December 2nd, 2011 Rich
November 3 was a big day in filmmaking. Canon announced their C300 camera followed by Red announcing the Scarlet X — well, trying to announce. Their website crashed under the load of visitors.
There seemed to be a lot of Red fans telling everyone how much better the Scarlet was than the Canon. It was a real 4k vs. Canon’s 4k chip that only gave 1080p. And it was cheaper, less than $10k.
At first, I was caught up in the hoopla. Then I started counting how many pennies I would need. The $10k camera was just the brain. It couldn’t shoot any video by itself. That required the $14k package. But that really didn’t get you very far. You probably need to spend more like $20k, about the same as Canon’s C300 list price. But Scarlet’s $20k was probably on the extreme low side, not what you would be comfortable shooting with.
Oh, I forgot about lenses. Add that to the total and I’m sweating. But Scarlet or Canon, it would be the same.
Shooting 4k also sounds like giving great quality. But what would it cost on the post side? You’d need huge amounts of data storage. Then double that. You want backups, don’t you. And there would be a very high-end computer to push the data through. This under $10k camera could easily cost me $30-40k (before lenses).
Then Canon dropped the price of the C300. Last I heard, it was $16k but if that was list, it would sell for less. And I would only have to deal with 1080p so no change in post. I was breathing a bit easier.
But what about quality?
Some Red users have commented that they felt like beta users with their Red cameras. Things didn’t always go planned. If you needed a camera that worked all the time, every time, you might want to look elsewhere.
What about shooting 4k? I’d be losing quality. And that’s when I realized that I’m shooting a TV series not a feature film. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for an independent to get distribution for a feature so why bother? If consumers cannot display greater than 1080p, why am I worried about 4k?
After the videos I’ve seen shot with the C300, I’m impressed. I’ve seen a video shot on the Scarlet and it looked embarrassing. That could have been the filmmaker. But that’s all I’ve seen. What happened to Scarlet? Why don’t I see video being posted? Why aren’t more people talking about it?
What happened to Scarlet? It seems to have disappeared. To me, not a good sign. Or maybe I’m not in the market they are trying to reach? It seems strange. I’m hearing more about $100k cameras. Where is Scarlet?
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Dailies, Video equipment | No Comments »
September 19th, 2011 Rich
I find it interesting that Apple has resurrected Final Cut Pro 7. You can now buy it online at their store. Did they find too many editors were migrating to Adobe and Avid?
This resurrection won’t solve the problem of abandoning pro editors with FCP X. It just gives them more time to consider how they will jump a sinking ship.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Video editing | No Comments »
September 19th, 2011 Rich
Daniel Engber gives us four theories for the death of 3D in his Slate Magazine article, “Who Killed 3-D?”
First, he suggests greedy theater chains. This is an easy one to buy into but I think they are only accomplices. Sure, I might pay a premium for a movie like Avatar. But I don’t think most 3D movies are worth the premium. And I think audiences agree.
Second, he suggests greedy movie studios. With falling tickets sales, increasing ticket prices will increase revenue — for a time. But it won’t last. In a couple of years they will be back where they started. You see? Movie studios aren’t very smart. Maybe it’s due to brain fog, the condition they get with accountants breathing down their necks. This is the surest way to stifle creativity.
Third, shrewd customers. Well, audiences aren’t stupid. Feed them trash and movies don’t look very appealing. Charge a premium for trash and you’ve killed off your business model. There are too many options nowadays to get trash. After all, we have TV to supply that. And we don’t have to pay extra for it. I’d rather watch a movie I’ve already seen than a new retread. I don’t have to go to the theater for that.
Fourth, hack filmmakers. If this were the case, there are a lot of big name hacks making movies.
I propose a fifth reason. Studio accountants who don’t like movies. Maybe this is really a combination of greedy studios and hack (by choice) filmmakers.
To make a movie, you need financing. Studios look for sure-fire movie ideas to produce. It was successful once, it should bring in an audience again. Or geez, we could convert a movie to 3D for much less than it would take to shoot a new movie. These methods are less risky so the accountants give their blessing. They aren’t thinking from the audience’s perspective, “Yeah, that was a great movie. Let’s go rent the original instead of spending a big wad of money at the theater.”
And you have filmmakers that want a secure career by making retreads instead of the risks associated with new ideas. The studios have the money so they do whatever it takes.
Maybe we really aren’t talking about the death of 3D. Is this going to be the death of movie theaters? Will we see them drop to the status of drive-ins?
This is a real opportunity for independent filmmakers. In this digital age, theatrical distribution is no longer a requirement to make money. It’s more about making something audiences want to see. Distribution can take the form of cable channels, YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Walmart, etc. Budgets are small enough that the risks no longer scare the pants off the accountants.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Dailies | No Comments »
September 19th, 2011 Rich
Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO of Netflix, says in an email to his customers, “I messed up.” No kidding!
First, there’s the big price jump for those wanting streaming and DVD. Lots of customers quit the service over it. And their stock had a huge drop. And financial forecasts are down much more than anticipated. But there is still more to come.
It has been announced that Netflix will break off their DVD division into a completely new website called Qwikster.
Wow. This is even a bigger screw up!
It sounds like what they are asking us to do is search on Netflix for a movie. If it is not there, we need to go to another website and search again. That’s stupid. I won’t do it and don’t know if anyone else will. And you won’t search Qwikster first because it might available for streaming.
Is Netflix trying to kill off their DVD division?
There are several options if this is the case. I can subscribe to Blockbuster. I could start using Red Box again. And I can look for other entertainment sources.
Guess this will motivate me to hook up a computer to my big screen TV so I can watch Hulu, et al.
If Netflix isn’t careful, they are going to ween us off of their service all together.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Dailies | No Comments »
April 27th, 2011 Rich
When Avatar was released, it sounded like an event worth attending. I went to a 3d IMAX theater with reserved seating. It was great! The 3d was amazing. I only saw a few aberrations. Most people didn’t notice but as an editor, those kind of things stand out. Even so, it deserved the honor of the highest grossing movie ever.
So now it’s 6 months later. There is still talk about the movie and how it has changed the industry. But it is not without detractors. I’ve heard comments that the movie could not stand alone without the 3d. Others complained that is was a remake of other stories. Why is that new? At least it wasn’t a remake, adaptation, prequel or sequel of something else. Did it really matter that it has the same theme as previous movies like “Dances with Wolves,” “A Man Called Horse,” et al?
I decided to settle this controversy in my own mind and see it again — without the 3d, of course. Would I still like the movie? Was I dazzled by the 3d the first time? Would it have stood on its own without 3d?
Man, was I in for a surprise. Without the 3d, I was amazed at how I became caught up in the story, how I saw the characters, and how much more I saw. It was a terrific movie. And all the complaints I heard about it vanished like smoke.
The only problem I saw with the movie was the 3d got in the way. Instead of focusing on the 3d and being in awe, I focused on the movie and found it was wonderful. The lack of 3d didn’t take away from the richness of the settings. I still saw Pandora as a magical world full of wonder. I just didn’t forget to watch the movie like what happened when I saw the 3d version. And I didn’t see those annoying aberrations, either. Cameron thinks 48 or 60 fps will fix those but now I really don’t care.
For me, 3d is a distraction. It takes away from the movie. Sure, I might go see some highly acclaimed tent pole. But I’m sure I’ll probably enjoy it more at home on my big-screen. And I won’t have to deal with annoying kids texting instead of watching the movie.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Dailies | No Comments »