PDA

View Full Version : Only tangentially about writing (new high spec digital cameras)


McDuff
04-22-2007, 09:21 PM
Many of you may not care one jot about this news, but sooner or later the implications of this will affect everyone in the movie industry.

At NAB07 last week, Red Cinema (http://www.red.com/) released a native 4K 35mm equivalent digital camera with a retail price of $17K, and Apple announced that FCPS2 would feature native "RedCode" support up to 2K if you have a big enough beast of a Mac to run it (2x2 cores will do, but Mac just announced a 2x4 core monster so, y'know, if you're pushing the boat out already...) Technogeek numbers make people's eyes glaze over, so here's something people might be interested in as far as how usable this is: Peter Jackson (http://www.fxguide.com/article420.html) (who has been known to make a film or two in his spare time) shot an 11 minute WWI short with an Alpha version of the Red One which was shown in 4K at NAB and has been more than happy to have his name associated with the project.

What does this mean for you, the screenwriter?

It means that top quality Indies just got cheap. A fully specced end-to-end (at least right up to digi distribution and HD-Broadcast/DVD mastering) capable independent studio can now be kitted out for less than $100K all in. That wasn't just unheard of ten years ago, it was unheard of three months ago. While people with multi-million dollar 35mm investments and bills to pay still quibble about consumers not liking the look of digital this has been largely debunked by those willing to take the chance. Remember that the three Star Wars prequels were shot on a HD camera that wasn't this good and cost about a zillion times more.

This is long-tail stuff. It's going to take some more years for this kind of technology to permeate fully, but the market for writers
of short films, quirky feature films that won't sell to broad distribution, documentaries, or that will sell to broad distribution but whose production costs (and therefore risks of investment) can be realistically considered to have dropped by 30-50% this year, and anything else that won't fit inside the normal Hollywood studio system just got a serious boost.

Got another Brick? Come June this kind of quality comes to the $250K end of the market and gets you a lot more for that money. Two or three years time and people with a Clerks budget will be shooting 4K 35mm and editing it together on their Macs at home.

Of course it all comes down to the stories. You can only get away with making ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag on this technology if your name is George Lucas. But this is getting close to the point where the Indies can look as good as the stuff coming out of Hollywood as long as the creative talent is there behind it. So the excuses for your film being unmade or bad are getting thinner. Is the story good? Is the talent there? Soon you won't be able to blame "the Hollywood System" for not recognising your talent any more.

I reckon most won't care about any of the technology here, but trust me, I know indie directors and producers, this is jeans-creaming territory for them. Pay attention to how it goes over the next few years, look at what's going where, and you may find you get your script onto screen via a route that you didn't think was even possible if you're prepared to take advantage.

Now, return to your regularly scheduled discussions about actual writery stuff.

Hillgate
04-22-2007, 09:57 PM
That's very interesting stuff: a friend in TV keeps telling me how the camera they used to use cost US$80,000 can the one they use now costs US$4,000 and is ten times better.

It makes the negative cost of the 'film'process much cheaper but there aren't many digital cinemas yet so it might still be 35mm reels out there and the attendant transfer cost for the next 3-4 years.

BUT the transfer costs are dropping.

This is a useful saving on a production budget and also great for dailies/rushes and speeding up post-production, although a final tranference to 35mm might up the cost a little. I think digital is very sensible. Actual film is delicate, can be ruined by a lab in processing and the distribution costs is heavy per print: digital projection is going to come soon and when it does the old 35mm camera will be like the vinyl LP: great for real buffs but not the masses.

Ragnarok
04-22-2007, 11:46 PM
I'd like to see the image quality you get with that camera. So far, it has been a big turn-off for me as a viewer.

Business wise, there's already way too many movies filmed. (I read recently only 5% of them are picked up for theatrical distribution). If you choose to go straight to DVD, I don't see the point having a 35MM equivalent.

McDuff
04-23-2007, 01:16 AM
4K HD kicks the shit out of 35mm film in purely spec for spec terms, and digital's upgrade path hasn't topped out like film's has. (here (http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/redfaq/film4.jpg) is a 2K scan of 16mm film, which is functionally equivalent to a 4K scan of 32mm film, and here are 2K (http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/redfaq/digital1.jpg) and 4K (http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/redfaq/digital2.jpg) images from the R1. Pictures taken from this thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487) on the RedUsers messageboard. Full disclosure - I am not affiliated with Brook Willard or Red in any capacity)

Where people talk about image quality is normally related to an ineffable "feel" which can be put down to a number of factors. HD is normally shot on CCDs that are smaller than 35mm, so the images have different depth-of-field characteristics to film photography (a fuller explanation of why it's not really depth-of-field is in Willard's FAQ-in-progress linked above). Video is also normally shot in "interlaced" mode, so that half the horizontal lines are filmed every other frame. NTSC, the standard of American SD TVs, is referred to as 60i -- 60 frames per second, interlaced. Film, though, is a series of discrete images flashed up one frame at a time, 24 times a second. This is known as "progressive" shooting, so you'll see a lot of digi cameras advertising "24p" or "25p" modes. This method of capturing images is much more "film like" and a lot closer to 35mm film. In short, an R1 capturing at 4k 24p will get an image with virtually identical DOF/FOV and framing characteristics as a 35mm camera, but with less noise and more effective detail.

