|
NeuroticErotica posted:I hate camera lust. It's cart before the horse and people who get into it fight and fight and fight over nothing. The funniest thing about it is that people act like some other camera coming out is stopping them from buying the camera they think is the best. Its like when a sequel or remake comes out and people say it "ruins the original". Just dont loving see it. I think the whole 5D Mark II craze is going to bite a lot of people in the rear end but I could really care less because I know I wont be buying one. Steadiman posted:I've just tested the Epic for a 3d production, they are out there and shooting. If the iPad would let me upload images, I'd show you. Does that mean I'm the tooth fairy? Cause that's gonna cost me a lot of quarters and I'm not that rich! I don't wanna be a fairy How is the Epic? I havent heard any first hand accounts and I really trust your opinions. I read the poo poo out of the cinematography thread and learn a ton from it, especially you. Oh and I want to point this out to everybody  http://studios.amazon.com Amazon is basically bypassing Hollywood and going straight for the talent, almost as a farm system. I think this is personally genius and I plan on submitting a few scripts I have lying around.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:How is the Epic? I havent heard any first hand accounts and I really trust your opinions. I read the poo poo out of the cinematography thread and learn a ton from it, especially you. Here's some pictures though  . This is the righttps://wi.somethingawful.com/5f/5fc4a7bf3c770ab04b966e86af1b336402a53749.jpg And this is me operating it, impersonating the tooth fairy. Anyone who knows something about Steadicam balancing can take a pretty good guess at how heavy this thing is based on the amount of weight we had to add to the bottom and the length of the post! https://wi.somethingawful.com/13/13b5769ad0ed5522a76b080a4dffdaa0745b7015.jpg Steadiman fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Oh and I want to point this out to everybody Yea, I saw that last week and I ended up notifying my friends of it on Facebook. Spread like loving wildfire among them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Oh and I want to point this out to everybody It's great, except for the fact that any fuckwit with an Amazon account can alter your screenplay and if it does get developed you'll get no WGA credit or residuals. Genius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
So basically it's block of hot air that appeals to nothing but Jim Jannard's ego and a market that is being consumed from all directions but more cost effective or more establish camera companies. I stand by my original assumptions, tooth fairy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:It's great, except for the fact that any fuckwit with an Amazon account can alter your screenplay and if it does get developed you'll get no WGA credit or residuals. Genius. This is what I was thinking. It sounds like a nice way for studios to get some cheap scripts by having someone else do a lot of the work, and then the original writers get nothing near what they would have gotten had they gone the normal route. I guess perhaps its not bad if you just throw scripts out there that you don't care about in the hopes of winning some cash though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:(There are a ton of a people out there you have to compete with, but the funny thing Ive learned so far is that people are loving unreliable. Be the reliable guy, and it will get you places.) (If anyone is looking for a reliable gofer then fly me to wherever and I will live on the set and be your slave because I'm pretty bored with grad school/suburban living. I guess you'll also have to feed me/give me leftovers. I won't even waste time trying to hustle or network because this is about as tactful as I get.) Question: How do I make ^^^ happen? My early 20s seems like a good time to completely uproot my life and go do something backbreaking/cool-stories-to-tell-your-grandkids-creating. Working on a film set seems like it would be an interesting experience even if I'm not interested in being the Next Big Thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
the balloon hoax posted:(If anyone is looking for a reliable gofer then fly me to wherever and I will live on the set and be your slave because I'm pretty bored with grad school/suburban living. I guess you'll also have to feed me/give me leftovers. I won't even waste time trying to hustle or network because this is about as tactful as I get.) Film sets are never actually that interesting, protip; there's far more waiting around on set than actual filming. Your impression of the job is as far away from reality as it gets, no one is going to fly someone over at their own cost because we desperately need someone to hold a ladder steady. While enthusiasm is always welcome, film production never really looks like the making ofs that usually hide how stressful projects can end up to health and personal relations. To use Steadiman as a loose guide, for every awesome story about haunted houses and being run over by wheelchairs there's endless frustrations of equipment breakdowns, PC's loosing their poo poo and directors loosing their poo poo and producers coming in just to push pens and directors around as they fear massive