Nicktales: Things You Step In On Set (a cautionary tale)

It was a crisp June morning in downtown LA when it happened…

5:45am; I pull up to the front of the penthouse loft we’re shooting in to unload my camera gear. The city hasn’t truly awoken yet, and the streets are empty save for a distant street sweeper whirring along sweeping streets and ticketing unsuspecting vehicle owners.

Taking the last swig from an energy drink, I quietly prep myself with a mental checklist of what is to come. The director was inexperienced and also acting as the DP, I knew the It was going to be a long day. Looking into the rear view mirror -- back at the pile of black cases full of gear in my Jeep I think to myself, “even on these longest days of shooting, at least I get to shoot.”

Then I step out of the car, my flip-flop wearing foot squarely landing on a fresh, glistening, layer-of-goo-covered pile of dog biscuit, sliding a good 5 inches before coming to a stop.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate that stepping in shit with your sneakers is one thing, stepping in shit in sandals -- much worse. The reason being is that -- the shit was tall, it was substantial and ever so slightly, when I surfed the wave of this shit sundae in my sandals, it grazed bare skin.

I bet at least one day in the glamorous movie set life of film sensation Jimmy Stewart started this way, quietly scraping his footwear of choice on the curb, maybe picking it out of the nooks and crannies of a rubber soled shoe with a stick.

Dogs-1, Nick-0

So halfway into the day, I’m in the middle of lighting a scene in the living room. Now -- in all of the scenarios where I’m on set, never in the mental registry of “things that might spontaneously happen”, did “dog will appear and urinate on my feet” enter that list.

See, there was no dog, no dog on set. No dog even conceivably close to the set. You can imagine everyone’s surprise when all of a sudden, without warning; a dog bursts onto the set.

I watch as this big, goofy puppy appears as if supernaturally, chased by a PA while the producer shouts “this can’t happen, this can’t happen!”, and tears around the room knocking things over, tail wagging like a windshield wiper and excited as can be. He narrowly escapes the grasping fingertips of everyone in his path, generally causing quite an impressive amount of chaos before turning his sights past me.

As he shoots by, I stoop down and grab him by the collar. I look into this dogs eyes and he’s just the happiest thing I’ve ever seen! Of course he’s still incredibly excitable so when I try to calm him down by rubbing his face and ears, this guy lets go, pissing all over everything, including on my feet.

Dogs-2 Nick-0

From now on, mandatory for any production I work on, it will be stipulated in the contract that at least one man with a net be standing on dog watch at all time. Apparently these dogs are a menace.

Just a week later I was barefoot again (why am I always barefoot in these stories?), shooting a steadicam shot on a private beach in Malibu.

The shots were gorgeous, the singer and the model looked amazing, everyone had a good time on that beach. When we were walking up the stairs back to the main set, someone points out "Hey there’s a giant seagull feather stuck to your foot." And there was, a giant, filthy, crusty seagull feather jutting out from the bottom of my heel. When it wouldn’t scrape off via my other foot, I had to reach down and saw that it was pasted onto my foot with nothing other than -- oh yes, a palm sized LAYER OF DOG SHIT!

Dogs-3 Nick-0

Now I'm thinking, do dogs have a pact with the universe against me or something? Did I accidentally kick a sack of puppies and I don’t remember it?

But when I reach down to peel the feather away it’s really stuck on there. This isn’t dog shit, it’s toxic sludge.

Whew, Dogs-2 Nick-1?

It stunk of motor oil, and refused to come off, even when I used a shell from some kid's shell collection to scrape it off. It was like pulling gum out of hair, just stuck.

This of course is when my gaffer comes out to tell me their ready for my approval on the lighting in the next scene we’d had them set up while we shot on the beach. So of course I spent the next hour lighting and shooting this music video with my heel covered in delicious, cancerous, oil. I know it’s impossible that it’s from the BP spill, but all the same:

Oil Barons-1 Nick-0

Hollywood, it’s a glamorous business we’re in :D

-Nick

A Wealth of Useful Information

One of the greatest things about the internet is the amount of assistance it can offer an industry person.  It's all relatively new to me but as I scratch the surface I find that there are so many resources out there to utilize.  It's just a question of searching and finding.

