What expensive camera obsessions are doing for filmmaking

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

Kingswell you are missing the point so badly. I said “He can invest how he sees fit”. I also said that I wished him the best of luck. Where Koo and I disagree on this (and this may be a new concept to some of the more politically correct people in the world, but I feel one can have differences of opinion with someone yet still be friends or respect them in other ways and keep it civil) is that I don’t think it was necessary to make a sports film, nor was it a stated goal on the Kickstarter page. I think that since Koo has made his name on Nofilmschool by being part of the DSLR community and endorcing DSLRs to other filmmakers he should practice what he preaches and not jump ship to elitist high end equipment at the earliest opportunity. To see so many bloggers who have made their presence online by writing about and / or using DSLRs move to very high end inaccessible stuff is a shame in my view for the community, and needless.

Again Kingswell the remark about me ‘defaming Koo as some kind of hobbyist’ shows your misconceptions are many. In the article I said that in the 80′s the computer hobbyists behind Apple were ‘looked down upon’ as mere hobbyists. That you still apply negative concoctions to the word shows that you still just don’t get it, even after reading the article you have put all kinds of weird spins on it. I am wondering if it is ignorance or politics, or maybe both.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

Ah. But then there is the small matter of that 15k in the Kickstarter spec, which was explicitly for rental for the RED camera at $500 a day for 30 days. He’d better utilise that 15k for that intended purpose, is all I’m saying. These sorts of things like Nigerian scams really get my goat.

[/html]

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

Kingswell reminds me of a suited straight-man sat in the back of a bar on his own who is engaged in conversation and debate with a group of friendly but slightly raucous drinkers who debate strongly with him back and forth about some subject or hot topic of the day. He doesn’t agree with their opinions and due to his tiny sensibilities and thin skin threatens everyone in the bar with legal action, before storming out alone, slamming the door and striding home in a huff.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

Yes, I finally found that. Interesting series! Can’t wait for the next installment. I can see why he feels he needs a RED… maybe the DSLR had too many limits for long features. (Running a film school doesn’t mean one has actual skills worth appreciating – you know what they say about those who can’t.)

[/html]

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

Guys please try to understand the point I am making in the article. It is not about ethics, although we all have our own view of that. It is not about how personally wealthy Koo is. It is about what expensive gear means to indie filmmakers, about the obsession with it and whether it is right to invest so much money in it, or whether it could be better spent elsewhere.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

Overcranked:

I agree with you again on the moral principle of the matter. Hypothetically: can a multimillionaire source for public funds just because he doesn’t want to risk losing his own money in a new venture? He can, and it did happen during the exuberant days of exploration in the Victorian era. People lined up to give merchants millions for a stake of the profits from goods from the New World, and many became bankrupt because the (earlier) schemes ended in disaster.

But that is where the similarity ends. I must say I am perplexed by this Kickstarter phenomenon, because the people who give do NOT have a stake nor a say in how the money is spent. It is all based on goodwill and trust. Which, I suppose, should make me hopeful. But deceptions after the fact, as you have been arguing, does seem to me to be a betrayal of that trust.

[/html]

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

I completely disagree with this sc_ weird username troll. Koo IS accountable to people when they support him to the tune of $120,000. That is a lot of money. What his intent is, the manner in which he goes about the project, it is all relevant. I am not accusing him of anything, I am just stating the obvious and raising the question about expensive gear and whether it is needed. In my view it isn’t, and it is a shame to see Koo not shoot the movie on a DSLR after making his name in a community of DSLR shooters.

It is like me writing about the GH2 and anamorphic lenses all year, then suddenly going out and dropping $50k on an Alexa to make a feature with. Practice what you preach!!

[/html]

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

I am also perplexed by how much people buy into Kickstarter. That promise of some kind of ownership of a project they don’t really have any ownership over is some powerful kool aid.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

This is not about the specific case at hand but I have to say, I also find it odd about a financing expedition in which only one side (the funders) stand to lose their money, whereas the originator can get away clean should the venture fail. I only found out about this Kickstarter thing earlier this year and I couldn’t help but be amazed by the socialism of it. I suppose I still can’t get my capitalist head around the fact that a millionaire can now induce the public through means of persuasion to fund a new venture of his, so that he won’t have to use his own money. As a concept, that is just staggering, to me.