cost overruns. (BTW Steadiman where did your stories end up, they were a great read) It takes dedication to keep going in this industry. Sadly you don't just rock up at a studio with a smile and end up learning it as you go along, you need training to learn how to conduct yourself on a set. To really turn your stories from "I was on a set for one day and I got yelled at for bringing coffee thirty seconds late, so I had a cry and left" to "Look at what I helped to create" get some training somewhere, it will get you contacts and all of the rest. And as always have a career goal in mind, a gofer, runner, assistant, standby or whatever misc job laddie you end up being is not a day to day job unless you work at a TV studio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Your impression of the job is as far away from reality as it gets, no one is going to fly someone over at their own cost because we desperately need someone to hold a ladder steady. WebDog posted:Sadly you don't just rock up at a studio with a smile and end up learning it as you go along, you need training to learn how to conduct yourself on a set.  e: Having said that, if you know any irate c-list directors looking for a gofer slave, I'll fly myself out. As long as I can steal some of the catering. just another fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Nov 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
the balloon hoax posted:But I'm not interested in a career or a good experience. I kind of like the idea of some C-list sitcom director throwing hot coffee in my face because I didn't de-crust his PB&J. Then after I've burned out I can go back to school and get my PhD. I like my idea of my penis being used to paint highway lines but it ain't gonna happen nor is it anything like you'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Boring. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Oh and I want to point this out to everybody Yeah, it's kind of a bad deal, and more importantly, I doubt it'll go anywhere. First things first they've got NO idea how many scripts are going to pour in from the Mid-west that have basically NO idea how to put a movie together. A lot of "here's some cool poo poo that happens". Then some misguided actual screenwriters are going to send in... It's going to be a deluge. But here's the worst part - if you submit, you're giving up your script for 18 months and anybody can rewrite it. 18 months is a long loving time. It takes long enough to write a script, but once you do you have an asset that you can (possibly) make money with. To give that away for a year and a half with no money is loving insane... Look, I could write a big thing on it like I've written a big thing on everything else in this thread, but lemme just direct you to John August who's written extensively about it... http://johnaugust.com/archives/2010/on-the-amazon-film-thing http://johnaugust.com/archives/2010/the-amazon-film-thing-ctd http://johnaugust.com/archives/2010/amazon-studios-round-three On the last one he points out that they already have 1000 scripts. That's a lot to get buried under from the get go. Every time something like this starts up people say "Oh, the NEW way movies are getting made!" but extremely rarely do these things produce a movie and I'm not sure one has ever put out a good movie. The lesson: Hollywood is good at making movies, they know what they're doing. People on the outside usually have no idea how hard this poo poo is. ToastyPotato posted:This is what I was thinking. It sounds like a nice way for studios to get some cheap scripts by having someone else do a lot of the work, and then the original writers get nothing near what they would have gotten had they gone the normal route. I guess perhaps its not bad if you just throw scripts out there that you don't care about in the hopes of winning some cash though? If you don't care about a script why should anybody else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
This may sound like a slightly bizarre and out-there question, but do any of you guys have experience with child actors? I ask because I have a history of volunteer and professional work with children and was massively soured on professional film work when I got a scrub job on a short film produced in Pinewood where I had to watch a typical 'stage mother' basically force her sobbing young daughter, at the end of a long days' shooting, to do another take despite both the director and AD insisting that it wasn't necessary. I mean, it shocked me so much I actually find it drat difficult to watch any child actor now. But yeah, just hoping you could assure me that not every experience with a child actor is that terrible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
Adrianics posted:This may sound like a slightly bizarre and out-there question, but do any of you guys have experience with child actors? Sounds right from my experience. A shoot recently a saw a dad chew into his 12 year old son because he wanted to go to the bathroom while the lighting crew was making adjustments. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
