement than the whatever Soderbergh, Herzog, Lynch or PTA could do. Those directors are known for the dramatic quality of their work, but not the quality of their cinematography. They are, in fact, known mostly for being people that put plot and characters in front of every other technical aspect, chiefly the quality of their cinematography, for the sake of telling their story. And good for them, and for those of us who value a great story, but master painters they are not. The only one that is accepted as a a true visual story teller is Malick, but he is such an isolated force of nature, such an anomaly that creates by contravening every commonly accepted rule in the book, that his acceptance of digital will surely be noteworthy but not fundamental. Now, Darius Wolszki, the Jack Cardiff of his generation, Rob Marshall, the Bertolucci of today, Dion Beebe, the second incarnation of Storaro, John Schwartzman, Storaro's pupil, and Riddley Scott, who needs no comparison, are all people whose work is at the absolute top of the heap when it comes to the beauty, transcendence, quality and all around wow factor of their IMAGES, so their endorsement of a camera is all that camera company could ever ask for to shut mouths and make fodder irrelevant. No auteur cinema could ever do that.
Click to expand...

Incredible post...
 
Don't make me blush Jim and Jarred :-)

Just stating the obvious, art is in the eye of the beholder, technical quality is not, is either there or it isn't. RED, obviously, has demonstrable quality in spades. I have watched the crappy trailer for Pirates over 10 times now, blown away by how much richness, texture, soft contrast and rich, fat reds, oranges and yellows coexisting with beautiful blues and gorgeous greens it shows in every frame. And that is through the noise, posterization and macro blocking of the 480p trailer. This is it, tipping point, the beginning of the true beginning.
 
Master

Master

Rudi,
I agree with a lot of your points. Like everyone else, I really enjoyed reading your post. It is great that the rest of the cinematographic world is accepting RED’s incredible product and inevitable digital dominance. How crazy is it that the man who shot Blade Runner is now shooting on RED? That blows my mind. But I was scratching my head about one of your arguments:
Rudi Herbert said:
"...than the whatever Soderbergh, Herzog, Lynch or PTA could do. Those directors are known for the dramatic quality of their work, but not the quality of their cinematography. They are, in fact, known mostly for being people that put plot and characters in front of every other technical aspect, chiefly the quality of their cinematography, for the sake of telling their story. And good for them, and for those of us who value a great story, but master painters they are not."
Click to expand...
I feel like this is the cinematographic argument equivalent of throwing Molotov cocktails at the Louvre’s masterpieces. :smiley:

I’ll give you Soderbergh, maybe. But I’m not budging on the rest. Lynch, Herzog, PTA and Malick, not master painters? I want to give you my DVD copies of Blue Velvet, Eraserhead, Fitzcarraldo, and There Will Be Blood immediately!:smiley:

It’s a darn good thing you deployed your parachute on Malick with that caveat about his visual virtuosity. But you are still falling fast with the rest. :-)

It sounds like you're saying Ridley Scott, Rob Marshall and John Schwartzman, all of whom I deeply respect, are more visually masterful than Malick, Herzog, Lynch, and PTA?

Truly, to reach the level they have all reached, they have to have mastered their own personal visions. Whether or not those visions are everyone's cup of tea, they are all examples of fantastic work.

But I think you would loose the argument that Lynch, Herzog and PTA are not master painters to even the most hapless Tisch undergrad.
Anyway, really enjoyed your post. My apologies if I misunderstood your point!

I’m just as pumped as everyone else for the Ridley Scott Red film. Keep up the phenomenal work, Red. It’s only a matter of time before everyone is shooting Red.
 
Rudi - i love your post, too - excellent!


it is inevitable that everyone will shot epic.

who will not? ... its ridiculous to think, anyone will shot any other medium - except for its unique particular qualities - limiting as they may be - as a means of style. But for the most flexibility and professional quality - there is just nothing in sight ... not even conceptually.

film is not only dead - film is red. (in 2011)

Just from the barn shot in the las vegas desert, it is completely clear.

multiplied with the subtle details in TSN - ever felt like seeing a real night sky in a theater??? - ever???

... the future is clear - we will see new movies. new theaters. have new experiences.

I would go so far and say, shooting film is not responsible any longer ....
(well, as soon as we have these little epic bodies in our hands - so soon ... :-)

just sayin' ...
 
Rudi, while I agree with 99% of what you posit (and by all means its cogent and thoughtful) I cannot disagree with you more about Herzog, Lynch, PTA and Soderbergh.

There is no better storytelling device on the horizon than the RED camera, I've been yelling its praises off of mountaintops since 2007 and hope our world's finest artist's embrace it, as it would elevate the level of their art and I agree with you that people should not judge the camera's support by the size of the production.

BUT, in the same vein, if the art of visual storytelling is subjective (which it is) then the visual merit of each and every artist is subjective as well. P.T. Anderson has produced some of the most compelling shots of the last 20 years. Not just in terms of mise en scene and dramaturgy, but he is a visual arbiter. Composition, depth of field, and style through his camerawork are paramount. While I am off-put to hear Herzog make snap judgments about the first RED camera, he has a filmography that speaks for itself. Fitzcarraldo is a cinematographic wonder. Aguirre as well. Even his skillful composition in his documentaries, most recently shot on prosumer cameras, have a masterful visual signature about them. To discount him as a visualist is a crime. And if you discount Lynch's visual style, you haven't seen enough of Lynch's films. Lynch, Herzog, PTA and Soderbergh are indeed in the same league as Scott and others.

You simply cannot compare Ridley Scott to Herzog, PTA, Lynch, etc. Nor can you compare the latter to each other.
That's like comparing apples to 18-wheelers.

Long live RED and let's hope our nation's finest storytellers continue to climb aboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top