Is renting RED worth it?

So yesterday, I was sitting in my little missionary compound in Nairobi, Kenya, and out of nowhere, a sweet film crew comes along with a low-budget (but still frickin' sweet) RED camera setup. There was some Norwegian skateboard champion who came to our compound because we've apparently got the only halfpipe to be found in Nairobi, and he brought a Toyota Hilux full of 2 pro-grade dolly rigs, a RED One with a nice rack, monitors, and a bunch of hard drives, a sweet boom mic, mixer, and 2 sound techs, plus a pretty legit SteadiCam and it's operator.

My jaw was on the floor since I've never even heard about that much money going into a film made in East Africa (besides Hollywood features like The Constant Gardener), so I did a bit of research and discovered that the one single RED to be found in East Africa can be rented right here in Nairobi, at fairly exorbitant prices, of course.

It got me thinking...

I've got this spec script I'm hoping to turn into a short film and shoot in Nairobi in a month or so. I was planning on doing the whole thing super-low-budget with my Sony Handycam + 35mm adapter, external mic, and Final Cut. But theoretically, I DO have enough money to rent this RED and a DP for a few days to shoot this thing.

But is it really worth it? I mean, I'm only known for doing videos/media amongst friends, colleagues, schoolmates, etc. I'm not professional in any sense of the word, but I understand the industry enough (living in L.A. area) to think that a film shot by one guy on a Handycam, however brilliant, will get a sideways glance - and a film shot on a bit of a budget with a RED (or similar high-end digicam) and a DP in charge will probably attract a helluva lot more attention at a festival somewhere.

So is it worth it to invest in that kind of tech for little more than artistic pursuit?
 
Interesting.

It would inevitably gain you more attention from fellow film-makers if you happened to mention "RED", but the viewing audience would be none-the-wiser of its quality compared to any other relatively capable model. Meaning, is it worth going the whole-hog?

Personally, whenever i'm pitched a project, and the first thing i'm told is "It's shot on RED..." I'm put off hugely. Merely a pet-hate.

So i'm split.

Would it gain you more attention? Yes.
Would that attention journey beyond the mention of RED, and therefore be worth the funds? I can't possibly answer.
 
I think the fact that you're shooting on location in Kenya might negate the need for a high end camera in terms of how the film is perceived internationally.

Is this no middle ground? A better camera than a handy cam but not necessarily the RED? Then you can put some of the surplus cash toasted improving the production in general, rather than just the camera it's shot on...

Just thoughts.
 
I don't know how much it costs to rent a RED?
But couldn't you buy a camera for that price ( I don't know only suggesting) which would be better than the Handycam?
 
Not knowing your budget for equipment other than the camera and not knowing the requirements of your script etc. its hard to give you advice.

But the one thing that stands out to me immediately is experience. If you think you don't have enough to be able to tell your story well, i would recommend getting the DP if he has good credentials. That way you can feel more sure about getting the film to look like what you imagine it to be, to do your script justice.

Perhaps a cheaper camera and just talk to the DP about his own rate without the RED?
 
The only reason I would particularly want a DP is because IF I was shooting with the RED or another similar camera (though one couldn't be found in Nairobi, aside from getting one shipped here), I would be in over my head about the technical demands of shooting that way.

I could probably pick my way through the process of finding the proper lens, white balance, exposure settings, and whatnot on a RED, but couple that with directing the actors, keeping the set running, and trying to be fairly FAST in the shooting process - I just think that having a more technically-minded person to interpret my ideas about cinematography would help keep things going smoothly.

But if I was either shooting with my handycam (which actually gets pretty nice results for what it is, and with visionary editing, could create a pretty Nairobian/inner city atmosphere that could be cool) or another, less demanding setup, I would be completely at home either handling the camera myself or directing a cameraman very specifically.

If you guys don't necessarily think that shooting with super high-end equipment is a big selling point, then I'm tempted to spend that kind of money ALL on sound, and shoot video separately with the handycam. Perhaps bottle up my RED craving and save it for home assignment in L.A., where one could be rented and operated a bit easier.
 
I recommend having a look at how Anthony Dod Mantle shot Slumdog Millionaire. Actually let me try and find a good article for you now... wait a second...

The story of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE unfolds in Mumbai (AKA Bombay), one of the densest, wildest, fasting moving cities in the world, rife with both danger and magic, dreams and despair, luxury and poverty -- the city that author Suketu Mehta memorably dubbed the “maximum city” in his novel of the same name, a symbol of the vastly diverse megalopolises of the future in which the fates of rich and poor will be closely intertwined. With a population of over 19 million and rapidly growing, Mumbai is set to replace Tokyo as the world’s most populous city by 2020 according to estimates. It is already the world’s most crowded city, with some 30,000 people pressed into every square kilometer of space. And though it features luxury shopping, sun-soaked beaches and hip nightlife, it is also a city where as many of 50% of the citizens live in shantytowns, ghettoes or on the streets.