Flatscan posted:It's great, except for the fact that any fuckwit with an Amazon account can alter your screenplay and if it does get developed you'll get no WGA credit or residuals. Genius. NeuroticErotica posted:Yeah, it's kind of a bad deal, and more importantly, I doubt it'll go anywhere. Any screenwriter who is actually submitting work they REALLY care about to it is a loving moron anyways. The point is is that I have some scripts lying around that I am not into, wrote awhile ago, and wouldn't push to an agent anyways that I might submit. They arent bad and I put a lot of effort into them but I write a lot and they are on the bottom of my priority list. I also have a few that I guard with my life that I wouldnt even dream of submitting. Worse comes to worse I get $20,000 or $100,000 bucks out of the deal to put towards something substantial. This seems like a pretty harmless endeavor and Im honestly not surprised that people in the industry are rolling their eyes at it like they do every single "new Hollywood" idea. Listen, the current industry is on shakey ground, original work is not being produced(and if they are they arent making poo poo) and studios are basically turning into comic book companies. This is the LEAST of your worries. Give it a chance, you cant say whether its going to fail horribly or if some good things might come of it. Its a new idea and there are problems(the rewriting thing is just RETARDED) but I dont think its initial idea of using the internet as a type of farm system is crazy or cant ever possibly work. Times change, Hollywood has failed before and the internet is a whole new beast that has great potential. Stop being so attached to the old ways and open your mind a bit. Yes, the old ways work, they have forever and they work for a reason. But the knee jerk reaction "this is threatening" industry professionals have to this poo poo really gets to me. I love the old ways, I want to be an industry professional and Im putting in the effort to do it how its usually done, but that doesnt mean Im not interested in new ideas like this. I agree mostly with what you are saying NE, but I think as somebody who says things like "movies I like arent getting made anymore and it sucks" would be open to new ideas like this. There are also a lot of industry people involved in this so I dont know where you are getting the idea that Hollywood has nothing to do with this. edit: Im reading further on it and the details are reaaaaaaaallllyyyyy stupid but I still stand by that the initial idea is cool AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Nov 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:
I am pretty sure Amazon doesn't care if you care about your script, or it wouldn't be open to the public, let alone allowing the public to edit other people's submissions. That's what I meant. If you really care about something you've written, maybe Amazon's contest isn't the best way to go about pursuing production. If you are someone who has written many things however, some of which you have lost interest in, or if you are someone who can probably bang something out in a decent amount of time without it wrecking your normal life, then I'm thinking it doesn't hurt to just chuck it at Amazon and maybe win some cash. It is a good excuse to just write, some people need that extra motivation before they can make writing a habit. And if you make something you really like, then don't submit it, and keep working on it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Adrianics posted:This may sound like a slightly bizarre and out-there question, but do any of you guys have experience with child actors? I've actually got a ton of work with child actors. Every time I swear I'm not going to do it ever again and then I'm writing and there's some kids. It's a mixed bag. Some kids are smart, and ready to work. Some are ADD. Some don't want to be actors and it's all their parent's pushing them. That's kind of sad. But what's nice about that is that you can get the kid to do ANYTHING and the parents are cool with it. We improvised on set for one thing to where a 5-year-old girl would be testing cocaine. The parents loved it. I wasn't used to real show parents, just borrowing kids in the past so it was cool to not have to hide anything from them. I'll say this - usually working with a child actor is terrible. For the adults. They're tough to manage and I'm so glad I can give them back at the end of the day. the balloon hoax posted:e: Having said that, if you know any irate c-list directors looking for a gofer slave, I'll fly myself out. As long as I can steal some of the catering. I like this. I might hit you up when I get my shoot dates. Mozzie posted:I like my idea of my penis being used to paint highway lines but it ain't gonna happen nor is it anything like you'd imagine. You LIKE that idea? AccountSupervisor posted:Any screenwriter who is actually submitting work they REALLY care about to it is a loving moron anyways. And that's why they'll fail. If they're working with d-grade material that not even the writer cares about, then why should I care as a watcher? It's starting off on a bad foot already... AccountSupervisor posted:Its a new idea and there are problems(the rewriting thing is just RETARDED) but I dont think its initial idea of using the internet as a type of farm system is crazy or cant ever possibly work. Times change, Hollywood has failed before and the internet is a whole new beast that has great potential. Stop being so attached to the old ways and open your mind a bit. Yes, the old ways work, they have forever and they work for a reason. But the knee