Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

[M Most]

Blade runner was shot on 65mm and was scanned at 8k for the blu ray release. until epic came along film was the highest resolution you could get and with 65mm its still 8 to 9k as is imax.

Blade Runner production footage was shot on anamorphic 35mm. Only the visual effects utilized 65mm, a common technique at the time for large budget visual effects laden pictures (still used on occasion for this purpose, as is Vista Vision).

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

Just saying for years ppl have tried to replicate film with no success on digital, RED has come the closest but Film has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. We stand by our statement digital will never be as good as film if it was directors would have dumped film as soon as RED came out. Red is awesome but film is timeless, We really hate to say anything negative about RED =(

Never say never....

Graeme

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Just saying for years ppl have tried to replicate film with no success on digital

And for years people tried to create vehicles that could fly with no success.
For years people tried to create contraptions to create light with no success.
For years people tried to get into orbit with no success.

One thing about humans is, for good or for bad, if it can be done - it will eventually be done.
Technological advancements are always made on the tails of years of no success.... and crowds of people chanting that it can't be done.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I am not the most open minded person when it comes to differing opinions. However, after reading the arguments in this thread, I have changed my mind and now agree that future proofing is important.

the example that did it was Blade Runner shot on 65mm, then later scanned to Blu Ray. Would Blade Runner have been a great film if it had been shot on something with less resolution? Sure, it would have. But it's awesome that later it can still hold up when technology advances.

I see that this is the argument for shooting 4k or more k. Can you make a great film without shooting 4k? Sure you can. But wouldn't it be nice to show off that great film with the latest technology when things advance? Yes, and for the price of a Scarlet you can do that very reasonably.

If Scarlet didn't exist, would I say it's a good idea to break the budget because you're worried about 10 years from now? No, shoot with what you can afford, and dont' worry about that. But for the price of a Scarlet, what the hell? Nice to know you could remaster something and show it off on a 4k projector in the future.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Just saying for years ppl have tried to replicate film with no success on digital, RED has come the closest but Film has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. We stand by our statement digital will never be as good as film if it was directors would have dumped film as soon as RED came out. Red is awesome but film is timeless, We really hate to say anything negative about RED =(

I don't think you should use directors as the judge, but audiences.

Are audiences demanding film, or are they content with digital?

Movies are made for the audience, not the director.

Would the Hobbit gain any more audience when it releases if it was shot on film instead of an Epic? Will 99% of the viewers even know they aren't looking at film?

If you're talking about pixel peepers and technicians, and bench marks, you can make an argument for film over digital.

if you're talking about box office and the satisfaction of the target audience, I think we crossed that point a long time ago, and digital is as good as film.

 

[David Battistella]

It's official. You guys have taken over from Filmmakers Gang as my favorite posters of all time on Reduser.
Sticking up for film is sticking up for RED because RED is aiming to be the official replacement to FILM.
Thanks for supporting my argument...

David

With all due respect and keep in mind we luv RED, but we have to defend film in this case. I hate to burst your bubble but RED will never be as good as actual FILM. That's a fact. Film catches a wider light spectrum than RED. So if you want to be truly professional as ppl claim, they should be shooting with film and not Digital. No offense just thought we would stick up for film this one time.
we responded to original post below something went wrong in post so had to do it this way,

QUOTE=David Battistella;873384]I'm only responding to the thread question.

Ask everyone who shot SD footage 20 years ago if they can use a frame of it now
Ask anyone who shot 35mm film if the shots are still usable.

If you want your images to endure shoot 4k.
If you want to be caught with your balls in your hands when you have a lifetime of 1080p that needs to be blown up 4x to be displayed shoot 1080p

The point is this, quality and future proofing.

Run a simple test take a frame from Alexa and blow it up to 4k. You'll have your answer.


David

 

[David Battistella]

'atta Boy!

I am not the most open minded person when it comes to differing opinions. However, after reading the arguments in this thread, I have changed my mind and now agree that future proofing is important.

the example that did it was Blade Runner shot on 65mm, then later scanned to Blu Ray. Would Blade Runner have been a great film if it had been shot on something with less resolution? Sure, it would have. But it's awesome that later it can still hold up when technology advances.

I see that this is the argument for shooting 4k or more k. Can you make a great film without shooting 4k? Sure you can. But wouldn't it be nice to show off that great film with the latest technology when things advance? Yes, and for the price of a Scarlet you can do that very reasonably.