Most recently I ran into a guy on Twitter who posted a tweet saying he had access to the UTA job list and to contact him if interested in getting a copy.  I jumped on that opportunity and immediately raised my hand.  He sent one.  Then he sent another.  Then another.  Each time they came out he made sure I was informed.  I was more than grateful and so impressed with his openness to help others in the industry.  It made me realize that social networking is a great tool once you figure out how to utilize it for your purposes.  People all over the place are making careers out of consulting and lecturing on how to make it work for your business so about damn time I paid attention.  But the best thing is filmmakers out there understand the idea of give and take.  The more we support each other the bigger our circle seems to become which leads to a greater opportunity to get our visual stories created and seen.

I looked further into other potential ways of connecting and discovered many, I mean many, sites have popped up for producers, crew, actors, directors, and writers.  IndieProducer.net, Crewedup.com, Massify.com, Productionslate.net, & Theauteurs.com (now Mubi.com) are just a few I've found filled with valuable information.  And there are always the old standbys:  Mandy.com & Craigslist.  The deeper I look the more they lead me to volumes of helpful directories & social networking.  I've now been lead to amazing groups on yahoo and google as well.  Loads of great producer info so far!  Everything from questions about PA's to production insurance referrals to camera rental info.

Now, I'm not saying stay home and scour the internet for opportunities.  It's ridiculously important to get out and physically network, shake hands, and have discussions with other colleagues and potential mentors.  As a matter of fact I ran into the guy who turned me on to the yahoo groups at a networking event in Glendale one night.  His name is Alex and his latest endeavor is a competitive guide to LA 411's directory called CineCreative Media (cinecreative.com).  We stay in touch, me knowing that as soon as I can return the favor and help him out with some info I definitely will.

There are gems of people in our industry out there and meeting them is great.  Not only do you form a relationship with them but you get a chance to help each other out.  So, the balance, in the end, is to find a way to take the traditional path and attend networking events, join groups, then follow the modern path and stay on top of as much social networking as you possibly can.  Add those trades and news articles into the mix and you've almost got a full time job on your hands!  But it most definitely pays off as you go. - TKS

How to be an Effective Director

For most professions, you can make a strong argument for and against micro-management; but when it comes to film, an effective director is not a micro-manager.  He or she should not and can not get too absorbed by any one of their responsibilities on set, or else all other elements will be in danger of drifting from the director's vision.  This is one of the most important lessons I've learned on the job.

It can be a hard habit to break for an independent director.  Not too long ago, even though Nick and I had an experienced AD on set, I kept running out of the video village to chase down and re-arrange the background actors.  I didn't even notice what I was doing until Trina reminded me: "Use your AD!" -- "Whoops!  You're right!"

A director is responsible for so much at the same time -- in real time -- bound to a schedule that sprints but never exhales -- responsible for things like,

1. Making sure all elements of production are consistent with his or her overall vision -- acting, lighting, camera movement, set design, sound elements, costume, SPFX;
2. Contextualizing shots and performance in real time;
3. Extracting believable performances from the actors;
4. Quality control;
5. Strong creative guidance;
6. Captain the set and motivate the crew;

All this while paying close attention to what Martin Scorsese describes as "knowing exactly what you want and being able to change it according to the circumstances, or taking advantage of something more interesting. [...] Being able to know what is essential, what you absolutely can not change, mustn't change, and what you can be more flexible on."

It's a minor miracle any movie gets made, but for a movie to be made well, a director must focus clearly on all aspects, made possible only by a crew that can be trusted with the details -- a script supervisor, 1st AD, DP, Production Designer, Costume Designer, great actors (not to mention a magnificent UPM making it all possible).

The trap is getting absorbed in a single issue because any one of these components is lacking or completely missing.  It's a perpetuating problem.  Thought given to that continuity problem that a script supervisor should be concentrating on, is a thought that could have been some amazing visual that will never be improvised.  Focus on an actress that needs extensive coaching on set, is focus distracted from other actors who need less coaching but coaching nonetheless. -- The difference between a mediocre scene and good scene, a good film, and an inspired film are overlooked mistakes and details, and great ideas that never had a chance to be imagined.

Use the resources you've got and do pre-production right to avoid these distractions.  Take the time to find the right crew, crew you can trust to focus on the details, while you focus on the bigger picture.  Hire actors you can be confident in; collaborators who aren't just there to do exactly what you say (but will do what you say if you ask nicely).  As Clint Eastwood says, 95% of his job is simply picking the right actor -- I'm sure the same goes for his crew.

