What expensive camera obsessions are doing for filmmaking

[Andrew Reid]

[html]

It is not a major announcement to all filmmakers at all!

[/html]

[Guest Koo]

[html]

As ujojazvec and carsonbenett say above, I’ve noted that I’m NOT spending Kickstarter funds on the camera:

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/democratizing-and-canon-beating-red-scarlet/comment-page-1/#comment-117075

You’re welcome to your own opinion, but I’d appreciate it if you correct the post. You owe me that much if you’re bringing me up.

And yes, it’s absolutely an investment — call it “business” if you want, but every single one of us supports ourselves through “business” decisions. The roof over my head and the food on my plate costs money, and so I have to calculate whether these things are wise in the long-term. For me, the SCARLET makes sense, not just for my forthcoming feature, but for a number of long-term plans.

“Hell knows why he felt he needed it. It is like a guitarist joining a band and immediately feeling the need to splash $10k on a guitar and $4k on an amp before writing songs and jamming with his band members.”

Usually if a band is going to take on a new guitarist, it’s because that guitarist can PLAY. And if that guitarist is giddy about the new band and goes to buy some new gear, I for one would expect the band to be excited for him. Then again, people can always hate.

[/html]

[Guest RyanDeFranco]

[html]

Low budget feature: makes no sense to buy a Red if your budget is tight. Rent or hire a DP with the camera and aesthetic you want. By the time you finish post-production another camera will hit the rumor boards.

Independent DP: Are you buying this camera to prove to yourself and the world you’re professional? Or do you have a targeted business market, network of clients, and financial support required to back up the commitment?

I think a lot of us fall somewhere in between those two sentences. There are successful production companies doing just fine with DSLRs. The low-fi look Andrew mentioned can be beautiful. But 13.5 stops of dynamic range, RAW workflow, 4K resolution, and the ease of pulling stills–all this makes so much sense for someone shooting fashion, branded content, music videos and shorts in New York. That’s why I put my deposit down on Red.com.

When my steadicam footage is mostly mud because the 7D codec can’t keep up… when the multi-billion dollar client sees moire all over an escalator… when I have to justify the GH-1 for literally. every. single. job….

well, then, the $20,000 I saved from working my ass of as a 1st AC and lighting tech goes where it belongs.

[/html]

[Guest nitsansimantov]

[html]

LOL have you seen the video quality of the 4s? it’s amazingly terrible.
Sorry just had to correct you on that. But yes if you can get away with DSLRs/SLTs etc for many jobs.

——–

Great article EOS HD!
I agree with what you’re saying, but on the other hand when it comes to pro work sometimes small details (like moire) can make a big difference.

[/html]

[Guest sixways]

[html]

By your own statement, I think it’s safe to say you don’t know what bias is. Someone buying a product, while stating an opinion on a competitor of that product, doesn’t make them biased. It means they chose one over the other. Bias would be in the way they made that decision, and Koo says nothing in his post to make one think his decision was biased.

Congratulations on perpetuating the stereotype of “person on internet who casually throws the word bias around”. Admittedly FelixC has fallen foul of this as well – I wouldn’t expect RED coverage on EOSHD. But separately from that, honestly I think the fact that the more expensive Canon camera was covered in detail, and then the less expensive Scarlet badmouthed (not just not covered), does look a lot like bias. I get the feeling that if someone like Koo had said “Hot damn! This new $20K Canon camera is amazing, and I’m buying one!” then this article would not be talking about it.

Plus, Koo never said Canon was dead. He said they’d dropped the ball on this product. Which frankly they have.

[/html]

[Guest sixways]

[html]

@Andrew: He didn’t say it was “a” major announcement to all filmmakers, he said it was “the” major announcement. As in, of the two, the RED announcement is bigger. He wasn’t saying it was necessarily, in absolute terms, a major announcement.

Besides that, I think you could do with backing up your claim that it’s not. I personally think it is a pretty major announcement, and certainly bigger than the Canon one.