jerk reaction "this is threatening" industry professionals have to this poo poo really gets to me. I love the old ways, I want to be an industry professional and Im putting in the effort to do it how its usually done, but that doesnt mean Im not interested in new ideas like this. You can find people on the internet no doubt, but the internet is really bad at collaborating, focusing, keeping attention and follow through. AccountSupervisor posted:II agree mostly with what you are saying NE, but I think as somebody who says things like "movies I like arent getting made anymore and it sucks" would be open to new ideas like this. There are also a lot of industry people involved in this so I dont know where you are getting the idea that Hollywood has nothing to do with this. I'm open to new blood coming into the system and new systems coming into place, but you have to go into the right way. They did like everybody else - the put the press release out there about how they're going to change the face of film before they even opened their offices. It's a good idea, I think they have no idea how they're going to do it. AccountSupervisor posted:edit: Im reading further on it and the details are reaaaaaaaallllyyyyy stupid but I still stand by that the initial idea is cool The devil's in the details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
Mozzie posted:So basically it's block of hot air that appeals to nothing but Jim Jannard's ego and a market that is being consumed from all directions but more cost effective or more establish camera companies. And if you keep calling me tooth fairy, I'm gonna give you $50,- and kick your teeth out! WebDog posted:... Adrianics posted:This may sound like a slightly bizarre and out-there question, but do any of you guys have experience with child actors? Fortunately it's not always like that and sometimes you get great kids with caring parents and a production that actually cares about the kids so they'll schedule around them and keep them entertained in down time. This way you'll get the best work out of the little time you have with the kid because they're not bored and not crying because mommy/daddy yelled at them. Much more productive. Ofcourse, some kids are just assholes. Steadiman fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Nov 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 11:43
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:You know what, I don't actually know. My first thread was in the goldmine but it disappeared from there and the second is probably in archives somewhere. You could probably find them but I barely remember when I made them so I have no idea where to look. Oh well. You made them in 2006. There was a PDF version of them floating around but the links so far are dead. Day in the life of a Steadicam operator http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1816759 Lights, Steadicam, Action; more tales from the movie biz http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1997326
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2010 12:35
|
|
|
Hah, awesome thread. I have a few questions myself: 1. I read about this "Red" camera thing in a few other topics (and here). But Wikipedia doesn't really tell me why it is a big deal. It's a digital camera, what's all the fuss about? 2. Me beeing an european (german), I wonder if there is any overlap with "our" work and yours. maybe not only european but non-US in general. Do they use american editing/SFX/whatever compamies? Are they poaching for US actors for their productions? How are foreign actors "injected" into the system? 3. Are big award shows a big factor in getting jobs? Are peoplemplaying it safe and are only people they know when they know they might be considered for an award of some kind? Or to make it easier to answer, are there fluctuations in available jobs for (relative) newbies trough the year corresponding to awards/important festivals/etc? 4. I might do my masters degree/phd in LA, is there any way to get a small job somewhere near the set (not cattle prodding extras, I want to see what's going on at the set) just to see how everything works? I have zero intention to work in this industry, but I am a huge movie nerd and I want so see how they are done. But I also don't want to take possible chances from people who could use a job like that to advance their careers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:Hah, awesome thread. I have a few questions myself: The Red camera shoots a really, really detailed image, more than the digital cameras before it. It's ok. It's made by the guy who founded Oakley, so the hype thing translated over. I remember how ridiculous it was. "So a red image is 4x better than 35mm - to prove this we will put it side-by-side with a shot of 16mm." People were fanatical about the camera before it was even out... People getting sucked in by hype. People would get it and not get decent lenses and stuff... The first days of the Red were crazy. People were itching to shoot and didn't have any decent scripts. Red's come into it's own, Social Network was shot on it and looked really nice. I think the best shot-on-Red film is Antichrist, myself. Bottom line - it's ok. The workflow's nice, they've fixed most of the problems that the early ones had and they're going to put a new one out soon supposedly. The Red hype got to be ridiculous