Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The true definition of Video vs. Raw

Graeme Nattress said:
Video is such a loaded term, and a very broad term in it's original meaning of motion image capture not photochemically, but electronically.

We at RED prefer the term for our cameras to be "Digital Cinema Camera" as it more accurately and more narrowly defines their application and design.

Personally speaking, the difference between a video camera and a Digital Cinema Camera is in the aesthetic domain of the images created. That's a tricky thing to get across and in terms of hardware and image processing comes from a multitude of design factors and there's not one feature or thing that leads to a cinematic aesthetic through digital means.

Graeme
Click to expand...

The problem with the "digital cinema" designation is that it doesn't really apply to what I or even most of the red1 owners primarily do - be it documentary, corporate, music VIDEOs, commercials, etc. which aren't really "cinema" (haven't looked up the definition but seems like the only real distinction is "cinema" movies are intended to be viewed in a cinema which denotes certain technical requirements and may be associated with a certain aesthetic) and I think it is the rare Red1 camera project that will get to a cinema, and an even smaller percentage of epic/scarlet productions since the new cameras are much friendlier to the "video" type of productions I mentioned and maybe even broadcast with the right output options.

It sort of reminds me of a seminar I spoke at where one of the "cinema" guys said "we don't TAKE pictures, we MAKE pictures". I understood his point, but I had to laugh at the condescending tone. I'm fine with the Red "professional" orientation and working toward making the camera be able to produce very "filmic" images - it makes sense - but I wouldn't get too hung up on the "cinemaaaah" designation unless you really intend to minimize the vast majority of work done with your cameras.

I think most video guys always wanted to get as close as possible to a more "filmic" look which is why we often paid extreme premiums to get Ikegami cameras in the old days (about 4-5 times the price of a red1 in real dollars), and appreciated the advances possible with digital processing cameras more recently - not to mention investing in things like your plugins to further enhance our images, but I'm not sure that is the same as what "cinema" connotes.

I'm not trying to call you out, I'm just saying think about whether "video" is such a bad term for Electronic Motion Pictures. (EMP is already taken :smile:) I guess I'm not sure why you want to narrow the application of your camera?
 
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the term "Digital" must die soon. Its just as loaded a term as "Video" and soon will be just as dated. While not every photocopy is a Xerox, or tissue a Kleenex and not every overnight freight carrier is FedEx, We'll still be Filmmakers and watch Films even though "film" will be long dead. 35mm Movie Camera still works for me.
 
Is it still called FILMING?

Is it still called FILMING?

So, is it also correct to say that a movie is currently being "filmed" even if a digital camera is being used as the capture devise and not film itself? Has the term "filming" changed since the incursion of digital capture?
 
Julio Bautista said:
So, is it also correct to say that a movie is currently being "filmed" even if a digital camera is being used as the capture devise and not film itself? Has the term "filming" changed since the incursion of digital capture?
Click to expand...

I think the term "filming" will be around for a while .... hard to imagine that the RED Community is going out and "RAWing" a movie.
 
How could you? RAWing… I've spilled my morning tea all over the keyboard!
 
Sorry Uli, just popped up in my mind. On the other hand I have heard more than once DP's or Directors saying: "The next movie we are filming on video" ... interesting thought.
 
I think Video is to "electronic motion image capture" as Audio is to "electronic sound capture".

(This is not STRICTLY true, as a mechanical device can capture audio as well, but the analagoy holds for the spcific sub-catagory we are discussing).

Clearly there are various specific sub-catagories of devices within the larger "Audio" genre, such as analog cassette tape, DAT, or hard-disk based recorders, each with widely varying capabilities and levels of quality.

So too "Video" is a broad catagory covering multiple device catagories, including analog videocassette, DV, and RAW capture cameras.

It certainly is useful to be able to differentiate within each family... thus a "Digital Audio Workstation" implies a much higher-fidelity audio capture thanssay a "Handheld voice recorder", yet both are certainly audio recorders.