The remaining differences are more due to the characteristics of 35mm and the fact that lots of people have found that they like the feel. HD is, for some people, a bit too detailed at 24p and some directors complain of excess "judder" -- the effect of a fast-moving section of the image moving too much in 1/24th of a second and thus creating unnatural and jerky movement on playback. However, film "cheats" anyway and plays back at a pseudo 48p rate, doubling up frames, and since most HD cameras can shoot 48p it is only projector technology that is preventing a workaround being implemented here. Film also "blows out" much more nicely than CCDs do at the moment -- overexposing digital tends to look like you've made a mistake and doesn't leave the creative room that 35mm does at the top end. However, digi is better at lower light levels, and you can fake blowouts in post which will fool most of the people some of the time. As with the rise of "analogue modelling" to simulate crusty old valves and transistors in software now that audio is de-facto digital, we can expect an increase in software designed to make your pristine HD video look convincingly noisy and blown out like you shot it on three year old reversal stock and left the iris two stops too high.

These are creative effects, though. As with audio, the times when film is better suited for a project than digi are now a minority of exceptions and not the rule, and it's cheaper and more convenient to boot. I, personally, have been waiting for this to happen for a good few years now.

As for the "straight to DVD" thing, that's the beauty of this. You can shoot exactly the same no matter what your end product is going to be, and if you get a distribution deal pull 35mm prints off the 4K/2K 24/25p original raw data. You can shoot as if it was a feature even if your existing deal is straight to DVD without increasing your costs. That's a tremendous benefit.

odocoileus
04-23-2007, 02:09 AM
Great posts, McDuff.

As fond as I am of film, I can easily see this technology as the preferred choice of low budgets and indies.

Plot Device
04-23-2007, 06:00 PM
Everything is ultimately driven by money. If digital is cheaper than film, it will (in the long run) prevail and film will fall by the wayside.

The only reason film will continue to hold out would be if too many people currently in the industry refuse to make the transistion. People get comfortable in their ways of doing things and resist change. I can honestly see fim professors shaking in their boots thinking "But I don't know HOW to teach digital technology! I only know how to teach FILM!"

But if the next generation of film makers goes exclusively to this technology, the old-timers will eventually get squeezed out over the course of time.

This IS the future.

Plot Device
04-23-2007, 06:11 PM
Of course it all comes down to the stories. You can only get away with making ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag on this technology if your name is George Lucas.

I currently cling to the rather arrogant assumption that the crafting of stories is probably the one thing no machine could ever do. I believe in my heart of hearts that only a human being can write a story.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe one day we will wake up and find that machines can write elaborate and original stories, and that they can do so in less than one day at a cost of about fifteen bucks (as opposed to six months with an advance of eighty-grand). And then we writers will be rendered as obsolete as accountants were when bookkeeping software was first introduced twenty years ago.

Maybe this is worthy of a new thread.



::EDIT::


Hah! here's my new thread!!


http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1285888#post1285888

McDuff
04-23-2007, 10:18 PM
This IS the future.
Not for much longer ;)

Rainy Night
04-24-2007, 12:49 AM
Yeah, but what if you don't have 100k to spend on your home studio... you can get a decent setup for much less right?

WarrenP
04-24-2007, 01:39 AM
I've done a fair amount of shooting on a Sony FX-7. While I like it quite a bit, I'm not that thrilled with the low light performance, so if you need to shoot in dimly lit environments, I'm not sure this is right for you.

I'll be shooting next on a Canon XH A1, which has much better low light performance.

For "low" end digital cameras, I think these are great. I cannot wait to see what kind of performance is out there just a few years from now...


BTW, I do all my editing (I'm no pro, just using the tools enough to be dangerous) with Sony Vegas 7 on a PC.

McDuff
04-24-2007, 07:44 AM
Yeah, but what if you don't have 100k to spend on your home studio... you can get a decent setup for much less right?

Sure you can, the Canon and Sony HD cameras are pretty good, and shooting for TV doesn't really need anything more than 1040/60i to tape anyway. But what you get with anything not 35mm is something that looks indie or artsy unless you've got a huge budget to back it up and cover over the differences in camera technology with other bells and whistles (See Lucas, George). Unless, that is, you take a digital sensor the same size and comparable resolution to a 35mm chunk of film and slap that behind some Cine glass. All of a sudden you're playing with the big boys, visually, and you're not giving Panavision your left nut for the privilege of using one of their cameras.

Plot Device
04-24-2007, 08:12 AM
Not for much longer ;)

Why not?

nielsty
04-24-2007, 01:06 PM
Why not?


Because soon it's the present

McDuff
04-25-2007, 01:01 AM
What he said.

small axe
05-11-2007, 05:03 PM
As for the "straight to DVD" thing, that's the beauty of this. You can shoot exactly the same no matter what your end product is going to be, and if you get a distribution deal pull 35mm prints off the 4K/2K 24/25p original raw data. You can shoot as if it was a feature even if your existing deal is straight to DVD without increasing your costs. That's a tremendous benefit.

The Future is shiny indeed, then. Cheap production gives access to both crap-meister and artform genius both ...

But big budget Hollywood is already force feeding the culture the first anyway, so it'd be nice to see the latter let in the game dimes-for-dollars.