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 :)

AMPAS Science & Technical Awards

Jeremy Torrie

Jeremy Torrie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
1,441
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
From a report from THR:

"...Meanwhile, Edlund discussed the reason why -- despite the buzz -- a digital camera has yet to receive a SciTech Award. "The committee feels the yardstick is film," Edlund told The Hollywood Reporter. "The reason that the Academy has not reached out and given an award to a digital camera is because they are 2K cameras. They don't measure up to film, and film is the bar. It seemed to me that the digital camera that comes out being the ubiquitous camera is going to be a 4K camera."

WTF? Red not only has 4.5K with the MX but Epic and 5K...where do they get their info?

Hmm...If not this year, then definitely 2012 will be when Jim et al win an Oscar in this category!
 
To be fair, RED has been very clear that the RED One doesn't measure 4k delivered. That's some of the point of the Epic. Full 4k delivery from a 5k source.

Quite a few - including Arri - have argued that you need a 4k RGB scan to get the full potential out of 35mm.

Another thing to remember is that evn though the S35mm sensors are generous, they're still not 4:3, which would be needed to take full advantage of anamorphic glass.

I am not saying that I don't think RED deserves a technical Oscar, just that the response makes sense...
 
Wasn't the 4K scan resolving at 3.2K?

I recall this from old posts by Graeme, and that is well beyond 2K certainly.
 
This is about as insightful as refusing to acknowledge a vehicle that runs on water, because it doesn't go as fast as a gas guzzling internal combustion... Film "quality" has no bearing on the science of digital image-making and innovation - if digital acquisition was to top out at 2K it would still be one of the most important advances in image-making history. Liberating is one word that springs to mind when it comes to the creative aspect of all this. If they don't see this they are not worthy of being judges.
 
A RED ONE at 4K measures the same resolution as slow speed S35mm film from a 4K scan (about 3.2K)... but we are still not likely to win any technical achievement awards. No worries... we would rather win over customers.

Jim
 
Ben Coleman said:
I bet they are just terrified of it. I'm sure they way knee deep in politics as well.
Click to expand...

Enough with the victim-hood. The Sci-Tech AMPAS also are kind of big on themes. They'll often wait a few years until a product fits into their theme for the year.

Last year Ambient Occlusion won (along with a bunch of other 3D renderer developments)... it was developed and used in films over a decade ago.

This year their theme seemed to be cluster/distributed computing management software. If RED wants to win an AMPAS they kind of have to wait for someone else to do something interesting with cameras so that they can have enough products in a theme to recognize.

Another winner last year was Lustre/Colorfront/Colossus. It started development in 1998 and was used on The Fellowship of the Ring. Even if RED wins, it might not be for another 10 years (in recognition for MX). You're all being WAY too sensitive. This isn't like the normal academy awards where you release a film in December and it gets nominated in January. They regularly don't recognize an innovation for decades--innovations which in no way threaten any academy members' livelihood or pride. Ambient Occlusion wasn't ignored for 10 years because ILM had pissed off the academy (unless you count 41 Oscar nominations and 27 Sci-Tech Oscars proof of some conspiracy against them. :D)

Also IMAX started in 1970 but didn't win its first technical oscar until 1985. It didn't win a oscar of merit until 1996. Almost 3 decades after releasing their first film.
 
Well put Gavin.

And well, Jim, I know you're focused on winning over customers, but if anyone is deserving it's definitely you and your team at Red.

I'm sure it will happen soon enough; in the meantime I would love to see Cronenweth win. That would be satisfying.
 
Well I know very little about them but by the sounds of it...who cares...not the working creatives using the cameras...so again screw it.

One thing is for damn sure. RED are pretty hard to ignore in the field of motion. I'm sure RED are anxious for the talk to be tilted towards more teams using their new lines. - One headline being feature film, with international exhibition, shot on the fixed lens scarlet. :)
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Enough with the victim-hood. The Sci-Tech AMPAS also are kind of big on themes. They'll often wait a few years until a product fits into their theme for the year.

Last year Ambient Occlusion won (along with a bunch of other 3D renderer developments)... it was developed and used in films over a decade ago.

This year their theme seemed to be cluster/distributed computing management software. If RED wants to win an AMPAS they kind of have to wait for someone else to do something interesting with cameras so that they can have enough products in a theme to recognize.