In the same way speaking of a "Digital Cinema Camera" conveys a much different idea than a "Camcorder" (for those who care to know about such things), yet they are both video cameras in the broad definition.

In professional circles, I'd expect the much more narrowly defined names to be used more often.

-Steve
 
So when the first AD calls roll camera shouldn't he/she say capture? Or push the red button? And then what would first AC say in response? Surely not: Speed? Perhaps digitising?

And when one of my mates asks me what I've been up to, used to say: Filming, now digital cinema camera-ing? I didn't like video-ing either. Usually I just say making movies. Even if it was a music video.

Lots of cameras do progressive now too so I'd be reluctant to make that the defining point of a cinema camera.

I like Movie Camera as suggested earlier. I mean, when customs ask: What's in the box fella? Movie camera nails it in one innit. Them other things is just camcorders.
 
"Movie camera" it is to us.

Mr. Wright is dead on. When people see us out using our RED on location, they often say things like, "wow. . . that's some camera." We always say things like, "it's a movie camera." Saying it's a "digital cinema camera," while entirely accurate linguistically, doesn't really get the picture (pun intended) across to them nearly so well as saying it's a "movie camera."

The bottom line is that everyone understands that there is a huge difference between using a camcorder to record a soccer game or a birthday or a whatever and making "a movie." Hence, when we emphasize the word "movie," we reinforce that difference in the seriousness of our endeavors, in the quality of our equipment, and in the level of our expertise.

Stephen
 
David Mullen ASC said:
That's fine if you're making a movie with the Red One, but what if you are making something else?
Click to expand...

Well, we could say that we're using ye olde 1800's definition of movie (a "Moving" picture) which would technically encompass cinema, TV, home video, etc.

While we're at it, we should change the definition of several other words and roll them back a few centuries:

  • abode: Until the mid-16th century, "the action of waiting."
  • amazed: In the 13th century it meant stupified, made crazy.

That's a start. I'm off to the discotheque in my new pantaloons and horseless carriage.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
That's fine if you're making a movie with the Red One, but what if you are making something else?
Click to expand...

I suppose you could say something like: "we're shooting a (commercial/television show/music video) on this here Red 1, which is a movie camera".

Earlier in this thread someone wrote that the SMPTE created a new standard called "motion digital" which both Red and Alexa are part of (and that they were not video cameras)... but I couldn't find anything on their site. Does anyone know anything else about this claim?

I rather like the term digital motion camera, or motion digital ect...
It's accurate, inclusive, doesn't have any baggage and sounds professional.
 
Video can be defined as having one pixel for each (sampled) point in time. Video systems scan an image whether interlaced or progressive. Data cams (why does it seem like no one is using this term) shoot full res frames. Leave the people who don't know the difference out and tell them you have a fancy camera that's so awesome it's not even called a video camera.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the term "Digital" must die soon. Its just as loaded a term as "Video" and soon will be just as dated. While not every photocopy is a Xerox, or tissue a Kleenex and not every overnight freight carrier is FedEx, We'll still be Filmmakers and watch Films even though "film" will be long dead. 35mm Movie Camera still works for me.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I don't follow any logical thread in this. "Digital" is a descriptive term and not a brand or product name. And, I don't personally have any knowledge of an image capture system on the horizon that won't employ digital technology. And, I am completely baffled as to the analogy with "Kleenex" vs. tissue, etc. "Film" is also a descriptive term, related to the medium of... uh, film...? I think I can see more of a logical argument against the term "videotape" since we no longer use tape, but as to why "digital" is not still relevant, I am confused. :001_huh:
 
John Traver said:
Video can be defined as having one pixel for each (sampled) point in time. Video systems scan an image whether interlaced or progressive. Data cams (why does it seem like no one is using this term) shoot full res frames. Leave the people who don't know the difference out and tell them you have a fancy camera that's so awesome it's not even called a video camera.
Click to expand...

