Ridley Scott and Dariusz Wolski...

[Rudi Herbert]

Guys,

Film (no pun intended being a visual art means of course that, whoever develops a certain mastery of the medium is, by logical extent, a master visual story teller. So, no, I'm not taking credit away from any of those names I mentioned, and I hope I did not come across as disrespectful of their body of work, those are people who have carved a well deserved reputation through long and storied careers, distinctly marked by an unwillingness to compromise.
I guess what I meant was that, from a clinical dissection of styles, Scott, Marshall, Beebe, Schwartzman et al have styles that more often than not display use of full color palettes, high dynamic ranges, compositions with high color contrast ratios, a passion for flattering skin tones and other attributes that have long been touted as the domain of film, the very bastion where its lovers (myself included) have set up their last defense. And that these very craftmen have chosen RED as a tool to allows them to emulate digitally those very ineffable qualities they were only able to achieve chemically until now, is probably more telling, in a showcase sort of way, of the capabilities of RED, than the work of those other artists whose cinematographic style is perhaps, at least in my opinion, more subtle and nuanced and less obviously flashy. That's all. The good thing is that, irrespective of whose style we're talking about, digital cinematography has finally arrived at the juncture where TRULY, its aesthetic merits stand on their own side by side with film. And that is largely thanks to RED. And that is an extremely exciting prospect.
BTW, you know who we're leaving out and whose work I would love to see on RED? Terry Gilliam.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

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.

Rudi in fire today. Great post!

I just love "art is in the eye of the beholder, technical quality is not, is either there or it isn't. "

 

[Michael Hastings]

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.

Wow, Rudi, nice post - that was spot on. Deserves to be read on every cinema forum out there.

 

[Daniel Aragão]

Rudi

when you talk, you sound like a guy that works in the Jury for the OSCARS.

you just cant separate dramatic quality from cinematography. SORRY.

film is a plural art.

"quality and wow factor" is something that for today and for the near future means almost NOTHING. We are living in a world where anyone and everyone can easily get good images, tech-beauty-images.

and if you put this into the industry standard, beauty and image quality is something they don't even discuss anymore, cause the are so sure they gonna get it whatever.
16mm, 35mm, 70mm, red, whatever. Once i get into a MALL movie theater, the only thing im pretty sure im going to get is that WOW big great resolution quality image.

what is hard to see is the VISCERAL, AUTHENTIC simple dramatic/cinematography that gives you real immersion.

3d is the easy tech way to give immersion. its the DECADENT WAY of immersion.
its like comparing real sex love with your wife and masturbation over the european girls sex sites.

using one example, the camera work in a film like Cassavetes "the killing of a chinese bookie" is something out of this world in terms
of full immersion. the way his camera goes inside the scene is something so rare these days. i recently re-watch this film on a theater in LA, beverly cinema, i went to the first chair, the 35mm copy was restored, and the big image that i saw was so full of energy that i almost freaked out. this is rare. im not pointing out here something in favor of "auter" films in vain, im not the type of guy against blockbusters or such thing. I love resolution and wow images too, don't get me wrong. but the fact is, those classics of filmmaking haven't being watched properly since they were released. just now we are getting into it as it was made to be watched, cause of blu-ray discs and new copies.

This is what ive been thinking cause im a director reflecting right now on how to make my first feature film that had its budget already approved in the bank to be shoot next year. and the EPIC can be a way of reaching my goal even so im not exactly searching only for MORE RESOLUTION AND WOW BEAUTY IMAGES, but yes, im searching for cinema experiences like the one i had described above for my film.

Jim, thanks for the "nice first post", lets see if and how i can help out discussing this new technology...

 

[Mark Andersen]

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.

Today I saw the POTC trailer in IMAX 3D, it was gorgeous. I was actually sitting next to a young film maker associate of mine who has not warmed up to Red or anything digital (he's young and idealistic, has been told that film is the only way) I leaned over and said "this was all shot on Red MX". He kinda was speechless, and I could see he immediately started watching the trailer closer. He did really have anything to say, but he was kind of startled by it. I think his eyes were opened today.