Low budget independent filmmakers often take pride in wearing all the hats.  They see AD and script supervisors as luxuries.  Why not just work a little harder and save on budget?  But until you fully utilize these roles, until you trust your crew; you'll bend over backwards, but you won't fulfill your full potential as a director or make your film the best film that it can be.

-- Charles Rhoads

A Call to Consumers

This morning, as I read an email response from a rep at one of the ad agencies I met with in New York last week, I couldn’t help but feel a little disheartened by his words... “the 30 second spot is dead.”

First off, what is it with people? They seem so happy to be the kings of these glib declarations; every time technology supposedly trounces another piece of our analogue history they rush be the first to proclaim something dead before its time. Film is dead, records are dead, your parents are dead... blah blah blah, but don’t worry, they’re being replaced with something far shinier, more efficient, and death-proof! No seriously, I replaced your parents with cookware; learn to fry an egg it builds character.

Let’s be clear here, when I say the word “disheartened,” I of course mean I’m tired of this band wagon mentality that permeates our stinkin’ industry, the fools who jump from one piece of tech to the next – EACH and every time claiming it’s the nail in the coffin on film; the ones who say the future of Hollywood is on mobile phones (a big salute to you especially); the ones who think 3D will be the band-aid over the wounds that story suffers weekly with each release of these safe bet remakes and reboots... I do NOT mean that I question my ability to survive as a broadcast content provider in the midst of a sea change. For you see we have built our boat in these waters and it’s made of WOOD (wood floats, silly).

Now, you might be asking yourself “who is this human turd man who defends the advertisement of corporate America?!” And I will respond thusly: I am not a TURD I’m a man and I have feelings!... Look, I am also no fan of the bombardment of consumer products we all live through daily. I am not a fan of billboards and bus stop ads; I do not revel in 25 pages of cologne bathed half naked men and women airbrushed into oblivion before I even get to the contents pages of my latest copy of Guns and Ammo Magazine. NO SIR! But damn it if I don’t know a single person who isn’t just as excited about the commercials in the Super Bowl as they are the game itself.

Because when commercial advertising is good, it speaks to us on a fundamental level, it makes us laugh, it makes us cringe, it creates nostalgia -- it becomes part of our social consciousness. It also pays for our goddamn television production.

It’s so funny, when I discovered Hulu I thought I found the holy grail of television content distribution. What do you mean I don’t have to wait for reruns of a missed show?... in fact – HOLY SHIT!!! I can actually see entire seasons of programming? Back episodes at my fingertips? Any time I want you say? The networks are be-HIND this?!? Oh... well what are those little stupid dots on the timeline... commercials? Well... it’s only one at a time I guess I can live with that.

I actually prefer it to Tivo. You have to sit through an occasional commercial, so what? It’s better than sitting through 5 at a time so it’s a step up from standard broadcast. Also, It requires nothing of me except that I have a computer in my lap and 27 minutes of time to waste on another episode of Fraggle Rock. I don’t have to pay for cable, I don’t have to have any sort of television signal coming into my life, I don’t have to schedule recordings and delete old episodes when it fills up... and I can still catch my episodes of the Daily Show, South Park, and anything else pretty much. Free.

But this is not to be so. Hulu is turning over to the evils of pay service, because in this digital age people still feel the need to seek out ways to absorb this painstakingly crafted content without paying the piper. It’s ad revenue that creates the ability to produce and air these shows. If not ad revenue it’s back end dividends from the DVD market or pay service sites. But of course, like everything else, DVD was proclaimed dead as well -- at the hands of the potent mix of digital piracy and the still hazy future of distribution.

Maybe people are right, maybe commercials are shitty, but let me tell you I watch plenty of shows that I would never want to own or pay for in general, so I am happy to sit through commercials if it means I don’t need to buy a DVD or pay for the content. If I look for alternatives that don’t require me to pay for it or watch commercials, I’m neutering the ability for the shows I watch to be made in the first place.

Let’s be real though, the reason people are so burned out on commercials is because, by and large, they suck. But once a year, and on a few very rare occasions in between we are blessed with a competition of advertising that has many times lead to some of the most memorable television moments in the history of the medium, so socially or comically relevant that they are recorded, nay, burned into our pop collective.

