The Schedule...

[dalemccready]

your eyesight must be better than mine if you can read that massive block of text.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

LOL, nice.

Sorry I'm in a ranting mood after that film school experience. I have heard people say film school is a rip-off, but I always just assumed it'd be the best way. But at more than $1,000 per week for the school (you have 32 weeks of class, the rest is just working on productions for free, which you can obviously do on your own time without the school -- anyone will hire you for free if you're willing to work hard!), that's brutal. Especially with three guys who want to quit, why not just pay industry professionals to teach us what we want to know directly?

I mean heck if there's anyone here who needs some extra cash and lives in the L.A. area, we can pay a very nice hourly wage to learn more about cinematography, both camera operation and lighting. It's worth it to us.

 

[Keith Nealy]

I just got on the board after a long day to find this bruhaha.

What?... trouble in river city?

What post is every on talking about? Where is it? It got moved?

Now I gotta go look for it... Wait... Jim posted the letter.

Mike, I just want to ask you where you think you get off showing the kind of mistrust and and disrespect for Jim to confront his public statements on his own company board?

Whether you agree with him or not you were disrespectful to him, this board and it members by challenging him in his public space... a space where all the competition and detractors can mine for information.

Why do you think your opinion is more important that the sanctity of this board which has been a forum for all of us to learn and share knowledge about this digital revolution?

Others have said you have a right to your opinion and I agree with that - except taking a dump in Jim's house is not acceptable.

Jim is a standup guy and rather than hide behind a PR screen he tells the painful truth. And you feel you have the right to call him on his statements?
To get to the bottom of this?

This is not "Sixty Minutes" and we don't need you to find out the real truth for us.

We have faith and respect for the man and are willing to take him at his word.
Where I come from, a man's word is really all he can call his own. There is nothing more important. But it usually takes a gentleman to recognize its real worth.

This is Jim's house. Please respect it.

Let's show Jim the respect that he is due for his work, his vision, and the respect he has shown us by letting us in the inner sanctum to see and participate in the development of this revolution.

Jim, thanks for your candid and forthright response to Mikes letter.


Aloha,

Keith

 

[Keith Nealy]

Jonathan, I applaud your courage, and I agree with many of your statements.

Get your RED, start building your demo reel and your vision and create your career.

Whenever some kid comes to my studio and tells me they can do anything because of the film school they went to I ask, "But what have you actually done?"

Real world experience will be, IMHO, much more valuable to you and the people you work for.

Read this forum and others like it and learn from the best then go out and do it.

Rock on Jonathan... you're on the right track. Just believe in yourself.

aloha,

Keith

 

[dalemccready]

I'm with Keith Jonathan, if you're prepared to learn and pay for the experience, then I'd venture you'd be willing to work for free for experience on a production and it might turn out to be much more cost effective.

I guarantee you that if you ask to learn, and show enthusiasm, you won't work for free for long.

Film schools, other than providing access to equipment and a chance to experiment, are often best for figuring out exactly which job or part of the film making you'd like to make a living/learning in (or which you don't). If you already have some idea what dept would most suit you, get into it and don't look back, you'll get the chance to meet and learn from people's experience while creating your own.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Hey Keith,

Yeah you wouldn't believe how crappy the last batch of student thesis films were, my god. It was embarrassing. When people talk about the camera just being a tool, they really should go see thesis films, because you will never find a truer example of that! The stories are mostly just god-awful! Not to say the technical aspects are great, but at least half of them I thought had good sounds, good picture, and overall the technical merits were certainly not bad for student work. But I was left thinking, "...and? What was the message I was meant to take from this? Was I just supposed to be entertained? I guess I was... somewhat entertained." Although the 24-minute slasher was the worst, figures the worst film would also be the longest. It had no extras, and yet it was set in a high school and at a party. It's really tough to make a convincing movie with FOUR actors It looked like it was shot on a 1 CCD camera, no idea what they used, the editing was hilarious, like literally there would be a line of dialogue, in the middle of one of the words, the film would cut to a completely different location, then cut back for the second half of the word. I've seen 12-year-olds do better work.