If Scarlet didn't exist, would I say it's a good idea to break the budget because you're worried about 10 years from now? No, shoot with what you can afford, and dont' worry about that. But for the price of a Scarlet, what the hell? Nice to know you could remaster something and show it off on a 4k projector in the future.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Just saying for years ppl have tried to replicate film with no success on digital, RED has come the closest but Film has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. We stand by our statement digital will never be as good as film if it was directors would have dumped film as soon as RED came out. Red is awesome but film is timeless, We really hate to say anything negative about RED =(

If you love film, nothing will ever be as good as film as any attempt to copy it's look will never capture the nuances or physical fun of the medium. I'm a big vinyl records fan, and although I have the latest and greatest in digital audio I still play and love my vinyl collection. There's nothing quite like original albums on vinyl even though a modern digital version is more perfect in every way.

Digital in general and RED in specific offers it's own aesthetic. You don't have to do a better / worse thing between RED and film to appreciate the qualities of each. There are many measurable ways in which RED cameras out-perform film, but that in no way invalidates your choice to use film or the fantastic aesthetic of film.

RED's goal is not the kill film or replicate film. RED's goal is to push digital imaging forwards and initially that was to provide for a valid replacement to film. We knew film was on it's last legs and that 1080p video cameras were not a suitable replacement, so something had to be done, and given how slowly it appeared to us that other companies were moving, it was something we had to do ourselves rather than wait for it to happen.

There are people out there in this industry who love film so much that they'll keep shooting it for as long as they possibly can. I applaud them. I praise that and I fully understand that. You won't get my vinyl records from me for any number of CDs or digital downloads or whatever. But I also know that a lot of new music is made digitally and will never see vinyl, so I invest in some of the best digital technology to allow me to enjoy those releases to their fullest, but if I have to choose when buying music, it's the vinyl I'll buy.

Graeme

 

[Carter Cammack]

"Great movie, guys. Good story. Loved the charachters . . . . but I just wish they would have shot it on a Flip 720."

 

[Mark Phelan]

Just saying for years ppl have tried to replicate film with no success on digital, RED has come the closest but Film has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. We stand by our statement digital will never be as good as film if it was directors would have dumped film as soon as RED came out. Red is awesome but film is timeless, We really hate to say anything negative about RED =(

I find this kind of argument silly. Digital will never be as good as film, hogwash! Like saying film will never be as good as oil paint, or charcoal, or water color. It's a different MEDIUM and with it has plusses and minuses of its own. Not better or worse, but different. And it will most certainly replace film as the premier medium of choice. Will it negate film? No. But film will become more and more relegated to the past as fewer and fewer work with it. Time marches on.

Edit: Graeme beat me to it! Man, he's good!

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

Then if this is true then why buy a Epic/Scarlet for internet distribution as most ppl on here said that is how they will distribute there footage, most ppl ur audiences won't be able to tell the difference between RED cam and FS100 on youtube/Vimeo, We luv RED just think Film should get respect just as you all seem to think that ppl on the web will be able to tell the difference between cameras with all the compression that happens no they wont, well same thing for film. We think ppl can tell the difference between film and Digital and we also think ppl can tell RED quality internet footage from the others that just don't cut the mustard in clarity, give the audience more credit, but hey if you all want film dead so be it. We love RED we feel so confused now LOL no hard feelings =)

I don't think you should use directors as the judge, but audiences.

Are audiences demanding film, or are they content with digital?

Movies are made for the audience, not the director.

Would the Hobbit gain any more audience when it releases if it was shot on film instead of an Epic? Will 99% of the viewers even know they aren't looking at film?

If you're talking about pixel peepers and technicians, and bench marks, you can make an argument for film over digital.

if you're talking about box office and the satisfaction of the target audience, I think we crossed that point a long time ago, and digital is as good as film.

 

[J Davis]

film is bad for the environment

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

So is not recycling cell phones and other digital equipment lol, we can go on forever on pros and cons on film and digital, one thing we will say film is way to expensive...

film is bad for the environment

 

[David Battistella]

I have to say it.


WHAT - THE - FUCK is this thread turning into.

Are all Scarlet threads this manic? WOW!

I think I'll go back to my EPIC now and try to work with a digital tool while carrying the aesthetic of film in my heart.

David

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

RED cameras are the most flexible in the world.

