Wil RED CAM threat new S16 cams?

[KANAGI]

ARRI and AATON have released their new s16 cam arri 416 and aaton xtera....and RED will come out.

Will S16cam take their own position in the market and survive?
I think they has their own film look and aesthetics but market is getting more risky for S16 cams to go on.

Wil RED CAM threat new S16 cams?



sorry to write poor english.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

No doubts,

the RED ONE™ will compete with all 16 Format Film Cameras, 35 Format Film Cameras and 35 Format Digital Cameras.

 

[Ace]

Pardon my Brashioshesness... But to shoot s16 in a production environment when you have a red available would be utterly utterly stupid. Unless its for effects purposes (which you can do with red in post anyway).

*Most* people who shoot 16 do so because it is befitting of their production budget. If they had the choice to shoot better they would. RED is that choice.

I understand the conundrum of deciding between s35mm film and red, they are competitive in that regard. But s16?...

 

[Brook Willard]

The RED ONE is a "threat" to all high-end cameras on the market. It's a threat to film, it's a threat to HD and it's a threat to current digital cinema cameras.

That said, the market will never disappear. The 416 is replacing the SR3 with a price around $90,000. There are 35mm cameras for less. There are 35mm cameras for more. People will still shoot with the 416. When RED drops, it too will fall into a market where there are more expensive and less expensive [think Arri S...] cameras to "compete" with.

In the end there will never be one camera for the industry. There will be 16mm and 35mm cameras far into the future - there will always be a "new model." Will film camera popularity drop? Of course. They'll just take a different place in the market.

 

[Ace]

Will film camera popularity drop? Of course. They'll just take a different place in the market.

Kodak

 

[Barend Onneweer]

Pardon my Brashioshesness... But to shoot s16 in a production environment when you have a red available would be utterly utterly stupid.

Sheesh... what's with all the drama.

Until we know how RED ONE will work in very hot or humid parts of the world (let's say you're shooting a documentary in the Sahara desert), a little more subtlety would be in order. There are a lot of people shooting film, for many different reasons. It's all about options.

 

[Justin]

I personally dont think that its going to totally ZAP all film users right out of the gate (no pun intended), however, digital cinema in general is gaining a lot of momentum and i'm sure that it has a lot of people on their toes (Film dependent brands). Im sure that as time rolls on you will start to see more and more of those brands embrace the new technology as they already have, and at the same time still progress film as well because it will always be an amazing medium to work with (in my opinion)...

Thanks to Red though us film-shooters can actually make the switch without having to justify a million things before dropping in. This is a no-brainer...

 

[GlennChan]

People still might like the aesthetic and known workflow of film.

1a- Aesthetics: As far as 35mm goes, you can do things like like the subject with a Kinoflo as the key, with *NO* fill (no reflector or anything like that). It gives a nice high-contrast look that you see in some music videos. Such a look won't work with most digital cameras on the market (I don't know how Red will fare).

Film also has its own aesthetic that Red doesn't match, out of the box.

1b- There are many talented DOPs who know how to shoot film well, whereas they probably will have little/no experience with Red. So it will take some time to figure out how to use Red, good workflows, and how to play to its strengths. You'll have people figuring out issues like monitoring, dailies, backup, workflow, etc. etc. There's going to be a learning curve that people are going to have to work through.

Some may also have some degree of film snobbery. Cinematographers shoot on film, videographers shoot on video. Historically, shooting on film implies more talent+experience to get to where they are. Projects shot on video tend not to look as good, and have lower pay.

1c- For political/personal reasons, people might prefer film as their tool of choice. For high-end commercials, clients want the best quality and people tend to equate price with quality. There's also a risk factor they eliminate by sticking with something that's tried and true.

They also may not gain that much by choosing to shoot on Red. Visual quality might be the slightly better or worse (i.e. if people are inexperienced with the workflow). They could encounter a workflow quagmire, which may cost them just as much as shooting on film.