Basically from what I understand, the industry doesn't care where you went to film school, they care what your reel looks like and what you actually have done in the industry. I think for me hands-on experience and just getting out there and doing as many projects as possible is the right approach because of my extensive background in theory already. I graduated summa cum laude from OSU with a philosophy degree, took seven classes in film history and criticism there, I ran a film review site for years where I wrote more than 600 reviews, and I've written two books on the industry (Anticipation by Jonathan L. Bowen is available on Amazon.com, the second book comes in late summer and is called Revenge). So for me, I'm honestly ready to be a filmmaker and not just a film theorist. I love and appreciate film history, that is my background, but now it's time to get out there and start doing.

It's exciting but also scary. I think we have a nice team, though. My friend David is a wealthy guy, comes from a background in business, and has lots of contacts (we're interested in starting by focusing on the Persian market because David speaks four languages, he's Assyrian, and has many Persian friends in the music industry). My friend Brendan is a computer wizz and a very strong editor already, although he wants to learn much more. I'm a solid writer and interested in becoming a director (much to learn, but I really think that by reading as many books on cinematography and directing as I can find, and doing as many projects as I can get, I will learn the old-fashioned way). Between the three of us we have a lot of areas covered, although none of us are strong at cinematography to be honest. We all want to learn as much as possible; it's a weak spot. I understand the theoretical setups of camera shots, rules not to violate, and a lot of that good stuff. I don't understand more complicated filmmaking techniques involving the camera, and I don't understand more complicated lighting setups. I was hoping to work some solid DPs here in the next six months and maybe have them help us.

Another idea we had is to make projects, take them seriously, produce the best work possible, then pay a few professionals to watch what we have and criticize the end results so that we can figure out everything we did wrong. I still think all of this can be done for less than the $85,000 we would have paid at the film school...

PS: Yeah we're all absolutely interested in working on productions for free to learn how the process works and help in whatever ways possible. David and I have substantial financial resources (our partner Brendan does not), not obviously unlimited, but enough that we don't need to worry about finding jobs, but for us it's about the learning process. We just want to learn as much as possible and working on real productions seems to be a quite practical way to do that! It's not about the money. That's a nice bonus for later.

 

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Do or Do Not, there is no Try

Do or Do Not, there is no Try

I think you are spot on about Film School Dalemccready, The whole "digital revolution" of which RED will be the new high point, is about empowering us to get out there and make work just because we want to make it. Though of course that's not to say that loads of teaching is not still very valuable to students.

If (WHEN!) the RED team produce a camera that can be mass produced, then it'll change my filmmaking life. That's why I put my money down without having even seen the camera (I live in London, UK). And that's why I'm spending MUCH more than I normally would on camera, lenses, tripod...

I also think that they are absolutely right to take the time to tweak that board to get the maximum possible dynamic range and the lowest possible noise from the camera. It's not about emulating film, it's about imitating reality, and from what I've seen RED does that very well. IMHO Film has always done it better than digital up to now; I suspect it's as much to do with Film's response to light and colour as a simple question of resolution.

Respect to Jim and his talented team. If they fail then I'll still respect them for having tried. But if they succeed, as I know they will, then they'll have given all of us filmmakers a great gift. I'm really looking forward to seeing the films that all the users of this board make when they get their cameras. Maybe we shoud have a festival: "RED DANCE" lol

 

[dalemccready]

Crikey Jonathan, you seem to have the resources and the background. What are you waiting for? Why don't you just write something and go shoot it?

 

[Zk2007]

I frankly couldn't care less about arguments relating to the quality of film and digital right now, because my opinion is set that digital is vastly superior,

Vastly?
Well, you have big words there, including pre-offending any possible posters that may disagree with you. Quite immature if you ask me, but anyways.
Digital is great, is cheap and is practical and I love shooting digital and want my RED.
But film is better than digital. That’s a fact! Not even your “super vision” can change that.
Well, OK, when you say film and digital you need to specify what you really mean. Film is super8, 16mm, S16, 35mm, S35, IMAX? Digital is 720p, 1080, 2K, 4K?
I would think you mean 35mm/S35, because IMAX is so above and superior to digital right now that there’s not even discussion.
So for 35mm/S35, RED apart, because I haven’t seen anything from it enough to judge it yet and I’m not going to judge the camera based on a few seconds of compressed 1K footage, there’s no digital camera today that exceeds 35mm quality. Yes, digital has other advantages besides quality, but quality wise 35mm is still king. As I said, RED apart as it can’t be compared yet. Soon it may change.
About your comment on Revenge of the Sith, quite honestly, IMO, it’s the poorest example you can give for digital. It was full of soft spots, noise, artificial looking skin tones and all sort of artifacts, simply because the image was so pushed. Movies shot with the Genesis look much better than any movies shot on the Sonys.
I shoot digital and can’t afford film. But just because all you can afford is digital, that doesn’t make film worse.