I can shoot my movie masterpiece (done that) or my home movie (done that) on the same camera. I can keep it at my studio or my home. I can play with it whenever I want, for fun, or use it to make money whenever there is an opportunity. I can afford to own it. It's my messing around camera as well as my serious feature film camera. I can process my footage within minutes of shooting it.

I can't do that with film.

Jim set out to make a digital film replacement and decided 1080p wasn't adequate. I agree.

Is 1080p "good enough" for most currently available applications? Yes. Is 1080p a digital film replacement. No.

If you don't care about these things, then there are other options. If you're an image junkie, then there are no other options.

I have closets full of hard-to-repeat nature moments, shot in SD - baby hummingbirds hatching, a bull snake slithering towards my camera in the grass, newborn prairie dogs, an extremely rare black fox in our local open space, Abert's squirrels re-emerging after 20 years of plague, etc. Do I wish I had shot these in 4K?

Absolutely.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

RED cameras are the most flexible in the world.

I can shoot my movie masterpiece (done that) or my home movie (done that) on the same camera. I can keep it at my studio or my home. I can play with it whenever I want, for fun, or use it to make money whenever there is an opportunity. I can afford to own it. It's my messing around camera as well as my serious feature film camera. I can process my footage within minutes of shooting it.

I can't do that with film.

Jim set out to make a digital film replacement and decided 1080p wasn't adequate. I agree.

Is it "good enough" for most currently available applications? Yes. Is 1080p a digital film replacement. No.

If you don't care about these things, then there are other options. If you're an image junkie, then there are no other options.

I have closets full of hard-to-repeat nature moments, shot in SD - baby hummingbirds hatching, a bull slithering towards my camera in the grass, newborn prairie dogs, an extremely rare black fox in our local open space, Abert's squirrels re-emerging after 20 years of plague, etc. Do I wish I had shot these in 4K?

Absolutely.

I'm an image junkie.

 

[Mathew Joki]

Agree with OP.

Seems like if you're going to put out a "budget" cinema camera then it should at least be able to perform functionally at it's intended resolution. (ie. full 24fps HDRx capability at 4k)

Or if it's a camera aimed at indy productions, then it should at very least be able to support broadcast standards of ~30fps NTSC and 25fps for PAL in its intended 4k resolution.

It's a little misleading to call a camera "future proof" when it's not even full functional at the magic 4k-future-proofed-resolution.

This is a great camera, don't get me wrong. But it's crippled from it's big sister in such a way that I would rather save up the extra coin for and EPIC than have to deal with comprised workarounds when trying to access the "bells and whistles" of the Scarlet-X. If I was just shooting films at 4K/24fps for big screen exhibition and 35mm film transfer then this camera is a no-brainer. But I'm not. And neither are most people.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

This is an interesting thread

Agreed.

 

[Carter Cammack]

In the next year, we will be seeing Scarlet footage on a HIGH percentage of TV-Dramas, cable series, and local broadcast.
And it will only increase.
Just watch and see, Mathew, what this "crippled" little sister can do.

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

,Must be nice to not have to worry about money so much so that you treat your camera like a regular old camcorder at times we want what u have!! To be care free about owning a 60k plus cam, and everything is 1080p now days blurays, most movie theaters never project higher than 2k so not sure that 1080p is not good enough statement came from if it's the standard REZ right now for distribution, hell most ppl still don't own blurays they are still stuck on DVD's and SD tv's?? 4k is far from being standard no offense but look at all the hell we go through in post just to end up with a 1080p image so once again how is 1080p not good enough if that;s what we all export in the end LOL=)

RED cameras are the most flexible in the world.

I can shoot my movie masterpiece (done that) or my home movie (done that) on the same camera. I can keep it at my studio or my home. I can play with it whenever I want, for fun, or use it to make money whenever there is an opportunity. I can afford to own it. It's my messing around camera as well as my serious feature film camera. I can process my footage within minutes of shooting it.

I can't do that with film.

Jim set out to make a digital film replacement and decided 1080p wasn't adequate. I agree.

Is 1080p "good enough" for most currently available applications? Yes. Is 1080p a digital film replacement. No.

If you don't care about these things, then there are other options. If you're an image junkie, then there are no other options.

I have closets full of hard-to-repeat nature moments, shot in SD - baby hummingbirds hatching, a bull snake slithering towards my camera in the grass, newborn prairie dogs, an extremely rare black fox in our local open space, Abert's squirrels re-emerging after 20 years of plague, etc. Do I wish I had shot these in 4K?

Absolutely.