Except, if I am understanding your point, CMOS sensors, like the RED cameras, don't actually shoot full res frames all at one time -they do "roll" the sensor through the exposure, from top to bottom, having much in common with a "progressive" frame. Or am I not understanding your distinction? It's a nit, I know, but this discussion started with nits, sort of. :willy_nilly:

EDIT: How about, "I'm shooting a moving picture with my movie camera!" :emote_happyhappy:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
I have to admit, I don't follow any logical thread in this. "Digital" is a descriptive term and not a brand or product name.
Click to expand...

What I got from what Jeff was saying is that "Digital" will soon be redundant, and should therefore be dropped. For example, look at the word "computer":

  • 1800's? A person who computes numbers by hand.
  • 1920s? Hand-driven computation machines.
  • 20-30's? Electromechanical analog computation machines
  • 30-40's? Electronic digital computation machines
  • 50's - Transistor-based digital computers

Every once and a while you might hear someone say "digital computer", but most people just use the term "computer", since all computers are digital. But if we are talking about a historical replica, we probably would use the term "analog computer" or "vacuum tube computer" or something to distinguish it. Or we may use "quantum computer" if we're talking about that type of technology.

I think what Jeff is saying is that we should do the same for cameras. Very soon the majority of cameras will be digital, so we can just call them "cameras" instead of "digital cameras" -- and the rare cases where we're talking about film we can add that prefix.
 
Daniel Browning said:
What I got from what Jeff was saying is that "Digital" will soon be redundant, and should therefore be dropped. For example, look at the word "computer":

  • 1800's? A person who computes numbers by hand.
  • 1920s? Hand-driven computation machines.
  • 20-30's? Electromechanical analog computation machines
  • 30-40's? Electronic digital computation machines
  • 50's - Transistor-based digital computers

Every once and a while you might hear someone say "digital computer", but most people just use the term "computer", since all computers are digital. But if we are talking about a historical replica, we probably would use the term "analog computer" or "vacuum tube computer" or something to distinguish it. Or we may use "quantum computer" if we're talking about that type of technology.

I think what Jeff is saying is that we should do the same for cameras. Very soon the majority of cameras will be digital, so we can just call them "cameras" instead of "digital cameras" -- and the rare cases where we're talking about film we can add that prefix.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the translation. Not sure it helps us out of our nomenclature dilemma since we can't just use the term "camera" since we have still and motion cameras (at least we do as of this moment but maybe that will change, too). Maybe we'll end up back with the term "cinema" and the whole "digital" thing will be assumed.

I have to admit, I feel awkward every time I start to say I am "filming" today. Just doesn't feel right. And "videoing" is just plain stupid sounding. :undecided:

So, I can appreciate this whole discussion, however philosophical it might be!
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Thanks for the translation. Not sure it helps us out of our nomenclature dilemma since we can't just use the term "camera" since we have still and motion cameras (at least we do as of this moment but maybe that will change, too). Maybe we'll end up back with the term "cinema" and the whole "digital" thing will be assumed.

I have to admit, I feel awkward every time I start to say I am "filming" today. Just doesn't feel right. And "videoing" is just plain stupid sounding. :undecided:

So, I can appreciate this whole discussion, however philosophical it might be!
Click to expand...

Well it is called cinematography so perhaps we should say we are cinemating.:biggrin: Digital motion capture would be incinemation.
 
Defining a camera by its end use is to be led too much by marketing and is not defined enough to have any longevity.
For instance anyone who has used an f900 or DSLR to shoot a movie can call their rig a digital cinema camera.

Go back to basics.
Arri 435 = film camera
Sony, Panasonic, RED, Alexa = electronic camera.

To differentiate RED, F35 from the rest how about electronic large format camera. ELF

Unambiguous and descriptive without a marketing bent.

Mike Brennan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top