and has been since the Sony F950 -- if you want to tell me that Revenge of the Sith didn't look better than any movie you've seen in 35mm, then I say you're full of crap and didn't see the movie I did. Plus, I have 20/12 vision, almost twice what the normal person has (thanks, LASIK), so I know what I saw and it was better than film anyway. And yet the RED is better than that. The reason that argument doesn't even matter to me is because the cost of film is too prohibitive for me to use it anyway. So who cares even if film was a bit better? It's a stupid argument. I know a lot of people who have used film for decades are used to it and think it's normal, but to me and a lot of people new to the industry, it's frankly an absolute joke. This isn't 1945. This is 2007. There's no way I should be screwing around with BS 100-year-old analog crap when everything else is digital. The "organic beauty of celluloid film" is such a hoax I cannot understand it. The reason Citizen Kane was voted #1 by the AFI is because it overcame the limitations of film by having deep focus cinematography that was revolutionary, and yet somehow the terrible lack of deep focus in most movies is seen as a benefit to film? And the awful grain is also somehow really a great bonus of shooting in film? Wow. Yeah alright, I guess the typewriter is really better than the computer because it's much better to have to redo an entire document when you make one typo. I'm sorry but no thanks. When old-timers stop seeing flaws as benefits, they'll "get it." I don't have any problem with many shots being in complete focus throughout, ala Star Wars, I prefer to have a background to look at and visual interest that lasts many viewings. Audiences now aren't so stupid that they can't figure out where to look unless you ruin the shot by making only one thing in focus. That isn't the way the eye sees, and I prefer realism. Also, Avid isn't the industry standard. Avid WAS the industry standard, five years ago. I have spoken with enough professionals who work in the industry, and by that I mean in anything related to moving pictures, and I've heard that Avid has about a 60% share of filmmaking right now and Final Cut has a 60% share of broadcast work. Sun Microsystems does NOT use Avid, they use Final Cut and only Final Cut. Every Avid editor I've talked to who has since learned to use Final Cut thinks Avid is a piece of s**t, which it is, in fact, a total piece of s**t that can't compare to Studio 2 on any level whatsoever. Especially when Color is adapted from a much more expensive program that was never available on a consumer level.

Film vs. digital and Avid vs. Final Cut are the same arguments -- traditionalists who refuse to accept the facts versus people who have no sentimentality and just care about the efficiency and quality of the finished product.

A film school that focuses mainly on film and Avid, and charges almost $40,000 for tuition yet cannot buy a single professional steadicam, doesn't have reservations on the RED, has too few HD cams for its students, and has staff who mostly graduated from the school itself in the last 5 years, is not a place that is worth attending.

I can't wait until I get my RED, and my partner David has the RED on order too, so our company will have 2 REDs, the LAFS will have zero. That's pathetic. Already my sound effects library is better than theirs, my lighting kit is better than anything they have, and both of those were less than $1,000 each. Rip-off, big time.

It was a happy day getting my money back today, but not nearly as happy as when my RED comes. Sure, it's "just" a tool, but it's a tool that elevates the professionalism of our company by a large magnitude. It's the type of equipment that gives you back-up options. I'm sure it will not be a problem if I have no work lined up to rent my camera to an independent production and attach myself as a camera operator for an absolute minimum of $500 per day. I doubt that with a prime lens set I'd charge anywhere near that low of a price, considering I've seen some of the companies that plan to charge ridiculous sums for just renting the camera. In any case, it may be a tool, but it's a very powerful one.

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

How is it a fact that film is better than digital? Really, how is it?

I never wanted to get into one of these 'arguments' persay, but HOW is it a fact?

