Sean examines the massive changes over the past few years in camera technology, and what it means to emerging, as well as, older filmmakers.
The Red One camera is great from what I've seen of it. Really revolutionary.
Monte Hellman used the Canon 5D on "Road to Nowhere" recently (first feature film to shoot solely with one of those I think). Looks great. Talking with one of the producers, they stated how that camera provided some definite advantages. Not only the cost of the camera itself being cheaper. But also, he mentioned how, due to it pretty much looking like just a still camera, they were able to do a lot of filming in locations without having to get permits. They were able to get away with it because people would just assume they were tourists or what not there taking pictures and it didn't require some big camera and huge setup to actually film. That's got to be a definite help for filmmakers on a real tight budget.
Its the most annoying thing in the world to me right now....we are filming some project on campus or elsewhere and people walk up "why you taking pictures? Is this photo class?" Yes we yell Action and have full motions and everything just to take pictures....lol
The Red One is a good camera. However the camera itself isn't the problem with film makers. Its the computers and editing that kicks in afterwards that becomes the problem. Red One camera's capture at such a high capacity that editing it in that resolution and then rendering the finished video in that resolution takes a high end computer. We have a couple year old Mac desktops at my college that couldn't handle the footage at all, so we stayed away from the Red One. This was also told by my professor as he worked with red ones before. As for the Cannon 7D we use that at my college. We have 3 or 4 of them, then two 5D cameras and you can hardly tell the difference between the two. However on smaller screens such as computers, HDTV's, etc...anything this isn't on a big projections screen you are not going to be able to tell why you spent that money on the camera. I own a JVC HD camera that my professor couldn't tell I used on half my projects because the resolution was the same, the difference? I only paid 500 dollars for my camera. The 7D does have its strengths, im not saying it doesn't have them. However for film makers literally just starting out you don't need to jump right to them, and thats what Im saying. If you have the money, get them they do have certain perks that are great. The most noticeable thing I could find was the depth of field (mentioned briefly in the article) is great and the lenses are much better with focusing etc... It was a good read, hopefully we can read more like that for difference equipment and so on. I love writing and thats my focus, but I make movies from time to time. its just hard finding talent around me as no one ever wants to help.
When I went to film school we were still fighting over the XL-2. lol So having the 7D as an option instead of the RED is not a bad one at all.
RED ONE is not the best for students, I agree, but at the same time, learning complicated work flows that won't work on equipment at hand is always good experience for creative producing.
I'll be keeping up on technology, as stuff comes out, I'll do more in-depth reports on it. I have a friend that shoots with the RED EPIC quite often now, I'll have to do an interview with him to shed some light on the new toy for everyone.
Id love to read it. Im super interested in Red's, I wish our school wasn't too cheap to upgrade our computers. My professor does want us to work with the Reds, but it honestly is not possible. I think last semester like 2 or 3 of the Macs took a crap from just the constant 7D footage...lol
In terms of digital, RED is the best (though i havent seen anything from alexa yet, so i cant speak for its competition). But a filmmaker should shoot on just that, film. If you have the budget to shoot on 35mm, then there really isn't an excuse. Of course in the indie ring, digital is really the ONLY way to go, but if you can afford it; film stock all the way.
And that's a personal preference. I would shoot film if I could afford the extra cost (not only for processing and digitizing, but also for all the extras you need, from simple things like a film loader to more complicated ones like color correction and other post processes) but at this point, we made a feature film for $10,000. A lot of times the full price of just film, processing, and a print will run $10,000.
So when the budget prevails, of course I love film, but at the same I can't really justify the cost at this point, or for the next 3-4 films I make, most likely. Especially if you're trying to do a theatrical run.
FilmWatch is a community of awesome people posting and discussing the latest movie news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.