 

[Anderson Boyd]

Guys,

Film (no pun intended being a visual art means of course that, whoever develops a certain mastery of the medium is, by logical extent, a master visual story teller. So, no, I'm not taking credit away from any of those names I mentioned, and I hope I did not come across as disrespectful of their body of work, those are people who have carved a well deserved reputation through long and storied careers, distinctly marked by an unwillingness to compromise.
I guess what I meant was that, from a clinical dissection of styles, Scott, Marshall, Beebe, Schwartzman et al have styles that more often than not display use of full color palettes, high dynamic ranges, compositions with high color contrast ratios, a passion for flattering skin tones and other attributes that have long been touted as the domain of film, the very bastion where its lovers (myself included) have set up their last defense. And that these very craftmen have chosen RED as a tool to allows them to emulate digitally those very ineffable qualities they were only able to achieve chemically until now, is probably more telling, in a showcase sort of way, of the capabilities of RED, than the work of those other artists whose cinematographic style is perhaps, at least in my opinion, more subtle and nuanced and less obviously flashy. That's all. The good thing is that, irrespective of whose style we're talking about, digital cinematography has finally arrived at the juncture where TRULY, its aesthetic merits stand on their own side by side with film. And that is largely thanks to RED. And that is an extremely exciting prospect.
BTW, you know who we're leaving out and whose work I would love to see on RED? Terry Gilliam.

Amen amen Rudi, art and artists generate strong opinions. We're all side-by-side living in this golden age thanks to the fine folk @ RED!

A yes to Gilliam, maybe we can hold out hope for The Man Who Killed Don Quijote?

My Christmas pipe dream is go back in time and hand Akira Kurosawa and Asakazu Nakai an Epic.

The world is better due to cinema : cinema is better due to RED :: the world is better due to RED. Great shooting to all, and to all a good night.

 

[Justin Paloma]

Guys,

Film (no pun intended being a visual art means of course that, whoever develops a certain mastery of the medium is, by logical extent, a master visual story teller. So, no, I'm not taking credit away from any of those names I mentioned, and I hope I did not come across as disrespectful of their body of work, those are people who have carved a well deserved reputation through long and storied careers, distinctly marked by an unwillingness to compromise.
I guess what I meant was that, from a clinical dissection of styles, Scott, Marshall, Beebe, Schwartzman et al have styles that more often than not display use of full color palettes, high dynamic ranges, compositions with high color contrast ratios, a passion for flattering skin tones and other attributes that have long been touted as the domain of film, the very bastion where its lovers (myself included) have set up their last defense. And that these very craftmen have chosen RED as a tool to allows them to emulate digitally those very ineffable qualities they were only able to achieve chemically until now, is probably more telling, in a showcase sort of way, of the capabilities of RED, than the work of those other artists whose cinematographic style is perhaps, at least in my opinion, more subtle and nuanced and less obviously flashy. That's all. The good thing is that, irrespective of whose style we're talking about, digital cinematography has finally arrived at the juncture where TRULY, its aesthetic merits stand on their own side by side with film. And that is largely thanks to RED. And that is an extremely exciting prospect.
BTW, you know who we're leaving out and whose work I would love to see on RED? Terry Gilliam.

Now I totally see what you were saying in your previous post. And I totally agree! And, like I said earlier, I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts. Keep them up!

How insanely exciting is it that we've reached this moment in cinema? I'm just so blown away by what RED is doing...

 

[Subhadip Sen]

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.

Absolutely. I can name a dozen more examples of so-called "auteurs" who drive their films primarily through visuals, much moreso than Ridley, who has to service a strict script. That said, Ridley Scott is himself a great visual filmmaker. It just so happens that the content (script) of his films is more accessible than Herzog's or Lynch's, hence he works with greater budgets.

I feel it is just as important that RED reaches out to commercial mainstream cinema (The Social Network) as well as more personal (Certified Copy) or progressive cinema. And there's no doubt it will - it has quality as well as affordability - so it caters to a large variety of productions.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

$10K says KUBRICK would have shot EPIC> dude shot 1M feet of film. Wish he were still alive to wield this beauty. 2011 s going to be so much fun
and Ridley Scott has owned me since the magazine stuffing, milk squirting android in Alien. I never miss his films.

 

[Todd M.]

I can't say enough good things about Dariusz Wolski and Trevor Loomis (his right hand guy and 1st ac) ... Two very talented men.