[/html]

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

I am not judging him morally or legally at all. Some commenters are and they are perfectly entitled to, I am not. Just so that’s clear. The article is about something else, not sure if you’ve noticed yet but the title is ‘What expensive camera obsessions are doing for filmmakers’, not ‘Koo is a shit head’.

I disagree with his purchasing decision that is all. Please simmer the emotion down.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

I meant, “creative skills”. Teaching is a skill in itself, of course. No disrespect to my former teachers – they made me who I am.

[/html]

[Guest Andrew Reid]

[html]

In terms of jello, a $20k camera will indeed help. But we have got to a curious place indeed where our aspirations are to seek $120k funding for an indie film and see that as democratic or commonplace. Most artists I know would kill to even have $2k to spare, never mind dropping 10x that on a mere camera.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

Hmm. I suppose now I understand where Andrew is coming from when he wrote this piece. It is also about a sense of betrayal, though not in the moral sense, but rather in upholding and championing “the Cause”. Which is, DSLRs. So the question that has to be asked is, is current DSLR technology good enough to shoot a full indie feature on? Do you absolutely need a RED (and Raw)?

I think for sure it is far than good enough for telemovies, because in my country I have seen hundreds of these shot on DSLRs and projected on HD screens and they look awesome. I have seen the newer porn videos (ahem) shot on these DSLRs and they look incredibly cinematic. But how that would look when projected to the big screen, to me remains to be seen. Although I am confident that for low budget features they are similarly workable: I have seen movies where parts were shot on a DSLR and they don’t look out of place (the running battles on motorcycles in Captain America, for example).

So it is about the Cause, and abandoning it means you are saying that the Cause is not good enough for the next level up.

[/html]

[Guest Umbrella]

[html]

4k is great, professional sound stage is great, huge riggs are great. More gear is GREAT but it doesn’t make a film better. Story, actors, execution, direction, the camera gets you the shots and is taken further while being assembled in post. “to tell a story”. A beautiful grade doesn’t improve a story. more times than not a great story is all that is remembered. We tend to forget viewers don’t give a rats arse what we shot on or cut it on or how we shot it. all that is remembered is “the film was good or the film was bad. Sick to death of reading reviews about what gear is better. Wheres your script!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????, enough of this brainwash about what gear you need. GH2 7D 5D 16mm, will do, classic glass will do, grading is to express and push the visual envelop to enhance what is already a great shot not to fix crap photography. Latitude haha funny. get back to basics.

[/html]

[Guest Umbrella]

[html]

everyone read rebel without a cause again. it will bring you back to earth. gear is not everything. break through the smear screen and see retail and tech for what it is.

[/html]

[Guest andymarc chesterman]

[html]

If I were a backer or audience I would rather see the money towards making a bloody good film…irregardless of what its shot with.
Im betting Koo’s film wont be.

[/html]

[Guest andymarc chesterman]

[html]

+1

[/html]

[Guest andymarc chesterman]

[html]

Anyone seen Crank 2? Lot of it was shot with camcorders y’know…action scenes?

http://www.freshdv.com/2008/07/crank2-shot-with-canon-xha1.html

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

He’s making a film about a basketball player and needs the RED because it’s a fast action film. So, fast moving all the way, then? Must get the audience tired by the end of it, surely! Why not buy 2 DSLRs and use that for the “normal” scenes, and then rent a RED or whatever for the action scenes? Most sports movies have action only in a third of the running time, by my estimation. More than that, and it’s called a documentary.

Harder to mix and match the footage from 2 types of cameras, therefore adding to time and money? Consider that you’ll also need a more expensive edit suite if you’re handling 100% RED Raw footage, and we could call it even.

[/html]

[Guest studio17b]

[html]

+1.

I think it all just boils down to how committed you are to the platform. If you have the commitment, you can bend the technology to do your whim (or work around them). Just ask the Iranian directors about working around the limitations (of the system, in their case. Censorship? Pah! An unnecessary obstacle, for sure, but nothing they could not circumvent. Ditto the “no sex scenes in Indian movies” and the Hindustani directors’ way of circumventing that).

[/html]