because a lot of people care too much about what kind of camera something's shot on. People forgot that the camera needs to fit the movie, not the other way around. Popelmon posted:2. Me beeing an european (german), I wonder if there is any overlap with "our" work and yours. maybe not only european but non-US in general. Do they use american editing/SFX/whatever compamies? Are they poaching for US actors for their productions? How are foreign actors "injected" into the system? It's kind the other way around. For VFX there's a lot of people outsourcing the work to Mexico and whatnot. It's kinda crazy. They work cheap though. As for overlap with European movies... sort of? American movie stars are pretty much THE movie stars. Few places have movie stars that still have star power outside of their own borders. I'm sure some back and forth goes on with post houses and whatnot, but I imagine most of that is in-country or at least in-continent. Popelmon posted:3. Are big award shows a big factor in getting jobs? Are peoplemplaying it safe and are only people they know when they know they might be considered for an award of some kind? Or to make it easier to answer, are there fluctuations in available jobs for (relative) newbies trough the year corresponding to awards/important festivals/etc? I'm not really sure what you're saying here... For newcomers Awards aren't even considered, really. If a production is trying to win an Oscar, they're not going to hire a rookie to direct it. Popelmon posted:4. I might do my masters degree/phd in LA, is there any way to get a small job somewhere near the set (not cattle prodding extras, I want to see what's going on at the set) just to see how everything works? I have zero intention to work in this industry, but I am a huge movie nerd and I want so see how they are done. But I also don't want to take possible chances from people who could use a job like that to advance their careers. Cattle prodding extras is generally the work of the 2nd 2nd AD, so you won't even be in the running for it. You can get a job as a PA, which means you're mostly a runner. It'd be hard to get on a huge shoot like Transformers 3 or whatever, but you could probably get on some indie if you kept trying at it or were willing to work for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 09:55
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:1. I read about this "Red" camera thing in a few other topics (and here). But Wikipedia doesn't really tell me why it is a big deal. It's a digital camera, what's all the fuss about? Huge resolutions in small packages is the short word for it. The Red One can shoot 4k resolution with stunning clarity. IMAX stuff has to use film, very expensive film that can't hold much time, on top of the camera being very unwieldy. The RED cameras edge towards giving similar clarity but being far lighter and more accessible. However digital video by nature suffers from two main issues, one is the fact that what is shot isn't captured at once the CMOS chip scans line by line and as a result you end up with a rolling shutter effect where things moving very fast actually warp or if something like lightning goes off you end up with the frame being half lit and half not, known as tearing,due to sensors not being fast enough to adequately capture motion at all times. Yes rolling shutter issues appear on normal film cameras by film, but by their nature light burning into chemicals the instant it's exposed means 35mm doesn't suffer from tearing. The other is compression, even REDCODE can suffer from bits and pieces having artifacts. There are some major caveats with the RedOne cameras is that they're really just designed to be a one trick pony, that is 4k resolution with not much in the way of being forgiving as a camera, really long reboots and other little quirks in firmwares sort of steer me away. Plus the processing power needed to process 4K footage, even to make a low res version for editing is quite beefy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 10:06
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:Hah, awesome thread. I have a few questions myself: In the independent world, there is some overlap. As NE said, there is post work being farmed out from LA, and Germany is a popular destination for productions because of DFFF tax rebate as well as lander funding. (These are not always easy to access as Hollywood productions as films need to qualify as German or European). As far as talent in concerned, stars in a local country can get success in Hollywood, which acts like an attractor for talent, it's hungry for good people. for instance, Christophe Waltz is now in studio films, Marc Foster directs Hollywood projects, etc - although that degree of interplay is limited. I you are looking to sell or produce a film for the international market the American actors are generally the A-listers, with quite a lot of Brits too, some Canadians, and some Aussies. There are very few non-first-language-English-speaking A-list actors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
WebDog posted:Huge resolutions in small packages is the short word for it. The Red One can shoot 4k resolution with stunning clarity. This is whats wrong with red, stupid people who literally have no idea what they are talking about. FYI well exposed imax on a slow stock can resolve upwards of 10k+