Where’s the beef. The Budweiser Frogs. Mean Joe Greene. Got Milk?

IF the 30 second spot is to die, as so proclaimed by the agency ass hat who’s passing the buck on his own industry before doing a damn thing about it, if this is to be so – it is his own damn fault. If commercials were as consistently entertaining as the content they pull us away from, if advertisers were better at their jobs than they think they are, we’d have no reason to switch the channel.

In the end, I’m not at all sad at the idea of the 30 second spot getting a serious run for its money. They need to step up their game and create engaging content, learn to keep us interested. A commercial may be 30 seconds but it’s still filmmaking to its core. Make it good and people will happily watch.

-Nick Harris

A Call To Arms

I try very hard not to mix politics and business. It's the equivalent to the separation of church and state. The two can be an explosive, debilitating cocktail of destruction when they become one. Today, however, I cannot silence the noise I'm about to make here.

PBS, ever becoming more and more a fascinating venue for gorgeous cinematography and entertaining programming, plays one hour of Democracy Now every weekday nite. Sometimes I watch, sometimes I shut my eyes and ears tight to the chaos of the world hoping to preserve a long, calm nite of sleep. Couldn't do it last nite. The persistence of Amy Goodman won. I sat on the edge of my bed listening to her report the student protests at the University of Puerto Rico. Something, I've come to find out, not happening in the mainstream press. 24 days these people have been occupying the university grounds...a campus of 65000 students...protesting the $100 million in budget cuts. They are being starved, their family members trying to get them water being arrested, riot police surrounding them, threatening them. Don't forget, PR is United States territory. This ain't a third world dictatorial situation.

Several recent scenarios flashed before my eyes: Texas changing the context of history books, deleting facts, twisting truths and calling it education; schools in urban Kansas City and other districts going bankrupt; Arizona eliminating ethnic studies; the continuation of the failed No Child Left Behind program, and a presidential candidate vehemently promising to make the education of our nation a top priority. The dumbing down of America by the hands of the trusted. More frightening to me than any missile threat from the east.

And there went any possibility of a peaceful nite's sleep.

Now. I make it a daily event to watch one full hour of quality television every nite. Sometimes my sleep suffers and I go into two hours, sometimes three, if it's all just too good to turn off and my discipline is at a low, but most of the time I keep it at bay. It's my learning tool. It's my daily industry news. It's my replacement for the terrible cinema taking over the theatrical world. It's my hope.

I've devoured the first season of Mad Men recently and found it to be the most overall well written, filmed, designed, and executed show I've ever come across. It's intelligent and daring, edgy, bold, so so entertaining. The characters, the story, the concept, so well developed. The acting and, quite obviously, the directing are fantastic. Camera movements, lighting, art design, dialogue, sound...a Valhalla of moving pictures!

The crazy thing is I initially rejected this show. It was a Christmas present from Nick. I wholly appreciated the thought but questioned him on his decision to offer this show to me as a gift. It was HBO and Showtime I ranted and raved about incessantly. Why this silly new offering from AMC? How could one of the lower channels possibly compete with the genius of pay TV serials?

I had caught up to all those glorious programs a couple months after Christmas and rather than go back and re-watch, definitely not something I'm adverse to, I decided to give the "lesser" series a try. Three episodes later, at 3 am in the morning, I was singing the praises of AMC and thanking Nick for the intro to Mad Men from the bottom of my heart. He had opened up Pandora's box of television shows for me. All 900 channels were now open for my inspection at the first suggestion of greatness hinted at by anyone I considered to have semi good TV taste.

I've now gone through Mad Men, Breaking Bad (my pick-my-jaw-up-off-of-the-floor series), United States of Tara, The Office (UK) & Party Down. I branched out into Showtime with Weeds, Dexter, and Nurse Jackie giving each of them the benefit of the doubt at the behest of the first season's usual discomfort of watching the actors get into character and the not-having-enough-money-yet-for-a-really-good-production obstacles. I looked under the layers, focused on the plot lines, listened to the writing and let it all move me, teach me, and allow me to escape.

No need to say HBO warranted absolutely no prompting. I've followed everything from Deadwood to the Wire to Carnaval to Flight of the Conchords to Curb Your Enthusiasm, Extras, True Blood, the Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Summer Heights High, Big Love, Bill Maher, Sex In The City, Tell Me You Love Me, In Treatment, John Adams, Def Poetry...!!!! I even delved into the world of HBO Latino and got swallowed up by Alice, Capadocia, and Filhos do Carnaval!

