6 ms·

Werner Herzog was apparently not impressed http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAInterviewWernerHerzog.aspx http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSU

by npalli 16y ago

Werner Herzog was apparently not impressed http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAInterviewWernerHerzog.aspx http://www.dgaquarterly.org/BACKISSUES/Winter2010/DGAIntervi... Q: What about shooting digitally? A: We used the RED camera for My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done. It's an immature camera created by computer people who do not have a sensibility or understanding for the value of high-precision mechanics, which has a 200-year history. It's terrible: Whenever you have to reboot the camera, it takes 4½ minutes or so. It drove me insane, because sometimes something is happening and you can't just push the button and record it. An assistant cameraman said this camera would be ideal if we were filming the National Library in Paris, which has been sitting there for centuries. But everything that moves faster than a library is a problem for the RED. Super 35 mm celluloid is still better

ModelCitizen 16y ago
To be fair, that was the RED One, the Epic's predecessor. Startup time on the Epic is about 10 seconds. I've shot with the red one, and yes, a few quirks were frustrating. But they're definitely improving.
- randall 16y ago
  Also, no mention of how much it sucks to do the canister-in-a-bag thing, or telecine-ing the film so it can be edited. Or the free cost of bits. (ok I'll stop.)
mey 16y ago
I am a little surprised that digital filming isn't hitting it's stride when photographers have taken to the digital transition. Not sure if the celluloid comment is only in reference RED or in reference to digital film in general. I see parallels to audiophile type comments regarding analog v digital.
- pokjhnboi 16y ago
  Film cameras + lenses are expensive, $100k expensive. They are typically leased for each production from rental houses that have many $M of stock on their shelves - and are often also manufacturers (panaflex didn't used to sell cameras at all - you had to rent) Then you need a camera operator that is trained on that camera. Imagine if a pro-photographer had 6 different camera brands that they didn't own and didn't know which one they would be presented with on their next job. Then there is a whole industry of labs, dailies, neg cutters that work with film. Replacing all these with data wranglers, DBAs and sysadmins is expensive - especially with no market leader means you need to hire a team that all know the model you are using. A recent BBC documentary shot on regular HD cameras had 2people who spent all night copying all the memory cards to hard drives and making backups. Digital cameras will catch on, probably in independant first - but it's not because of any artistic reason, it's just a cost/time/benefit calculation
- alexqgb 16y ago
  Given the exponentially lower amount of data handled by still cameras, it was much easier for them to eclipse 35mm film in terms of quality. Keep in mind that even 'burst mode' on a high-end DSLR only runs at 3-5 frames per second (not 30), and still requires a few seconds between bursts to process and write to disk. Film not only shoots at 24 frames per second (or more), but the final picture has to play on a screen that is literally two stories high. The scale is unforgiving. Things that would fly on television get suddenly ugly - especially if you're only starting with 1080 lines of resolution. And that's before your picture has gone through layers and layers of heavy post production - every one of which constitutes a round of transcoding, and thus, a source of degradation and artifacting. In other words, not only are you shooting far more frames in far less time (and needing hardware that can do sustained encoding for each one in real time) but, you're doing so at exceptionally high bit-rates, oversampling like hell so that you'll still have a clean picture even after running it through the wringer of post-production. Encoding for broadcast, DVD and the web (which is par for the course with any professional shoot) only adds an extra layer of abuse. When Michael Mann was shooting Collateral (which made heavy use of HD), there were a number of scenes where they had to shoot film, just because the HD rigs capable of supporting adequate bitrates came with umbilical cords that were simply too cumbersome for handheld setups where agility was essential. There's also been an optical issue, in that sensors for digital motion cameras have typically been much smaller than those used for digital still or motion film cameras. Even if the resolution is commensurate (which is hasn't been), the fact that the same number of scan lines are packed into a smaller area has consequences in terms of the optical effects that the camera can achieve. Specifically, a larger imagine surface allows for a shallower depth of field. Given that really good cinematographers can make masterful use of DOF, it's understandable that they don't like the constricted range that comes with smaller, digital sensors. For guys like Lucas, Fincher, and Jackson - who all do a huge amount of pre-visualization and heavy CG in post - this isn't such a big deal. They can plan around it, or deal with