You claim that the Canon announcement is more interesting because it involves new tech which will trickle down. Firstly, there’s no new tech here worth talking about frankly. We all knew sharp 1080p24 with no aliasing and less rolling shutter was possible. Secondly, the RED announcement IS tech trickling down; suddenly cinema quality 4K and RAW-like workflow is within reach of indies. Canon’s tech may trickle down later, but you’re seeing it happen right now with RED.

EDIT: For the record, no I’m not a RED fanboy. I have a Canon 550D which I adore and is my main camera for stills and movies. All of the above is well out of my reach and for my money, DSLRs are still absolutely where it’s at.

[/html]

[Guest bobwall]

[html]

This issue is true in EVERY industry/hobby/sport/activity that has gear. It’s simple: all it takes to acquire a piece of equipment is money. Getting good at something requires time/effort/talent/skill/hard work/pain etc. Most people, when faced the choice of the two, choose to spend money, and feel that that gets them more involved/pro/serious about the activity.

[/html]

[Guest hdslr4ever]

[html]

Its not about hate.

Honestly if you’re not out there already making shorts/movies/anything already and thinking that a 15-20$ camera i your salvation you will NEVER make it as a filmmaker.

You could make the same movie on a GH2 yesterday or on the Scarlet tomorrow, but the audience does not care if your flick is shot with expensive/cheap gear. At the end of the day its all about connecting emotionally with your audience and that is PRICELESS.

[/html]

[Guest kylevan tonder]

[html]

Nice to see you there Koo [img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Personally, I find it disgusting that you’d bash other bloggers like this. I did back Koo on kickstarter, and even if had bought the Scarlet with the money I would have not worried one bit because I know he’ll use to the utmost extent for years to come.

Secondly, you seem to be ranting a lot about this “Filmmakers and Camera” issue. I don’t disagree, I actually agree. I used to do it all the time (on forums, etc) but I got over it because I realized that it won’t help. Let everyone else think that cameras will make their movies, while I work ahead using it as a tool to supplement my creativity. And if you don’t believe me you can watch my last short – it’s one of the most non-commercial narrative ventures you’ll ever come across in any short: http://vimeo.com/25270591. I’m a NARRATIVE filmmaker, and I respect and learn from the great narrative films and filmmakers from the past. Other’s don’t, and that’s their problem – and you’ll always get those “filmmakers”.

[/html]

[Guest sixways]

[html]

Do you know who Koo is?

If I’ve read your comment wrong, and you do know who Koo is, and your comment is not aimed specifically at him, then I’m wondering what your point is. Certainly “thinking that a 15-20$ camera is your salvation” is stupid, but that’s irrelevant when someone’s arguing the relative merits of a camera, in the knowledge that it doesn’t change the need for a high level of craftsmanship.

[/html]

[Guest OverCranked]

[html]

@ Koo

i am not sure if YOU are doing the books for this project of YOURS or an accountant, but any body that has balanced a project book can remind you; YOUR OWN resources should be the first to be included in crowd-sourcing of YOUR project.
In another word before you spent the $20,000.00 ( hypothetical ) on YOUR scarlet,

YOUR project had $120,000.00 + $20,000.00 ( Hypothetical ) = $140,000.00 . This number represent the spending potential you had the day before yesterday.
If YOUR project fails or suffer from lack of funding for a few thousand dollars and you end up walking with YOUR scarlet you have cheated your share holders. They didn’t know you had $20,000.00 related spending powers and kept it out of the books.
i hate book keepers ! They are boring but numbers tell the truth if one is willing to understand the math.

[/html]

[Guest chrispahlow]

[html]

This article makes some good points but I find the comments about Koo to be a little ridiculous.

1) As others (including him) have pointed out, he did not use the Kickstarter funds to purchase the camera. Please correct your article.

2) I’m a backer of “Man-Child” and I would be more than happy if he actually did use those Kickstarter funds to buy the Scarlet. In fact, I’m a little disappointed that he didn’t. He’s going to be putting in so much work into the project without pay, would it really be that big a deal if he got to keep the camera? Would it really be a problem if he could keep producing great work on that camera? It’s not like he would be spending the entire $120k on diamonds or something.

