Red vs Film

[Wesley Scoggins]

A difference that I don't think many of us are talking about is about storage capabilities for indies.

I can take a project, burn most of the raw footage to a dozen DVD's, copy it to a couple of harddrives, and keep that in my bedroom.

With film, if I stored it on the same shelf, that isn't humidity or temperature controlled, it's going to degrade much quicker than if it was professionally stored.

I can afford to store a lot of digital stuff I shoot. While film stuff I shoot, I feel is going to degrade much quicker since it isn't temperature/humidity controlled.

I don't know, I don't have experience with storing film on my own long term, but I have experience storing digital long term and from what I understand it takes far less resources for me.

[Jordi Figueras]

As it's been already said, the good thing will be to be able to choose between film and digital depending on the project. That's really not a possibility in some countries due to the prices Kodak, Fuji and the labs (in a snobish way) ask us. Then some people turned to HD, which really couldn't compare to the filmic quality of film (as redundant as it seems) and the rental for some of those "expensive" equipment made it quite impractical to use it. Then the prosumer HD cameras appeared and it suddenly became possible to shoot for a lower price in a HD format, but the quality was quite compromised. Then it appeared Mr. Jannard and invented the Red One.
With the Red One, we have a quite special look, so filmic but with a special touch (it renders the skins so smoothly) and for a little fraction of all those expensive medias you can finish with an aesthetic that people who sees it doesn't wonder which format did you use, they just assume it's a movie. Even in some situations, experts couldn't notice it was not film.
At least for us film is dead: it's really expensive, not practical to work with, and time consuming... For our projects we don't think in any other camera it's not my Red One.
If you are lucky enough to be able to choose, then I envy you! But Red has made possible for us to have a high end looking product for so little money that the company has won our loyalty.
Just giving my two cents in a long time running discusion.

[Stefan Christou]

You know, data centres create as much CO2 as aviation (2% of global CO2 each) and a two-word search on google takes as much energy as boiling a kettle.

[Wesley Scoggins]

I question those statistics. It would be hard to determine precisely how much CO2 data centers create since they are spread all over the world and all pulling from different energy sources, all of which have different CO2 footprints.

Not to mention all pulling different amounts of electricity, and they aren't always pulling a steady amount.

[David Rasberry]

When Michelin built their North American HQ here, they installed their central data center for all of their plants in the basement. The waste heat from that data center heats the entire 80,000 square foot building in cold weather. They did not install a furnace, just AC.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You know, data centres create as much CO2 as aviation (2% of global CO2 each) and a two-word search on google takes as much energy as boiling a kettle.

Not necessarily. I live in Washington state. Microsoft's Bing datacenter is in state. 84% of our electricity is carbon free. At work we spend a little extra to fund the difference in price to build more green energy projects and as a result pay for "100% carbon free electricity". So our render farm uses electricity but in the accounting books they put out no carbon.