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
WebDog posted:You made them in 2006. Popelmon posted:1. I read about this "Red" camera thing in a few other topics (and here). But Wikipedia doesn't really tell me why it is a big deal. It's a digital camera, what's all the fuss about? It creates a market for people purely buying based on tech-spec brochure bullet points and that market is filled with ignorance. I've seen a film student argue with an academy award winning, ASC member, DP about how the RED would've made his shots so much better, quicker, and easier if only he got out of the stone age and dropped his 35mm preference. This dude had never even actually worked with the RED but chose to believe what the brochure, written to sell the thing, and the Internet said over what this 30+ year veteran DP said. The DP in question wasn't even anti-digital, he's shooting his new film on the Alexa. Now don't get me wrong, I am not anti-RED. In fact, I DP'd two features on it. I am, however, allergic to the incredibly biased debates it always seems to trigger (film is dead, greatest camera ever, makes anything look good, grows your penis 4"). It's always pointless and people are too stubborn to change their minds on either side. What it boils down to is very simple, it's a box that takes pictures just like all the other boxes that take pictures. What box you use isn't nearly as important as how you use it. Hype is stupid, brochures are gay, and resolution is not nearly as important over 2K as people think. Do your own research and tests before you decide what to use and always remember, it's just a camera and the camera only takes the picture that you tell it to take. If that picture looks like poo poo, it's not the camera's fault. Pick a camera for reliability first, everything else is secondary. Don't worry about it so much and you'll have much more fun shooting
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 12:11
|
|
|
Steadiman, are you at all familiar with the Red Epic? I only ask because apparently Peter Jackson will be shooting the two Hobbit movies on them, and has ordered thirty of them for the production. Is the Epic just a different kind of hardware on the same heavy rig?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
Timby posted:Steadiman, are you at all familiar with the Red Epic? I only ask because apparently Peter Jackson will be shooting the two Hobbit movies on them, and has ordered thirty of them for the production. Is the Epic just a different kind of hardware on the same heavy rig? Ordering 30 tells me they are completely unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
Herzog did My Son My Son on RED One and hated it. Is he right about it taking 4 minutes to load? That'd kill me.Herzog posted:Q: What about shooting digitally?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Herzog did My Son My Son on RED One and hated it. Is he right about it taking 4 minutes to load? That'd kill me. It's more like 60 -90 seconds, and you really only have to reboot when switching batteries (like every 2-3 hours.) And supposedly, on the EPIC (the new model that Peter Jackson is buying,) the boot-up time is only 9 seconds. NeuroticErotica posted:Ordering 30 tells me they are completely unreliable. He is shooting 3D, so it's more like 15. Two Worlds fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:46
|
|
|
I seem to remember that on Lord of the Rings he had like 6 units shooting at once sometimes, because there was just way too much ground to cover for the usual one or two to handle it. Jackson would be directing some serious dramatic scene but he'd have another guy shooting a bunch of random battle scenes, another guy up in a helicopter getting the scenery, another guy filming miniatures, etc. plus the behind-the-scenes documentary crews. Maybe every day wasn't like that, but occasionally there would be a ridiculous number of cameras rolling in different locations at once. With that in mind (plus the 3D thing) 30 cameras is less of a crazy figure. It also resulted in an insanely high shooting ratio, so going digital is a good move in that regard. Processing that much film had to be awful from both a time and money standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Nerd Of Prey posted:I seem to remember that on Lord of the Rings he had like 6 units shooting at once sometimes, because there was just way too much ground to cover for the usual one or two to handle it. Jackson would be directing some serious dramatic scene but he'd have another guy shooting a bunch of random battle scenes, another guy up in a helicopter getting the scenery, another guy filming miniatures, etc. plus the behind-the-scenes documentary crews. They were always shooting multiple units during principal on LOTR. Somedays it'd be two or three, and somedays it'd be six. It was insane. The Extended Edition documentaries go into heavy detail about this, including a very funny bit where the crew went to set up the satellite equipment as was their usual until they realized that Peter was actually directing that unit that day, so they didn't need to send it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