For Danny Boyle, the challenge was to capture the light and dark contrasts of the city with fresh eyes – creating a visceral, immediate experience for audiences, immersing them in its sweltering heat and teeming corridors. His plan was to shoot in the heart of the city’s infamous but rarely explored slums, capturing their energy and urgency on-the-fly, with an unforced realism. As a newcomer, his own emotional reactions to his first forays into the city became part and parcel of the film’s design. “I thought it was an extraordinary place in the extremes that you experience there. But also, the challenges that you face are just beyond anything you can imagine,” he adds.

Mumbai’s high-contrast mix of heartbreaking poverty and technological advancement especially fascinated Boyle. “I’ve been to slums before but in different places in the world, like Kibera in Kenya, but this was different in all its contradictions. There’s this smell you get first of all… this incredible mixture of excrement and then saffron, a mixture of the sweet and the sour,” he laughs. “India’s one of the world’s leading nuclear powers on the one hand, but on the other hand, there are no public toilets.”

All of these observations and sensations became part of the intensely textured fabric of the film. Says Simon Beaufoy: “I don’t think people living in Mumbai see Mumbai as extraordinary. But what Danny, Christian and I were able to bring to it, as outsiders, is an open mouthed sense of awe.”
Christian Colson notes that the production purposefully left the beaten path behind. “Some of the specific challenges we faced were of our own making, in as much as we elected to shoot the vast majority of this movie in real locations, on the streets of one of the most densely populated and chaotic cities on earth,” he says.

Mumbai itself dictated the pulsing rhythm of the film. Boyle has always been a director who cleverly manipulates the environment around him to create mood and atmosphere – but in India that kind of control just doesn’t exist, he notes. “If you seek it, it will drive you insane,” remarks Boyle. “You’ll be jumping off a cliff within a week. You’ve got to go with it really, and just see what happens. Some days you think, ‘We’re never going to get anything, not a single thing.’ And suddenly at four o’clock in the afternoon, it comes back to you. This place will repay you, if you trust it.”

The production agreed on a pre-shoot strategy that allowed them to begin filming around the city in advance of the agreed official start of shoot date. While the different departments prepared for the shoot, Boyle and a skeleton crew began filming rehearsals, in order to maximize the amount of shooting time they had in India. “It was a great way of just getting into making the film,” says Colson. “We essentially started filming two weeks early. Everyone was there. The equipment was there. We were on the ground near the location, so we actually started shooting.”

Boyle also felt that the film’s lead, Dev Patel, who stars as Jamal, would benefit from spending time in Mumbai before the cameras rolled and invited the young actor to come along on several location scouts. For Patel, the experience helped him better understand the character and where he came from.
“I really wanted to have a chance to play a scene when I was actually in the depths, in the slums, immersed in that environment,” says Patel. “Being on the locations really helped me to build a background for Jamal and see where he’d grown up. In one location Danny saw a few kids playing the drums on the street. They were preparing for the Ganesha Festival. Danny told me to turn my T-shirt inside out, because I had a big logo on it, and said, ‘Go and join them!’ I said, ‘What?!’ and he said, ‘Just go and join them.’ They got me in. They got someone to translate, put the drum on me and I started drumming. And Anthony, the DP, came in with a small DigiCam and just started filming it, without attracting too much attention to himself.”

The production shot in Dharavi, Mumbai’s so-called “mega-slum,” with its staggeringly diverse population of more than 1 million, an infamous mafia that controls everything from land to water, and a landscape forged from corrugated tin buildings, red asbestos roofs, mountainous garbage and non-stop human activity. They also shot in the city’s most vibrant shantytown, the Juhu slum, which is situated next to the airport and clearly visible to anyone flying into Mumbai. There, they plunged themselves and their cameras into the hubbub of everyday life and learned a lot about how this world operates with its own rules and underlying sense of honor.

“We put as many real slum-dwelling people in the film as we could get,” says Boyle. “The slums are actually thriving, bustling mini-metropolises. Now, in fact, what’s happened, because India is a democracy, is that the slums have become incredibly powerful places politically because they have a lot of people in them. There are a lot of votes in a small area. There’s a big plan to clear Dharavi at the moment but a lot of those who live there don’t want it cleared. They’re very suspicious of what they’ll be given in its place.”