See???? And there's no end to this whirlwind of fantastic. Treme, Ricky Gervais, Hung, and the Pacific loom on the horizon. No kid in a candy store could be happier than I am dancing with the fine work of so many TV artists and executives. And that's something I NEVER ever thought I would say.

I recently decided to give the networks a chance. With everyone raving about Lost and Glee, and me with my new found trust in TV and tolerance of other peoples viewing advice, I did it. And I'm hooked. Glee is a world of funny and talented. It levels me after a high anxiety hour of Lost. And yes, Lost has my heart racing by the end of almost every episode so far. I'm only a few episodes into the first season but, man, I am happily impressed and pleasantly surprised. Oh, ya, it's network television no doubt. All the main characters are good looking and perfect. Dimples and cerulean blues. The leader (so far) is a man. The women a little non existent in the strength of the story line except as victims. The danger perilous but usually overcome by the end of the hour. But it's good, suspenseful stuff. And the dialogue far from normal network cheesy.

As I watched Charlie hanging from a jungle tree last nite, seemingly dead, my heart went into fearful over drive and I had to remind myself it was network TV I was watching. Not cable. Only cable kills the main characters and leaves everything so wonderfully unpredictable. It easily calmed me as I knew Charlie would live to see another production day. But the show's creators threw a curve ball at me that almost had me jumping out of bed whistling and hollering, showering pride on the industry I struggle to survive in. Charlie lay dead. His rescuers given up. Could it be? I wondered. Could it really be? Alas, no. The hero doctor gave it one last go and our victim gasped back to life. Even still, a well done scene. JJ Abrams just moved high up into the ranks of top notch directors for me. I even compared the guy to the untouchable and seemingly impassable Spielberg. If the quality and boldness of what film once was (and what TV has become) existed today would JJ Abrams give Spielberg a run for his money? Would his film work surpass the genius behind Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders of the Lost Ark? Sadly, we probably won't find out anytime soon. Not with the junk studios are dumping on the pill popping, food poisoned, and chemically laden masses that we are all a part of.

Which brings me right back to politics. Education is information. Information means making choices. Making choices based on educated thought means quality innovation for an ever growing population. As the American system of education declines further than we've seen it since the birth of this idealistic nation...As public schools and universities run out of money...As doors close on those below the upper middle class line...It's crystal clear obvious there needs to be something else to replace the loss of intelligence we will all be victims to. Now's the time to be patriotic. Now's the time to refresh the tree of liberty. Now's the time to put down the apathy and look through the propaganda. Eisenhower's military-industrial complex is quite possibly upon us for without education there is only war, poverty, tyranny.

Ask yourself what each one of the shows I mentioned in this blog have in common and you should realize that it is intelligence. They are all clever and unpredictable. They are certainly there to create revenue, sell commercials but not in the damaging way it has been since the advent of the TV. Each series draws upon real life. Each series looks at the motivations of real people. Looks at the paths of strife that have been our lot in history. Some series, like the Wire, are written by people who have lived and breathed trauma. Others, like Lost, are fully fictional scenarios that offer explanations to human behavior, governance, and destruction. But they all offer an education of sorts. If our government and our schools are not going to do it then we, as entertainers, creators, artists and producers can. What better way to learn than through entertainment? What more fulfilling career to have than one that supports open minds and free thought? What better payoff than one that lets everyone have a piece of the pie?

And so this is a call to arms. Pick up your weapons. Your pens, your paper, your paints, your guitars, your drums, your microphones, your cameras, your laptops, your editing bays, your persuasive natures, your fast talking abilities, your confidence, your pride, your voices. Pick them up and hold them high. Move swift and be creative. Without the artists & entertainers leading the way social progress stands still. - TKS

A Call to Filmmakers

Hollywood is paralyzed in it's fear.  Studio executives insist on making bets so safe it's absurd.  Somewhere right now, a panel of marketing experts, film industry veterans and social media savants stream live in a vain attempt to address the same unanswerable questions:

Is that Great Hollywood Bounty a thing of the past?  How will movies make money in the digital era of micro-audiences, piracy, and streaming video?  How will we make a living in a saturated, one-dollar-a-rental-Redbox-market, with so little space for theatrical distribution? 