Don't forget about Raffi Sanchez. Might be the only guy on that set bigger than you Jarred

 

[Subhadip Sen]

$10K says KUBRICK would have shot EPIC> dude shot 1M feet of film. Wish he were still alive to wield this beauty. 2011 s going to be so much fun
and Ridley Scott has owned me since the magazine stuffing, milk squirting android in Alien. I never miss his films.

Oh, absolutely! In later films, he often used to attach a video camera to the film camera, just so he could replay the takes on set. No doubt he was waiting for a digital camera that would surpass film. I feel the camera used on the moon in 2001: A Space Odyssey has an uncanny resemblance to an Epic!

Edit - Check out this blog: http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2009/02/how-accurate-was-kubricks-2001.php. Scroll down to the "The future of Cameras" section.

In an earlier sequence, however, the 'still-camera-without-flash-that-looks-like-a-cine-camera' is way off the mark.

Obviously, the author of the blog didn't see DSMC coming; Kubrick did way back in the mid-60s! Incredible.

 

[Nuno Ribeiro]

Incredible post...

The endorsement is valid, but the reasons posted are loosing perspective. Can't understand: the story is The Thing, although while some go for the story, others go for something bigger (ridley)!? The argument seems to go half way from what was first considered the whole. Can't agree that some, like the ones mentioned, don't go for it all, while others make us happy with just some.Don't think it is author work. Images are images.
Maibe Jim Henson and his crew did what they did because they knew that eating crackers while they thought about their whole, made it a WHOLE lot bigger.
Sports isn't about champions, it's about playing.
Some can't win, some can play.

Ridley is great, the movies that kept me looking for images are his and the ones from the people you just mentioned. They don't fit in a scale, there is no scale, red is great, as is the coffee spoon in the napkin. I want to go as far as the idea lets me endure without loosing perspective.

 

[Jonathon Laing]

All I keep saying to my self is, 'couldn't the oposition see this coming? I mean REALLY?'

 

[M Most]

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..

While I know what you're trying to say here, I would also point out that the picture in question is intended as a stereoscopic production. The only sensible way to make a stereoscopic picture on film today is to shoot in 2D and do a post conversion, which for many is not an alternative they want to consider. I know Jim disagrees with this (he told me so), but I really do feel that one of, if not THE primary drivers for Red's acceptance into tentpole features is its 3D friendliness, and in the case of the new designs (Epic in particular), it really is unique in that environment both in terms of the resolution that's possible and, perhaps as significantly, the physical form factor. Every new technology needs a reason for being, particularly when the largest investments are involved, as they are on some of these huge features. 3D stereoscopic is, whether one wants to admit it or not, one of the primary reasons for higher end pictures going to digital production, particularly in an "if it ain't broken don't fix it" centric world like major studio features. Those who go to Epic and other tools still to come from Red and others might well find there are a lot of other things they like, even when shooting 2D. But it's 3D that's making them look at it in the first place.

 

[Jody Neckles]

I know Jim disagrees with this (he told me so), but I really do feel that one of, if not THE primary drivers for Red's acceptance into tentpole features is its 3D friendliness, and in the case of the new designs (Epic in particular), it really is unique in that environment both in terms of the resolution that's possible and, perhaps as significantly, the physical form factor.

Indeed this will be one of the reasons RED will absolutely kill it in 2011. I also think as the camera is put to the test and evolves (as RED squeezes every last drop of functionality out of it) it will also be a camera of choice for 2D films. I suspect this is just the beginning and RED have a lot more up their sleeves with regards to camera features......

 

[Peter Szivolt]

love RED

love RED

Congratulations for Jim and Red Team. Amazing news coming up and it's just started. I can't wait also for some pro Natural History Program's to be done with Epic in the future. :hurray:

 

[Brook Willard]

Don't forget about Raffi Sanchez. Might be the only guy on that set bigger than you Jarred

Heheh, Raffi is awesome.

 

[Chris Parker]

awesome. get ready for 2011, RED's biggest year by far. and that's saying something.....

 

[Mark Andersen]

I guess one could ask, "would Scott have gone with the Epic if his new project was 2D"? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure that after working with it in 3D he would likely consider it for a 2D feature in the future. Either way, one can not underscore enough the significance of an industry giant like Ridley Scott, who could use what ever he wanted at any price, going with the yet to be widely released Epic, the new kid on the block of the old veteran master of filmdom.

 

[Craig Ryan]

Cannot wait to see what these two will do for the evolution of 3D.