He continues: “Because of the scarcity of land in Mumbai, they’ll probably be moved out to what’s called New Mumbai, New Bombay, which is miles away and where they don’t want to live. What’s important to them is not so much sophisticated dwellings, it’s actually community. It’s that they live together and they support and help each other. They have huge extended families of cousins and uncles. So it’s a real challenge for their politicians to try and find a way of updating the standards of living and yet retaining people’s demand for close communities.”

The task of shooting amidst the bustle of these ramshackle cities-within-the-city fell to award-winning director of photography Anthony Dod Mantle, who most recently shot the Oscar®-winning LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, and has previously worked with Boyle shooting 28 DAYS LATER and MILLIONS. Mantle had to be extremely flexible in his shooting methods. The crew originally planned to shoot certain scenes using highly advanced SI-2K digital cameras and shoot the rest of the movie on film, but Boyle was adamant that he did not want to take large, cumbersome 35mm cameras into the slums. The smaller, more flexible digital cameras enabled them to shoot quickly with much less disturbance to the local communities.

For Boyle, it came down to trial and error to find the right shooting process. “We started off using classical kinds of film cameras and I didn’t like it. I wanted to feel really involved in the city. I didn’t want to be looking at it, examining it,” he explains. “I wanted to be thrown right into the chaos as much as possible. There’s a period of time between about 2am and 4am where it all stops and just the dogs move around, but other than that, the place is just a tide of humanity.”

The hyperkinetic chase sequence involving the young Jamal and Salim at the beginning of the film, in particular, was filmed incrementally, built up, like a montage over a period of time. Whenever possible, the crew would return to the location and film another section of the chase.

“Anthony was able to hand hold the SI-2Ks,” recalls Boyle. “Although they had a gyro on them to stabilize them, they were still very small and could operate in very small, narrow areas, which is what you get in the slums. You can capture a bit of the life that’s going on around you, without people realizing it and becoming self-conscious.”

Boyle continues: “We also used what we called a ‘CanonCam,’ which was a Canon stills camera, which takes twelve frames a second. If people see a still camera, they don’t think it is recording live action. We’d record stuff like that, as well as occasionally using the traditional film camera – so it’s a mixture of different technologies that we used in the film. Whoever was operating the camera would have a hard drive strapped to their back, which would record the images while the camera was in their hand. Anthony would look like a rather cumbersome tourist from Denmark who was wandering around the slums,” laughs Boyle, “but actually what he was doing was filming.”

Other memorable locations included the historic 19th Century train station known as Victoria Terminus or VT (aka Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus), in the heart of Mumbai, where the crew also filmed the final dance sequence that runs over the end credits. Trains are a visual motif throughout the film. “The railways are the lifeblood of India, really,” explains Boyle. “There’s an extraordinary number of people killed each day on the railways: people hang off the trains because they are so packed. People live and work alongside the railway too. They have this amazing technique to dry their clothes. They put a stone on each corner and, as the train comes by, it blows hot wind underneath the clothes and they literally dry in five minutes. But it’s very dangerous. They’re so close to the trains as they speed past.”

One of the most difficult scenes to film was that of the young children jumping off a speeding train right outside the splendorous Taj Mahal, which they mistake for heaven. “That was very, very, tough. We had a very good stunt guy who dealt with this. The lives of the kids were absolutely in his hands. He did a brilliant job for us really, but it was tough,” comments Boyle.

Finding locations and being granted access was a logistical challenge for the location scouts and support from the team’s Indian connections was vital. A local production company, India Take One Productions, brought its knowledge to the production, enabling the team to very quickly map out how they would move swiftly from one location to the next. But distance is not necessarily the biggest issue in India. With millions of cars, rickshaws and taxis vying for the roads, traffic jams are as much a part of daily life as eating and sleeping – and must be accounted for in scheduling.

“One of our challenges, unanticipated really, was that we’d look at the map before we went out and think ‘We’ll shoot this location, it’s only a couple of miles away’ – but it could take two hours to get there,” recalls Colson. “It was so congested. It’s like New York at its most manic.”

Overall, however, the support systems for filmmaking in Mumbai were far more advanced than the production had originally imagined. Although chaotic to a degree, Colson is clear to point out that facilities were available across all aspects of the production process. “Mumbai is a world center for filmmaking. The facilities are first class. There are fantastic crews, studio space, telecine houses. It’s all there,” he says.