We producers, writers, and directors, are preoccupied with article after article addressing these questions, no more certain or satisfied than if we hadn't even read the articles in the first place.  Meanwhile the battle for the soul of our culture hangs in the balance, and I hate to say it but culture is losing.

Today's teenagers are supposed to identify with remakes, reboots, sequels, and incessant comic book movies they've known since they were young enough to start appreciating movies.  Copies of copies defining a generation, coming from those that came before them --  willingly supplied by us.

Where's the sense of outrage?  And more importantly, why comic book movies?  Was this the unobtainable "We'll-get-there,-pop" dream Shakespeare had in mind all along?  Really?  A Jonah Hex movie?  A Deadpool movie?  (Not to mention the fact that the guy that played Deadpool is also playing Green Lantern?)  -- We're not even talking about the staples anymore, this is the crap left over.  Why?

Of course any industry lives or dies by economics and higher ROI.  Money.  These safe bets with built in audiences are a better guarantee for investors -- so say the executive sages that run this town.  

But friends, money, and money alone isn't good enough.  Money is no excuse.  Money vs. creativity is a false argument, and money alone is a short-sighted illusion.  It's the same oversimplification that doomed Bear-Sterns and Washington Mutual (and perhaps our whole economy if the government hadn't intervened).  One need look no further than the sub-prime mortgage crisis to see this truth in practice.  As long as great sums of money were flowing, the experts that run the great banks of wall street never asked why, and virtually all the tycoons forgot what they were there to do to begin with.  Trading worthless mortgages at top dollar, they forgot their purpose, and it nearly destroyed the U.S. banking system.

Asking why, always why, in the midst of good times or bad, is the difference between failed societies, failed civilizations, failed economies, and fundamentally sound ones.  Are we fulfilling the true purpose of our industry?  Are we providing entertainment and culture to our society?

You can argue that comic book movies, remakes, reboots and sequels can be entertaining.  It's possible, but it's doing a pretty half-assed job, wouldn't you agree?  It's a copy, a traced sketch, a re-used tissue.  Yeah, it'll get the job done, but we aren't just in the business of entertainment.  Our business is also about culture, and anyone that says otherwise is deaf, blind, and dumb.  People once admired poetry en masse and it defined a culture; people once read fiction en masse.  Film is the new standard bearer. 

I'm not even talking about adult dramas, or avant garde cinema, or foreign films nobody can understand.  I'm talking about films with heart!  An honest stab at original content!  Films that jump off the 3 act structure every now and then.  Exceptions!  Risks! -- Whether they be dramas, comedies or horrors.  Films that respect their audiences instead of patronizing them.

Why do we re-make the same movie when the original story is sufficient?  Why are sequels made that don't further a story?

And to you independents: dispell your egos.  Cast it from yourselves!  While, money and only money could be the reason a film as sick, useless, and morally barren as "The Human Centipede" could ever be made, ego is the ingredient that inspires such films.  The sense that your work deserves to be seen, no matter what, is not enough.  While you concern yourselves with bottom line, marketing, and potential audiences (in pre-production like you're supposed to be doing, right?), think of this as well:

Films are reflections of the people that make them and the era in which they are made.  What kind of a movie do you want to make?  What do you want to say during your short time above ground?

Hollowed out culture marks a civilization in decay.  The responsibility falls on you to provide some of that culture -- and don't get me wrong, I believe even goofball comedies are part of the solution.  But don't pass the buck.  Don't blame audiences for accepting copies of copies; don't give into the easy dollar.  We've got a job to do.

Charles Rhoads

Know Your Cameras Foo!

There was a time when it was a cinematographer's sole discretion, or at the very least a collaborative discussion between Director and DP that yielded a final say on which film stock to shoot a motion picture.

With the advent of the digital revolution, this all seems to be changing.  Nowadays it's almost as if before a movie is even conceived, the format on which it will be shot is decided. 

"I want to shoot my film on the RED ONE!"

Oh the cry of the indie masses, we hear you, but do you know WHY you want to use that fancy looking pile of camera? 

"It shoots 4K, it has 35mm depth of field... it's the newest derned shiniest thing that shoots pictures in these here parts see!"