Another winner last year was Lustre/Colorfront/Colossus. It started development in 1998 and was used on The Fellowship of the Ring. Even if RED wins, it might not be for another 10 years (in recognition for MX). You're all being WAY too sensitive. This isn't like the normal academy awards where you release a film in December and it gets nominated in January. They regularly don't recognize an innovation for decades--innovations which in no way threaten any academy members' livelihood or pride. Ambient Occlusion wasn't ignored for 10 years because ILM had pissed off the academy (unless you count 41 Oscar nominations and 27 Sci-Tech Oscars proof of some conspiracy against them. :D)

Also IMAX started in 1970 but didn't win its first technical oscar until 1985. It didn't win a oscar of merit until 1996. Almost 3 decades after releasing their first film.
Click to expand...


Gavin, I think most of us understand this, but that doesn't take into account bizarre qualifying statements such as "Digital cameras don't measure up to film, Film is the bar" when it comes to assessing the technical wonder that is a digital camera.
Uhm... again, what does one very subjective aspect of film have to do with the science behind digital acquisition and the fact that cameras are being made that do not use film at all?! Good grief, how narrow minded can one get? And if we must consider film, then let us consider the history of digital acquisition and how quickly it has equalled film in every desirable way. Film is not a standard - film is not a digital category, even if digital technology is mostly responsible for maintaining its health. Am I the only one who sees even the DSLR and its motion capture ability as being worthy of merit - let alone the likes of Epic?
 
The members of the Sci-Tech council are not narrow-minded -- they work DAILY with cutting-edge digital technology! They are the last people you could ever consider as being behind the curve or the times. I can't even keep up with half of what these guys say in conversation, they are so advanced.

Think of the awards like Nobel prizes for science, they would rather wait for a new technology to become well-proven and established before giving it recognition.
 
Personally, I would think it's more of an accomplishment having the movies made with RED cameras win oscars, than actually winning an oscar for the camera itself.

That is to say, if I were RED, I'd be much happier saying, "Oscar winning/nominated movies X, Y, and Z, were all shot on RED!" rather than "RED won an oscar for technology!" The latter seems kind of stupid in the context of the Academy.
 
Mike P. said:
Personally, I would think it's more of an accomplishment having the movies made with RED cameras win oscars, than actually winning an oscar for the camera itself.

That is to say, if I were RED, I'd be much happier saying, "Oscar winning/nominated movies X, Y, and Z, were all shot on RED!" rather than "RED won an oscar for technology!" The latter seems kind of stupid in the context of the Academy.
Click to expand...

Well, to me the former seems kind of silly in the context of the academy as well, because nobody who's considering candidates for Best Actor, Outstanding Achievement in Editing, or Best picture really cares what cameras were used. In fact, for the most part, most of the members who vote for the Cinematography award don't really care either, regardless of what people here seem to think.

Now, having said that, I do think that Red does deserve some kind of recognition for its contribution to the industry, and will eventually get that recognition. But these things take time.
 
M Most said:
Well, to me the former seems kind of silly in the context of the academy as well, because nobody who's considering candidates for Best Actor, Outstanding Achievement in Editing, or Best picture really cares what cameras were used. In fact, for the most part, most of the members who vote for the Cinematography award don't really care either, regardless of what people here seem to think.
Click to expand...

They don't care, or they can't tell? As a film alternative hearing, "no one voting on the awards can tell what it was shot on." should be music to RED's ears. With every other category (obviously, to a much, much lesser degree), the fact that the voters aren't thinking, "this doesn't look like a regular movie/film" should be fairly satisfying.

But, yeah, I can see your point... Personally, though, I'm starting to think the Academy is somewhat of a shill more than anything, anyway.
 
These awards "recognize significant milestones in the development of technology for motion pictures and are conferred by vote of the Academy Board of Governors"...so it's not those who are voting on Best Actor, etc. It's a special committee.

Filmlight won 4 awards last year...and their own press release says it only took them 8 years from start up to develop and put their technologies in place, and subsequently get the honors. And DFT won for their Spirit 4K/2K scanner and LUTher...
 
David, I was more perplexed by the comments made by awards committee chair Richard Edlund than anything else. Measuring relevant digital technology against a sliver of the film spectrum still seems a bit ... abstract. And in no way fits your description of their MO. No matter, I'll trust that your description is more fitting overall. And just in case my comments are mistakenly seen as suggesting that Mr. Edlund is film biased, here is what he had to say during his solo photography show at the Leica Gallery in Switzerland: "I'm really into the digital world, I love digital still photography".
 
Mike P. said:
They don't care, or they can't tell?
Click to expand...

Don't care. It is the skill of the cinematographer and the artistic achievement as a result of that skill that is being considered, not what camera was chosen. That's why Slumdog Millionaire - photographed on both film and digital cameras - won the award. Whatever choices Anthony Dod Mantle made enhanced the visual storytelling, and that's exactly what an Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography is.
 
I think Red deserves somes sort of recognition. But, I dont know if academy awards are given on cameras. David Mullen or Mike Most would know if there is a precedent for that.

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