“What I’m looking for technology to do, is reduce the amount of time from idea to the execution.”
I’m looking for something with less chemical waste
What I’m looking for technology to do, is reduce the amount of time from idea to the execution.
Sounds nice. What does it mean, exactly?
>>Sounds nice. What does it mean, exactly?<<
Speed up the movie making process perhaps?
What it means, i think, is very simple.
One has an idea for a film.
One writes the idea down.
One develops the idea fully.
One finds financial backing.
(^ in Soderbergh’s case this is not an issue)
One gets a cast/crew together.
One shoots in digital in lieu of film.
Ergo, time between production & postproduction greatly differs. There is no developing of the film, watching dailies is relatively instantaneous compared to 35mm, the importing/editing process gets started much quicker, for example, Soderbergh talks here about how he would edit yesterdays footage in the hour-long car-ride each morning, getting a massive head-start that would never be possible with film. This, mind you, is huge.
The way to sum up the sentence: DIGITAL IS MORE EFFICIENT.
Digital will eventually change cinema in a good way. Why? Cost.
I just wrapped an indie feature I directed Sunday “Fields of November” it was roughly outlined and all the dialogue and even part of the fleshed out story was improv. I had pleasure to have 2x RED One cameras for the shoot and it was the perfect camera for my film. The DP wanted to do s16, but the non scripted aspect just felt like ulcers waiting to happen. Our RED Tech/DIT did the color correction on set, and the outcome was amazing. Not one issue on set, including shooting in Manhattan in the rain. Pics of the shoot:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=366247158788
Nathan Earl
Che and the Digital Cinema Revolution from high rez on Vimeo.