Timby posted:Steadiman, are you at all familiar with the Red Epic? I only ask because apparently Peter Jackson will be shooting the two Hobbit movies on them, and has ordered thirty of them for the production. Is the Epic just a different kind of hardware on the same heavy rig? penismightier posted:Herzog did My Son My Son on RED One and hated it. Is he right about it taking 4 minutes to load? That'd kill me. I've had it happen that the battery couldn't keep up with the power drain of all our accessories (though nothing more than usual) and would just lock up the moment you pressed the run button. Or it would crash because the Lockit wasn't perfectly in sync. These kind of things are horribly annoying when you have an entire cast and crew standing by and the time lost to stuff like this adds up. Fortunately the battery running down can be solved with hot-swapping the battery but all the other problems are unpredictable. Another hugely annoying thing of the bootup is that it used to just display a logo on a black screen for the whole sequence, so you couldn't do anything while it was booting. After many complaints that people wanted to at least see a picture so they could continue framing up, RED gave in and a picture comes up almost immediately on boot. Awesome, right? Well no, because RED is so petrified that you'd maybe forget what you're shooting on, that picture gets filled with a fullscreen RED logo. Making it essentially useless. So there's really not much you can do during booting. Very silly. Two Worlds posted:He is shooting 3D, so it's more like 15. Edit: I'm sorry NE, I feel like this is slowly turning into another RED thread. Didn't mean to help derail this into a camera thread. Edit edit: while I'm here, may as well ask a question myself. I'm trying to expand my market into the whole web 2.0 scene but I'm just not hip enough to fully use it all, I have a Twitter (though I haven't used it much lately), Facebook profile, several Steadicam and crew sites profiles, and a LinkedIn profile with several recommendations on it. Are there any other avenues I could be exploring to expand my network? Cause so far I haven't really had much return for the effort, which has led me to kind of give up on updating all that crap. Is it worth it? Steadiman fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 11:47
|
|
|
Whenever people get excited about the Red I always feel compelled to bring up Weavers Rock, a really lovely (unfinished) local miniseries that had everyone on-set pumped because gently caress yeah we're shooting on the Red. It's always seemed like a good living example of why a good camera doesn't make a good film. Shooting in 4K won't make you less of an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Weavers Rock
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
That is still my all-time favourite thing that's ever been posted here. It's fascinating!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Nerd Of Prey posted:It also resulted in an insanely high shooting ratio, so going digital is a good move in that regard. Processing that much film had to be awful from both a time and money standpoint. I don't know anything about huge-budget productions, so I really wonder about how logistically better or worse high res workflows are. The amount of processing involved to create easily-edited work prints from something like 4k raw sounds like it'd be colossal. If you're dealing in 100's of hours of footage, I feel like sending out 35mm to a lab or 4k to a processing bank doesn't make much practical difference. Am I wrong? Because I'm very curious about this. I've only dealt with the RED One on one shoot (a student shoot, no less, which seemed like overkill.) The footage looked beautiful, and was definitely cheaper than 35mm would've been for the same applications. But, they seemed committed to doing the post themselves on a consumer Mac running FCS. That process was probably a bitch and a half. I would've decided, "gently caress this," and just shot it 1080p on a less ornery camera. I'm still a huge fan of the RED in principle, though. Does anyone know how good Final Cut's REDCODE plugins, or that RED internal card, actually are? I've never used them or seen them used. Xealot fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Edit: I'm sorry NE, I feel like this is slowly turning into another RED thread. Didn't mean to help derail this into a camera thread. It happens. Red is a curiosity, still, for a lot of people. It was bound to come up, esp. with the Peter Jackson connection. Steadiman posted:Edit edit: while I'm here, may as well ask a question myself. I'm trying to expand my market into the whole web 2.0 scene but I'm just not hip enough to fully use it all, I have a Twitter (though I haven't used it much lately), Facebook profile, several Steadicam and crew sites profiles, and a LinkedIn profile with several recommendations on it. Are there any other avenues I could be exploring to expand my network? Cause so far I haven't really had much return for the effort, which has led me to kind of give up on updating all that crap. Is it worth it? Twitter and Facebook have been great for me, but I stay on that poo poo. LinkedIn doesn't really work for me, I keep it somewhat up to date, but I don't know anybody who really goes on there looking for people - not in this field anyways. Magic Hate Ball posted:Weavers Rock I, uh, oh my... Xealot posted:If you're dealing in 100's of hours of footage, I feel like sending out 35mm to a lab or 4k to a processing bank doesn't make much practical difference. Am I