Just curious to see what others here think.
Here's my spin on this:
At the moment there's a kind of a split, those that shoot 4K (be it film or digital) and those that don't. Reason is the cost. If you've got funding for 35mm you're pretty much likely to stay at that level, not too much 35mm is shot for editing and release as DV25, the very high cost of running film through the camera makes that a dubious path economically. With 35mm every point along the path is expensive.
At the other end are most of us, shooting DV25 or maybe something a tad better but hardly cinema quality. Our upfront costs and costs throughout the process are all relatively small compared to 35mm / 4K.
So how does RED change all this.
Now it's still not cheap, don't get me wrong. Factor in glass and all the bits and pieces and to buy or rent we're sure not talking small change but still way more affordable than 35mm where the running costs are very high.
The lower running costs however mean that you can shoot 4K, easily downscale to 2K or 1080 or 720 or DV 25 to keep you post costs very low. You might think this madness but wait.
You do your usually thing in DV25 or whatever your favourite format is. You release the show. It's a flop, well it's not cost you much more than if you shot DV25 in the first place (assuming you rented the RED).
Or.
Your movie is a major hit. But damn it it's going to look pretty sad on the big screen. Someone is prepared to put up the big bucks to reshoot it but you know it'll never be quite the same.
Well with RED no sweat, now you've got the money for that very expensive 4K post work, you don't have to reshoot anything.
Of course I'm simplifying things, the costs of shooting an image worthy of the big screen are more than just the camera and stock. Still I can see the potential for a lot of change.
Bob.
Here's my spin on this:
At the moment there's a kind of a split, those that shoot 4K (be it film or digital) and those that don't. Reason is the cost. If you've got funding for 35mm you're pretty much likely to stay at that level, not too much 35mm is shot for editing and release as DV25, the very high cost of running film through the camera makes that a dubious path economically. With 35mm every point along the path is expensive.
At the other end are most of us, shooting DV25 or maybe something a tad better but hardly cinema quality. Our upfront costs and costs throughout the process are all relatively small compared to 35mm / 4K.
So how does RED change all this.
Now it's still not cheap, don't get me wrong. Factor in glass and all the bits and pieces and to buy or rent we're sure not talking small change but still way more affordable than 35mm where the running costs are very high.
The lower running costs however mean that you can shoot 4K, easily downscale to 2K or 1080 or 720 or DV 25 to keep you post costs very low. You might think this madness but wait.
You do your usually thing in DV25 or whatever your favourite format is. You release the show. It's a flop, well it's not cost you much more than if you shot DV25 in the first place (assuming you rented the RED).
Or.
Your movie is a major hit. But damn it it's going to look pretty sad on the big screen. Someone is prepared to put up the big bucks to reshoot it but you know it'll never be quite the same.
Well with RED no sweat, now you've got the money for that very expensive 4K post work, you don't have to reshoot anything.
Of course I'm simplifying things, the costs of shooting an image worthy of the big screen are more than just the camera and stock. Still I can see the potential for a lot of change.
Bob.