But the fast-changing cityscapes around Mumbai were continuously challenging. Locations that had been sourced mere months before had, in many cases, changed so dramatically that alternative areas had to be found. Simon Beaufoy was amazed at how much the city’s look had altered since his early research visits. “I’d think, ‘Right, that is a fantastic location’ and six months later I’d go back with Danny and say, ‘Look at this fantastic… Oh! It’s gone.’ Here in the UK, we couldn’t get an escalator on the underground fixed in six months. And yet over there, they’ve built entire mega cities in that time. But we used all of this. We really wanted to get that sense of a city just burning itself up with energy, people, money, dust and dirt, and most of all, the movement of people.”

For Boyle and the rest of the team, this meant seamlessly merging the production as much as possible with the daily hustle-and-bustle of a city filled with constant suspense and a tangle of human stories – including Jamal’s astonishing journey towards a life he never could have imagined.
Sums up Colson: “The film’s a fairy tale and like all the best fairy tales, it’s got light and shade. So, one minute we were at the Taj Mahal, which is one of the most beautiful places you will ever see, and the next we were at some incredibly tough places. It was quite an odyssey for Danny and for all of us.”
 
Very interesting.

I rewatched Slumdog Millionaire a couple nights ago, keeping an eye out for varying image qualities and styles of shooting, since I knew from the first viewing (and my own rather harrowing experiences exploring Kibera Slum in Kenya) that there was no fucking way they'd be able to dart around with something as huge and attention-grabbing as a full on 35mm rig.

What I'm reading about these 12-fps DSLR-type rigs suddenly connects with some of the choppier, time-strobe footage they got in the Mumbai slums. Quite brilliant, actually.

I've tried shooting in some of the nicer areas of downtown Nairobi (with my conspicuous-looking modified Handycam AND a simple 35mm Nikon SLR) and actually gotten trouble from the police about taking photos on well-known streets without permits. I had NO IDEA that your average Kenyan officer/security guard would give a rat's ass about someone taking photos, but it gave me a good idea about what I would need to shoot in the city and the degree of discretion necessary to do so.

Another thought: finding a really nice DSLR, investing in a bunch of memory (or a great Hard Drive, depending on the model), and then after a week or so of rehearsals, shooting single takes while walking along the streets in Nairobi. I suppose, with the proper image treatment in post, that a professional image close enough to RED could be achieved...?

If you're interested in the script, and some of the shooting requirements, you can find it on Indietalk (just posted a new thread in the Screenwriting forum) or here on google documents:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...jYtMTIyMi00NWQ5LWI1M2UtYmJmNjg3MmYyOTZm&hl=en
 
If you guys don't necessarily think that shooting with super high-end equipment is a big selling point,
The camera is never a selling point.

Sure, tech journals concentrate on equipment and many filmmakers do.
But a person deciding what movie to watch does not consider the camera.
A film festival programer doesn't consider the camera with one exception
- they see an amazing movie shot on a little camcorder. Then there is
interest in how such an amazing movie was made with cheap equipment.
Quite frankly the opposite is even more true - a "so-so" movie shot on
super high-end equipment is immediatly suspect. Why didn't they do better
with all that great equipment? And a really good movie shot on super high-end
equipment gets a "So? They had super high-end equipment."

I'm not saying using super high-end equipment isn't great - I'm ONLY saying
it's not a selling point to festivals, distributors or the people who will be watching
a movie.

Quick - ask ten people what camera "The Social Network" was shot on. Not
filmmakers - regular folks who saw the movie. Then ask what "Black Swan"
was shot on. Then "True Grit". Then....
 
Directorik -

Good point. I suppose I'm just eager to find myself in the "big league," shooting a story I'm proud of with a really nice setup... but ultimately, you're right. Actually, from a cinematography POV, I personally respect those films made with underdog equipment, because as you say, it's hard to impress people with shot composition when you have the best equipment money can buy.

So, based on the excellent advice received here, I'm considering taking my hard drive around to some of the more professional "Video Production" offices in Nairobi (the kind of place you'd only go to make your first, micro-budget Kenyan music video) and asking to test a few of their nicer camera models and take the footage home with me to find something consistent with my Handycam. Once I find something that shoots HD, operates with FCE nicely, and has either a reliable external mic input or a decent shotgun mounted, offer the studio a good price to rent the camera (or even 2) and a cameraman who can follow directions.

I shoot exterior, city street shots carefully, probably with the Handycam because of it's size and ease of concealment. For interiors and booked location shots, I use the Handycam and 2 rentals to get 3x the coverage, allowing for a much faster shoot.

Then I take all the raw footage and get to my favorite part of the process: editing. Should be relatively easy to stick to the vision when the editor is also the screenwriter, which would also be more difficult if I actually shot in RED, since my Macbook isn't equipped with the workflow to edit that crazy shit.