it after the fact. But in a more traditional setting - and for filmmakers who don't have the same hardcore ILM/WETA ethos and skill - the trade-off isn't so favorable. All that said, my sense is that this RED camera marks a tipping point, where a lot of the advantages that film has held will start to erode in earnest. The thing that's really going to drive this is the exceptionally high dynamic range (that is to say, the range of light levels the camera can handle before the picture either drops into black, or blows out in a haze of pure white). Higher performance in this area really was the trump card for film. But now that RED is not just meeting, but exceeding the long-established benchmarks, a lot of people who have stuck with film are going to ditch it in favor of a much higher ceiling. I mean, wow, 18 stops - that's hot.
- Keyframe 16y ago
  Yeah, there is a certain flare of 'it feels organic' hipster thinking going on... but there is another thing to it, you might not be aware of. When shooting on film, DOPs and directors go to a telecine facility or a film lab where they wait for their stock to get scanned and then grade it live with an operator... I suspect most of the 'i shoot only on film' directors and DOPs are actually shooting on film because of they way they are used to work in grading/DI process with a certain operator or a few of them... it's that process that they are comfortable with and don't wish to abandon. sure, there is digital grading, and it's done - but with film it's more of a ritual, where with digital footage it's more like sitting in a comping booth... I don't know how to explain it otherwise, it's a big deal to DOPs and directors (especially directors on commercials, not so much on features).
marcusestes 16y ago
I get the feeling that Werner enjoys taking this rebellious attitude towards a technology that so many of his art-film peers have been lauding since the release of the One. Soderberg has been shooting Red for years now. The Social Network was shot on a Red One. The Epic is taking the technology mainstream. Peter Jackson bought 30 Epics to shoot The Hobbit with.
- revdinosaur 16y ago
  My on-set experience with the One, as a student, was remarkably similar. I do not, however, assume that the camera hasn't been improved greatly in the last few years. There is some credence to the complaint of the design's orientation, however. The inability to look through the lens is something that really bothered me, as the operator. It's just one reason I appreciate the careful design of film cameras.
baddox 16y ago
I would have thought that film cameras would have pretty slow and tedious start up and maintenance times too. Is that not the case? Either way, documentary work is a lot different than scripted film making. It sounds like the RED camera would have obviously been a poor choice for his documentary.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Not really. A film camera needs a lot of setup but once you've got it built each morning then switching in a new battery or film magazine takes about a minute, startup is a couple of seconds. In some contexts, a mechanical setup can be more robust and efficient. For that particular film, using a RED would have been like using a Ferrari to do the job of a pickup truck.
alexlawford 16y ago
Other directors are big enthusiasts. The makers of RED have been pretty upfront about some of the drawbacks of the RED ONE from the beginning. Everyone was pretty much using a beta product at least for the first couple of years. They've said that EPIC wont be the same way; it will be a complete product from day one. Perhaps that's why it's taking so long to release. RE: price, compare it with its direct competitors and it's something of a steal. Lots of people that bought the RED ONE made a killing from their investment.
khafra 16y ago
If they're an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition, as is claimed elsewhere, couldn't you just buy two or three and switch when they're rebooting?
- gallerytungsten 16y ago
  The Red camera is often used with a large number of accessories. In most cases, switching from one camera to another would take longer than rebooting.
  - alexqgb 16y ago
    This is doubly true of you're using complex rigs (e.g. steadicams, cranes, helicopters, etc.) Also, film-outs (the moment a reel runs out) are 100% predictable. Crashes are not. That means you're not only having to factor in the time to swap cameras, you're also potentially having to deal with resetting and reshooting the take the camera crashed on. Also, cameras bodies are actually relatively cheap (even film). The really expensive parts are the lenses, which can easily run from 2-10 times the price of the camera itself. And that's before you consider the extra labor required to check each lens out of the rental house, or the cost of insuring them while they're on the job. So unless you also want to double your supply of glass (which triggers a slew of additional charges), constantly swapping bodies means a lens change every time as well. If you're working in an even slightly dusty or moist environment, this is even more undesirable.
- protomyth 16y ago
  The older Red One had a much longer report time than the new Epic.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    s/report/reboot/ err