That's generally where the list ends.  Back in the day, you know, when people actually knew what they were doing and why... we made choices on camera/film stock based on narrative reasons.  Each film stock has a very unique and distinctive treatment of color and latitude which lends its importance to very specific visual storytelling necessities.

You don't shoot "The Pianist" with the same stock you shoot "Transformers 2", there's method to this madness.

But these days everyone seems to have this delusion that there is one camera to rule them all.  Before I begin to discuss exactly why the RED isn't the wunderkind-camera-of-the-millennium like almost every indie producer working today would have you believe, I will put it out there that the RED ONE is most definitely not a camera to be ignored. 

However, what most people these days don't realize is in this new digital playground, choosing a camera is akin to choosing film stock.  You don't shoot a RED project with a Panasonic, and you don't shoot a Panasonic project with a Sony.  Just the same you don't shoot Kodak when you should be shooting Fuji...

Let's talk numbers for a moment, I'll try to keep it from getting too cryptic.  4K, the RED's biggest draw, is the super cool bigger brother of 720p and 1080p.  He's got an electric blue 1987 Camaro drop top, the ladies love him, and all his friends treat 720 and 1080 like a couple of chumps when they tag along.

What importance does 4K resolution serve?  Actually, on this one I would say quite an important role indeed, or at least on the surface it might seem that way.  4K means, much like 1080P (which is 1920x1080 pixels), your image is 4096×3072 pixels.  Ideally, you'd think that more pixels equals better picture, but that's where numbers, science, and good old fashioned movie watching show that it's not as important as you might think.

First off, almost no theaters project digital in 4K, they project in 2K.  Yes, even Hollywood's fanciest most techno-driven futuristic digital theater, The Arclight on Sunset Blvd, projects half the resolution at which Joe Filmmaker feels he needs to shoot his shitty ass web series, short films, and music videos.

It has been proven that the only people that gain anything from the extra detail of 4K are those who are sitting within 1.5 screen lengths from the screen (and by screen I mean theater screen... something most projects shot on the RED will never see).  This means, If I were to tip the screen down over the audience and add half it's height, those people sitting in the seats it covered would be the only ones who might be able to perceive the increase in definition, and I stress MIGHT.  Generally, those are the seats nobody wants to sit in. 

I would also like to ask, for those of you who have seen any of the following films (Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Sin City, Collateral, Star Wars: Ep. I, II, and III, or Superman Returns) in the past years since digital cinema became a reality for big budget studio films, did those movies not feel like real movies to you?  Did they lack something in their framing, depth, or overall detail that was so unnerving you thought you were watching your niece's ballet recital for 2-3 hours? 

I know for myself, especially with Zodiac and Slumdog Millionaire, that I was so engrossed in their stories, acting, consistently high production value, and expert framing, that I never stopped to think they were less than ideal in quality... because they are not.  They are just what they needed to be.

But this is what producers today seem to believe.  Not because of some hidden agenda to discredit great cameras; more because they have no idea what really makes a good image, but they do know what's hot on the market.  Now, the cameras that shot some of these films are being looked at as less capable, less desirable, and thus get their owners less work now because they aren't the newest kid on the block.  For those of you putting together low budget productions, shouldn't that pique your interest?

I once listened to a producer ask a well recognized DP, whom I was sitting next to at a panel discussion, whether he should take his friend up on an offer to shoot for free on a Sony F900 (mind you this camera still goes for $50,000+ for body alone today), or spend money on a RED.  He seemed almost depressed or disgusted by the idea of using this "lesser" camera.  I jumped in because I just couldn't believe it... technology might advance, new cameras might be easier to work with, fancy solid state workflows might be replacing tape, but in the end the question is: does the camera put out a cinematic image?  This idiot, who's shooting a crummy, low budget independent horror film with no distribution, has an opportunity to get for FREE the same camera that was good enough for George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, and countless others who cut the path before him... "what sort of producer are you?"  I asked, "did the image this camera put out 8 years ago suddenly become beneath your sensibilities?  Work with what you can afford, and in that, what will afford you the best image for your story."  The DP who was originally supposed to answer this question smiled, squashed his laughter, and patted my shoulder in agreement.

Slumdog Millionaire was shot on a camera with half the resolution of a RED ONE, and with an image sensor half as large, yet somehow this disgusting, lowly, piece of crap camera put out an image that WON AN ACADEMY AWARD... how ever did this happen?!