Sound like a good middle ground?
 
Yeah, everyone's probably right that it's not worth it to rent the RED.

BUT, c'mon, guys! Who wants to shoot on a Sony Handicam when they could be shooting on the RED? It's awesome!! The RED camera... like, the pinnacle, the one that all the badasses use. Am I right? C'mon!

The REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDD! BAAAAA
 
Hire the DP is my advise. A good one can do magic w/ a simple T2i or whatever cam.. It is the mastery of the tool that counts IMO. It's not the tool but the artist. Im guessing many of today's painters would be put off if given the same brushes, paint and canvas Leonardo, Matisse or Modigliani had back in the day
 
Going RED has impact all up and down the production chain. It not the same as choosing to shoot on a Panasonic or Sony prosumer rig. Few PC's can really dance with RED footage, your post production facility choices drop and your storage needs escalate. Not to mention training on the system, the lenses, etc, and one person can NOT run a red, it takes at least two... etc etc.
 
I always held the RED as a really good camera, that happened to have an amazing sales pitch/attached its self to the right films. From footage I've seen, people I've talked to, etc, I'll still prefer my Fx7, until i can get my hands on a RED to try, and even then I'm not sure my opinion will sway any.
 
"post production facility choices drop"

This is why I went back to the HVX200A on my last film instead of shooting on a Red as I had initially planned. It wasn't the $500 a day camera package rental, it was workflow horror stories from my producer, and the fact my editor choices went from hundreds to a handful.
 
$500 per day? That's shockingly low compared to the prices I've seen in Southern California. Until I came to Africa, I was in Bakersfield, so the closest RED-equipped production company I could find was in Fresno, and they were renting for more than $1,000 per day, including quite a few lenses, two hard drives, a matte box, and the mounting rack.

Of course, in Nairobi, there's only a very, very limited demand for that kind of equipment, so the prices are through the roof.

So, I did some free editing for a friend's project, and I was told that if I ever wanted to use their cameras, I wouldn't have to pay anything. A GREAT payment for me, since they're pretty well equipped. They have consumer stuff (several of the same Handycams I have, which would be useful for filming "under the radar" in the city), and a couple older prosumer Sonys.

I also happened to be at a club one night, and they were shooting the biggest talk show in Kenya, a terribly-executed show called "Churchill Live." I saw the same gorgeous dolly rigs that the Norwegian skater crew had been using, and found out that one of the upper-end production companies in town rents the equipment to crews coming through East Africa for pretty reasonable prices.

So I've decided to used DOF adapters, good lighting, and some frickin' sweet locations to get by without using any particularly high-end cameras. The street scenes will all have to be handheld for discretion's sake, but I'm planning on renting the dolly equipment for a couple days where we'll be shooting in a warehouse, on a huge inner-city balcony, and in a downtown parking garage. For all this effort, I hope that the talent I've secured (more stage actors than film actors) can hold their own... But that's what rehearsals are for, eh?
 
Okay, I might as well post an update...

I had a meeting today with a friend in the Nairobi production industry, also a pretty well-known artist who I've directed two music videos for (and been involved in production/financing for another). He is interested in doing a new video together and pitched the idea to me, while I was at the same time equally excited about my own project, which I wanted to pitch to him.

I found out that renting a great dolly setup for the day is only 5,000 Kenya shillings ($60), and since I can get another camera or 2 for free, plus I have access to sound equipment and know a good tech, the only issue is lighting, and a big one it is.

He said that if I was willing to shoot the downtown leg of the music video for him in 2-3 hours (in the same location as one of the shoots for my project), he'd pay for all the lights himself, since I'd already have all the equipment for my other shoot there. Both productions would then become a co-finance between me and him, which lightens the load tremendously for me.

So I may only have to pay for dolly, location (a sweet-looking property owned by a church I've done videos for... so cheap) cameraman, and food for everyone. Everything is really coming together in the last few days. Might actually happen!
 
Previous discussion aside; you probably don't want the equipment overhead and touchy, prone-to-overheating camera on location in Kenya. RED probably isn't the best choice for this project.

After seeing how much dirt got inside the fan intakes of one after being on location for a couple weeks in the Sierras, I can't imagine trying to keep one clean in Kenya.*


(* - sorry, I was picturing out in the bush as it were; in urban areas less of a dirt concern)
 
Last edited:
What I notice is that you're putting together a pretty decent production in a fantastic location but you still seem to be intending to shoot on a handycam...?

I don't recommend the RED necessarily (see above post) but is there not a better quality camera that you can use. It just seems tantamount to heresy to use a handycam with a 'great dolly setup'.
 
Back
Top