3) If you actually read the Kickstarter page for “Man-Child” you would know that he explicitly stated that he wanted to shoot on a Red because of its ability to shoot at high speeds. How would he achieve the slow motion basketball shots without a camera like the Scarlet? Do you really think 720p60 is good enough for a feature film? If this isn’t spending money “on the actual film” then I don’t really know what is. If he was making an indie comedy then sure, maybe the Scarlet would be overkill. But he’s not. He’s making a sports film!

P.S. I’m about to start shooting my own first feature using a 5D and a 60D so please don’t accuse me of being a RED fanboy.

[/html]

[Guest christianwhite]

[html]

First, I agree with our moderator – I’ve seen some pretty bad film making done by people with all the toys …along with some pretty good work done with next to nothing – comes down to the talent involved. If it’s a good story then even pixel vision will work. And besides, I wouldn’t be bettin’ the farm on either solution at the moment….try them out. See what the results are. Or did some of us forget the first versions of certain things? What ?!? You did forget? Let’s just put it this way…first gen may look good on paper – but when it comes to being on a shoot where the sh##t is hitting the fan – is the gear WORKING? Every time ? Not trying to be a naysayer, just being realistic – I’ve been doing this a long time and I want to keep doing it for longer.

[/html]

[Guest IsleOfRed]

[html]

Generally 1080p24/25 is all you need for film making and most DSLRs are capable of achieving that. Many don’t even require one to take out a mortgage just to cover the cost.

However I will like to see a Hollywood film (or any other worldwide distributed film) to be shot on DSLR video.

[/html]

[Guest chrispahlow]

[html]

The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders. As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them. Even if the project “suffers” (whatever that means) it should make no legal difference to the crowdfunding participants.

I feel like your post kind of ignores the whole spirit of crowdfunding.

[/html]

[Guest bartvan der horst]

[html]

control over shallow depth of field isn’t worth that much money.

[/html]

[Guest OverCranked]

[html]

@ Koo

i am not sure if YOU are doing the books for this project of YOURS or an accountant, but any body that has balanced a project book can remind you; YOUR OWN resources should be the first to be included in crowd-sourcing of YOUR project.
In another word before you spent the $20,000.00 ( hypothetical ) on YOUR scarlet,

YOUR project had $120,000.00 + $20,000.00 ( Hypothetical ) = $140,000.00 . This number represent the spending potential you had the day before yesterday.
If YOUR project fails or suffer from lack of funding for a few thousand dollars and you end up walking with YOUR scarlet you have cheated your share holders. They didn’t know you had $20,000.00 related spending powers and kept it out of the books.
i hate book keepers ! They are boring but numbers tell the truth if one is willing to understand the math.

[/html]

[Guest stefanneubig]

[html]

There is are wonderful quote from Stanley Kubrick, which perfectly fits to this discussion:

“A filmmaker has almost the same freedom as a novelist has when he buys himself some paper.”

[/html]

[Guest bartvan der horst]

[html]

Red shaked everything up wich was a good thing.
The scarlett evolved from an indie camera promise into a much more expensive piece of equipment with a delivery delay that rendered every complaint about trainschedules in the world obsolete.
The canon 5d mark II was the unforseen answer to the Scarlet Promise.
Now the Scarlett is finally here, i think Red has became just another company that needs to be shaked up.
All I want is a canon 5d with no moire and xlr, i don’t believe that the solution of that problem is worth another 17.000 euros.

Red and Canon are targetting Hollywood over indie, i admit it hurts a little. But just a little.

Cheap camera’s are all about fun and being totally in awe because of the result.

High end camera’s are all bout postproduction and the fear of having no control over the result.

I knew than and i know now what my choice is and will be.

[/html]

[Guest kevinerhard]

[html]

{-[ The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders ] .. then what are they !?} – Well, since it is a donation they would be donators. They didn’t buy a share, so they are not share holders. Selling shares is much more complicated and involves SEC rules and regulations.

{-[ As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them ] … Deliver what ? Who will do the quality control ? Who will balance the BOOKS ?} The “goods” to be “delivered” are the donation perks listed on the project.

[/html]