When you take film to post, you digitize it anyways, color correcting and color grading all DIGITALLY, providing visual effects DIGITALLY, and most theaters now are even projecting DIGITALLY. With a sensor that records 4k, very close to film acquisition, and is already digitized to highly optimized files, there is no way in hell you can't push both the digital and film image to the same maximum.

There may be different hardware and software workflows that may prevent this, but I have not seen or read one single proof that film is better than digital that has made me make up my mind.

It's old vs. new. Industry professionals are so far in the comfort zone of film that it's hard for them to turn back and see the future. I truly believe that, and even our boy JonathonLB believes that.

Maybe it's more rewarding for cinematographers and directors to see their final product AFTER processing, hoping they got the right exposure and the lighting and DOF were all the way they wanted, rather than see what they shot IMMEDIATELY after capturing to an on-board HDD or flash.

Proof...for some reason we need a lot of it in order for this debate to finally settle.

Fact...for some reason it doesn't seem that facts are read or seen the same way by two different people.

 

[david farland]

Biggest difference I'd throw in is film has more range (and weights this in the right area for HVS) in colour saturation and luminance. Most people grow up seeing a greater range in film based shows/movies at 24/25p than video. Particular film saturations with greater dynamic range is our level/benchment for goodness!! Most of the time video based images have been a poor cousin for these elements. This is changing and my 5 years old is growing up with a lot of good quality digitially sourced footage. He'll see this getting better and if film doesn't change (it will thou), he'll look as film based shows as rich and different but digitial content will be his usual fare. Grain/reduced resolution don't even rate here except as artefacts/elements in a filmic (suspension of reality) story which again, as we're used, is just another look.
Please can we argue about fcp/avid/mac/pc/tape/ford/pirelli/pal/democrats etc etc instead!!

Cheers,

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

I typed in a long response here and it didn't end up posting....so nevermind! I can talk about it forever.

 

[David Dennis]

I really didn't want to waste my time on this... BUT

(Jim's rebuttal)

I realize you don't know me, and I know I'm insignificant in this context because I can't afford a RED camera of my own. But the RED story of you finding something you really wanted, and building it yourself instead of just griping about it not existing, is very inspirational to me.

I just wanted to say that I'm very impressed by your openness, and feel that in the end it will pay off for you. I really enjoy reading this board, even though I don't have the bucks to be a real player, because I just like seeing someone who's putting something together that will give both himself and many others great joy.

Hopefully your RED Mini will come out on a more affordable price point and I'll pick one up. But until then I wanted to express my hope for your continued success, integrity and pursuit of perfection. Those are amazing goals and I know you are working very hard to reach them.

I have total confidence in your success.

D

(PS Do your rain/stain resistant Oakley lenses work for normal light prescription glasses in ordinary conditions? If so, I should really buy a pair.)

 

[Medavoym]

Dear Jim,

Apologies accepted. Accept my apologies as well if my post went further than I wanted to. I didn't call your honesty into question, on the contrary, I was (and have been) laudative of the whole open process you initiated and so I wanted to point the ONE slip-up that I thought (and actually still think) was worth pointing out. Also, I hope my post was clear and respectful in conveying this idea. Since you say I was wrong, case closed. Things definitely went too far for my taste.

Good luck,
Mike

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

You know, I'm pretty sure I could write a full paragraph on Genital Herpes and someone on here would find a way to dovetail it into a digital vs. film debate!



Jay

 

[tj williams]

Jay
It's true you know touching film can give you Herpes' However touching digital media can give you Chronic justification disease! The only cure is Lighting!!!

 

[Alex Boothby]

Jay, it is a proven fact that the dynamic range and resolving power of film is necessary to capture the rich textures and subtle tonal palette of GH...

[link removed]
Dude... really? ~Brook

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's true you know touching film can give you Herpes

This kinda adds a whole new dimension to the term, "crusty old DP"....

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Jay, it is a proven fact that the dynamic range and resolving power of film is necessary to capture the rich textures and subtle tonal palette of GH...

[link removed]

Dude.. I so did NOT NEED TO SEE THIS LINK



Jay

Fair warning guys, it's gross.. Stay away

 

[Alex Boothby]

Yes that was wrong.... very very very wrong... I blame google.