by npalli 16y ago

ModelCitizen 16y ago

To be fair, that was the RED One, the Epic's predecessor. Startup time on the Epic is about 10 seconds. I've shot with the red one, and yes, a few quirks were frustrating. But they're definitely improving.

randall 16y ago
Also, no mention of how much it sucks to do the canister-in-a-bag thing, or telecine-ing the film so it can be edited. Or the free cost of bits. (ok I'll stop.)

mey 16y ago

I am a little surprised that digital filming isn't hitting it's stride when photographers have taken to the digital transition. Not sure if the celluloid comment is only in reference RED or in reference to digital film in general. I see parallels to audiophile type comments regarding analog v digital.

pokjhnboi 16y ago
Film cameras + lenses are expensive, $100k expensive. They are typically leased for each production from rental houses that have many $M of stock on their shelves - and are often also manufacturers (panaflex didn't used to sell cameras at all - you had to rent) Then you need a camera operator that is trained on that camera. Imagine if a pro-photographer had 6 different camera brands that they didn't own and didn't know which one they would be presented with on their next job. Then there is a whole industry of labs, dailies, neg cutters that work with film. Replacing all these with data wranglers, DBAs and sysadmins is expensive - especially with no market leader means you need to hire a team that all know the model you are using. A recent BBC documentary shot on regular HD cameras had 2people who spent all night copying all the memory cards to hard drives and making backups. Digital cameras will catch on, probably in independant first - but it's not because of any artistic reason, it's just a cost/time/benefit calculation
alexqgb 16y ago
Given the exponentially lower amount of data handled by still cameras, it was much easier for them to eclipse 35mm film in terms of quality. Keep in mind that even 'burst mode' on a high-end DSLR only runs at 3-5 frames per second (not 30), and still requires a few seconds between bursts to process and write to disk. Film not only shoots at 24 frames per second (or more), but the final picture has to play on a screen that is literally two stories high. The scale is unforgiving. Things that would fly on television get suddenly ugly - especially if you're only starting with 1080 lines of resolution. And that's before your picture has gone through layers and layers of heavy post production - every one of which constitutes a round of transcoding, and thus, a source of degradation and artifacting. In other words, not only are you shooting far more frames in far less time (and needing hardware that can do sustained encoding for each one in real time) but, you're doing so at exceptionally high bit-rates, oversampling like hell so that you'll still have a clean picture even after running it through the wringer of post-production. Encoding for broadcast, DVD and the web (which is par for the course with any professional shoot) only adds an extra layer of abuse. When Michael Mann was shooting Collateral (which made heavy use of HD), there were a number of scenes where they had to shoot film, just because the HD rigs capable of supporting adequate bitrates came with umbilical cords that were simply too cumbersome for handheld setups where agility was essential. There's also been an optical issue, in that sensors for digital motion cameras have typically been much smaller than those used for digital still or motion film cameras. Even if the resolution is commensurate (which is hasn't been), the fact that the same number of scan lines are packed into a smaller area has consequences in terms of the optical effects that the camera can achieve. Specifically, a larger imagine surface allows for a shallower depth of field. Given that really good cinematographers can make masterful use of DOF, it's understandable that they don't like the constricted range that comes with smaller, digital sensors. For guys like Lucas, Fincher, and Jackson - who all do a huge amount of pre-visualization and heavy CG in post - this isn't such a big deal. They can plan around it, or deal with it after the fact. But in a more traditional setting - and for filmmakers who don't have the same hardcore ILM/WETA ethos and skill - the trade-off isn't so favorable. All that said, my sense is that this RED camera marks a tipping point, where a lot of the advantages that film has held will start to erode in earnest. The thing that's really going to drive this is the exceptionally high dynamic range (that is to say, the range of light levels the camera can handle before the picture either drops into black, or blows out in a haze of pure white). Higher performance in this area really was the trump card for film. But now that RED is not just meeting, but exceeding the long-established benchmarks, a lot of people who have stuck with film are going to ditch it in favor of a much higher ceiling. I mean, wow, 18 stops - that's hot.
Keyframe 16y ago
Yeah, there is a certain flare of 'it feels organic' hipster thinking going on... but there is another thing to it, you might not be aware of. When shooting on film, DOPs and directors go to a telecine facility or a film lab where they wait for their stock to get scanned and then grade it live with an operator... I suspect most of the 'i shoot only on film' directors and DOPs are actually shooting on film because of they way they are used to work in grading/DI process with a certain operator or a few of them... it's that process that they are comfortable with and don't wish to abandon. sure, there is digital grading, and it's done - but with film it's more of a ritual, where with digital footage it's more like sitting in a comping booth... I don't know how to explain it otherwise, it's a big deal to DOPs and directors (especially directors on commercials, not so much on features).