wrong? Because I'm very curious about this. Post on a Red isn't that bad, and I definitely prefer it to the workflow of dealing with a HDSLR. Performance-wise Redcode is decent, although, I hear some things about it not rendering too well, but that I'm not too sure on. Either way, between Redcode or converting to Prores, a Red is definitely editable on a consumer Mac with FCS, I've done it on the mac I'm posting this on. NeuroticErotica fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Hahaha oh sit, sorry about this huge RED derail  But things like this aren't AT ALL obvious to people outside of the scene. Is thera anything similar going on? I mean some possibly groundbreaking (or not) new thing in...sound or whatever? So, someone mentioned the RED one beeing used in an indy shoot. Somebody else mentioned the 5D/DSLR beeing used in an indy shoot/high profile TV show. How big is the serparation from indy/amateur stuff to professional stuff these days? Is it bigger than like 5 years ago? I always hear about these easy video/audio editing softwares and cheap cameras that are close to pro niveau etc. Has the hardware gap between pro and amateur closed in the last years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:Hahaha oh sit, sorry about this huge RED derail Nah, I'm good with the Red derail - it's what people want to know about. Informing people about the various pros/cons of the new cameras plus their ins/outs is fine. The page after page posting charts, false equivalencies, yelling, outrage over nothing gets just frustrating. Then it gets into film vs. video with people who will never shoot anything and it's just... ughhhhhhhhh.... The 5DmkII was used on the season finale of House last year... and not since. Which I think is telling. I think the HDSLR crowd is more annoying than the Red crowd. The Red crowd at least is pretty good with the ideas of resolution and whatnot... The HDSLR crowd is more of an outsider trying to come in and rearrange the world sort of thing... It doesn't quite work. I read an article a couple of months where I guy claimed "The Mass Exodus from from Final Cut Pro to Premiere 6 has begun" - why? FCP won't handle the AVCHD files that HDSLRs shoot to, so it must be useless! I think HDSLRs are fine for practice and shorts and stuff, learning, etc. I wouldn't shoot a feature on them. We were budgeting a project and somebody brought up using one as a cost saving measure. I drew a line in the sand. They're not ready for the main event, so to speak. I've shot on one and the moire problem is loving ridiculous. I think a lot of people would be remiss to use these things if it was a third party hack instead of the manufacturer hacking them to work this way. What do you mean the separation from indy/amatuer stuff to professional? In terms of equipment? First things first - a lot of indy people ARE professionals. This is how we make our livings. Indies have often been able to use the same equipment as big-budget studio crews, but with smaller crews or smaller actors or pulling a poo poo-ton of favors, etc. I can make a list of indie features shot on the Red - which was also used in Antichrist (Best red photography if you ask me) and The Social Network. Sometimes we get cranes and A-list actors, all sorts of stuff happens. But some indies have bigger budgets - technically Terminator: Salvation is the biggest indie film of all time. Indie kinda doesn't mean much as a word anymore. The biggest difference from 5 years ago is the barriers to entry. Red and HDSLRs and Mini-DV and the HVX, etc. have all been praised as "saviors of indie cinema" and creating the "digital revolution" and making it so anybody can make a film. The problem? Anybody can now make a film. So what happens - the opposite of the desired effect. The barriers to entry are higher than they've ever been. In 2009 there was an estimated 50,000 films made. I don't have newer numbers but in 2008 there were 9,293 films submitted to Sundance, 218 were screened at the festival, and seven were picked up for any sort of meaningful distribution. VOD is now making it so that more films get picked up, but currently the model is you spend $3M on a film and get $40,000 back on it. So, the harsh reality is that with technology being so ever present you get people like this attracted to the idea of movies and then harshly and unapologetically rejected. It's a cruel bait-and-switch going on. You're welcomed in, only to get kicked out. So I'd like to tell you there's hope on the horizon for the amateur filmmaker loving around on the weekends with a T2i who wants to cut together the 1/3 of shots of his that are actually in focus and make something, but I really can't. Who will survive in America? Who will survive in America? Who will survive in America? Who will survive in America?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:So, the harsh reality is that with technology being so ever present you get people like this attracted to the idea of movies and then harshly and unapologetically rejected. Wow. That guy has no loving clue what's he's doing, is asking for a step-by-step guide to making a documentary film on a bloody internet forum and yet he's already quit his job to work on the project full time? Jesus. Well, I suppose it makes those with a little bit of competence look better by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 21:39
|
|