This brings me to a very important point that it's the eye BEHIND the camera that makes an image worthy of lighting up the silver screen.  I'm more than certain that Anthony Dod Mantle could make a cell phone camera feel like more than it's meager parts if it were asked of him... which he pretty much did by filming "28 Days Later" on a pre 24P standard definition Canon XL1-S. 

OF COURSE it didn't look like 35mm Kodak Vision 3 stock, it was grainy and soft, but the brilliance behind their decision was that in every possible way their choice benefited the production.  The image itself lent a documentary feel to a situation that cried for you to feel like you were right there; the low cost of the camera meant they could have more cameras covering large events at no risk to production budget; and lastly the brunt of the budget was for once able to go into mis en scene.  Makeup, locations, extras, props, effects... these are all major costs for a film.  The camera didn't need to add another humongous cost and so what was being placed in front of the grainy, filthy image felt all the more real -- thus: here is an example of producers/director/DP who actually functionally reasoned their choice in digital acquisition.

The other major component that people are going gaga over these days is RED's 35mm sized sensor (now being threatened by this DSLR revelation which is a blog unto itself).  Now, as a DP myself, I will not sit here and tell you that it's not ideal to have that amount of control over depth of field, but here's why it's not as important as the camera nut whispering in your ear might tell you.

Last year I was talking with the reps from Band Pro, which are the retail face for Sony's major digital cinema cameras, and they were telling me the F23 (the 2/3" imager successor to the F900 and F950) was being almost completely ignored.  Why?  Why would a $200,000 camera that's the next in a line of cameras that defined digital cinema for  decade not be finding work?  The answer was Sony's more expensive F35, a similar camera that competes with Panavision's Genesis in specs that rocks a 35mm sized image sensor, was king of the roost.

Let's just make a note that we're talking a whole different ballpark of camera here.  The image output of the RED can't compete with the F35 or the Panavision Genesis, these are cameras for the biggest budget digital pictures in production by the major players.  However the concept is the same, image sensor size dictates depth of field so when you have 2/3" imagers going up against 35mm imagers, 35mm wins hands down when it comes to your ability to control depth and focus. 

However, this is tied in with how wide you've set the iris of your lens (the wider the iris, the shallower the depth of field) so when we get back into balancing budget with the available tools in your cameras, you should understand that 2/3" cameras like the F23 (which shot Cloverfield and Public Enemies), The Viper (which shot Benjamin Button and Zodiac), or the Silicon Valley SI-2K (which shot Slumdog) are perfectly capable of shooting with what your audience would consider cinematic depth of field.  Most DP's shooting 35mm, whether digital or film, are shooting with their lenses stopped down to a depth of field that matches what the 2/3" imagers put out with the iris wide open.

If this sounds like jargon to you, just understand that the RED is being chosen over competing cameras in its price range because of the depth of field.  I'm telling you if you put any of those competing cameras in my hand, I will produce just as cinematic an image as I would with the RED.  Your DP just needs to know what he's doing. 

So now that we understand why people are going after the larger sensor, I can cover its drawbacks.  Color suffers, plain and simple.  The larger a sensor, the more heat it generates.  On smaller imagers, you generally have 3 separate chips, which means for each and every pixel you are getting information for luminance (or brightness) and red, green, and blue color signals.

With the larger chip, because separate RGB sensors would produce so much heat (until of course the technology allows us to do so) it has to do all that the 3 chip sensor does with a single chip.  There's no free lunch, and the answer is what is called a "Bayer pattern", the same tech that's in your mom and pop home video camcorder.  This means that each pixel on the chip gets a single color, and luminance information.  The colors are spread out across the imager like a checkerboard between red, green, and blue, rather than all three feeding into every pixel.  This makes an image that's both washed out, and less true to real life. 

The moral of the story here is not that the RED is a hack job camera.  Far from it, the depth of field is a benefit, the 4K is nothing to sneeze at for effects and compositing in post, but really those things aren't the only factors that go into why we choose a camera or film stock.  The RED has a specific "look", Panasonic's cameras have a specific "look", Sony's cameras have a specific "look".  So stop hiring your DP's because of the camera they bring in tow, hire them because they are the kind of person that helps you choose the right tool for the job, and then knows how to use that tool.






-Nick Harris