marcusestes 16y ago

I get the feeling that Werner enjoys taking this rebellious attitude towards a technology that so many of his art-film peers have been lauding since the release of the One. Soderberg has been shooting Red for years now. The Social Network was shot on a Red One. The Epic is taking the technology mainstream. Peter Jackson bought 30 Epics to shoot The Hobbit with.

revdinosaur 16y ago
My on-set experience with the One, as a student, was remarkably similar. I do not, however, assume that the camera hasn't been improved greatly in the last few years. There is some credence to the complaint of the design's orientation, however. The inability to look through the lens is something that really bothered me, as the operator. It's just one reason I appreciate the careful design of film cameras.

baddox 16y ago

I would have thought that film cameras would have pretty slow and tedious start up and maintenance times too. Is that not the case? Either way, documentary work is a lot different than scripted film making. It sounds like the RED camera would have obviously been a poor choice for his documentary.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Not really. A film camera needs a lot of setup but once you've got it built each morning then switching in a new battery or film magazine takes about a minute, startup is a couple of seconds. In some contexts, a mechanical setup can be more robust and efficient. For that particular film, using a RED would have been like using a Ferrari to do the job of a pickup truck.

alexlawford 16y ago

Other directors are big enthusiasts. The makers of RED have been pretty upfront about some of the drawbacks of the RED ONE from the beginning. Everyone was pretty much using a beta product at least for the first couple of years. They've said that EPIC wont be the same way; it will be a complete product from day one. Perhaps that's why it's taking so long to release. RE: price, compare it with its direct competitors and it's something of a steal. Lots of people that bought the RED ONE made a killing from their investment.

khafra 16y ago

If they're an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition, as is claimed elsewhere, couldn't you just buy two or three and switch when they're rebooting?

gallerytungsten 16y ago
The Red camera is often used with a large number of accessories. In most cases, switching from one camera to another would take longer than rebooting.
- alexqgb 16y ago
  This is doubly true of you're using complex rigs (e.g. steadicams, cranes, helicopters, etc.) Also, film-outs (the moment a reel runs out) are 100% predictable. Crashes are not. That means you're not only having to factor in the time to swap cameras, you're also potentially having to deal with resetting and reshooting the take the camera crashed on. Also, cameras bodies are actually relatively cheap (even film). The really expensive parts are the lenses, which can easily run from 2-10 times the price of the camera itself. And that's before you consider the extra labor required to check each lens out of the rental house, or the cost of insuring them while they're on the job. So unless you also want to double your supply of glass (which triggers a slew of additional charges), constantly swapping bodies means a lens change every time as well. If you're working in an even slightly dusty or moist environment, this is even more undesirable.
protomyth 16y ago
The older Red One had a much longer report time than the new Epic.
- protomyth 16y ago
  s/report/reboot/ err