Just playing the other side of the argument here. If Red is to quickly dominate the market:
A- Marketing / perception of the camera will make a difference. It hurts Red if people see it as "too good to be true". And 4k for $17.5k should seem too good to be true.
B- Help people (DOPs, post, camera, etc.) get around the learning curve of Red.
C- Solid workflow. If Red were to make a VTR, this would really make the workflow *solid*. Whether they can push the data workflow remains to be seen. Implemented right (that's the big if here), a data workflow does have some big advantages over traditional tape-oriented workflows.

Just my opinion.

 

[Ace]

Sheesh... what's with all the drama.

Until we know how RED ONE will work in very hot or humid parts of the world (let's say you're shooting a documentary in the Sahara desert), a little more subtlety would be in order. There are a lot of people shooting film, for many different reasons. It's all about options.

I never disputed otherwise. No drama. My pretext was if red was available. Meaning if available for shooting in the desired location (sahara). If red is available (suitable) for shooting, then I stand by my words, it would be foolish to shoot 16 instead, apart from the exceptions I made in the previous post (ideographic effects/non suitable environment). Please also note that I put asterisk's next to the word Most because I know there are situations where shooting film is more appropriate than digital. Quantitatively speaking...

 

[Stephen Williams]

I never disputed otherwise. No drama. My pretext was if red was available. Meaning if available for shooting in the desired location (sahara). If red is available (suitable) for shooting, then I stand by my words, it would be foolish to shoot 16 instead, apart from the exceptions I made in the previous post (ideographic effects/non suitable environment). Please also note that I put asterisk's next to the word Most because I know there are situations where shooting film is more appropriate than digital. Quantitatively speaking...

Hi,

Film will probably have a larger dynamic range, could be of interest to people who don't like clipped highlighs. Power consumption could also be an issue, where power is not available to recharge batteries.

Stephen

 

[Barend Onneweer]

...if available for shooting in the desired location (sahara). If red is available (suitable) for shooting, then I stand by my words, it would be foolish to shoot 16 instead, apart from the exceptions I made in the previous post (ideographic effects/non suitable environment).

So what you were trying to say is: IF RED performs equal or better than film in ALL aspects (power consumption, latitude, weather conditions etc, workflow...)... it would be stupid not to use it.

This is a rather moot discussion - since it's pure speculation. I really don't understand this obsession with getting rid of film, and persuading people to 'come over to the bright side'. Some people have good reasons to shoot on film. And RED might not take away all of those reasons. It'll take away lots of reasons, but I suspect that in its first incarnation it won't have quite the dynamic range of the latest kodak negatives.

This is what Rodney Charters (DoP on "24") says about working with Genesis:

"Of the three reasons we chose not to go with the Genesis camera in season 5, the most important was that in a daylight test against the Panavision XL/Kodak 5429 Vision2 Expression combination we were able to resolve many more stops of latitude in a bright southern California sunlit exterior, being able to easily hold a black actor in the shadow foreground and still retain the detail across the road at a construction site with its hot bare earth and concrete. For the 24 Season 5 Ontario Airport interior/exterior, I was able to hold our terrorist in the foreground one stop down at f/2, exposing at T2.8 while behind him I could see the parking lot and the cars passing on the approach to the airport terminal. Then the sliding doors opened and the ND9 on these doors slide back to reveal a sunny exterior. Now I have lost that three stops of ND on the glass and the exterior exposure jumps to between T45 and T64 and all of it was still intact on the negative. It looked burnt out, but perfectly naturally so. I don’t believe I could have done that shot on video, whether Genesis or Viper or HDV. So in an uncontrolled world I think at the moment that films still gives me an advantage when shooting 24."​

Personally, I'm looking forward to working with RED One. I've got a reservation in and I do have a lot of confidence that it will be an exceptional camera. It could very well be that I'll never shoot film again. But if others do go that route I really don't care. What amazes me is that so many people on this board seem to care, just read over the thread on Indy 4 - where people are getting extremely wound up on Steven Spielbergs love of film. Sheesh...

 

[Ace]

So what you were trying to say is: IF RED performs equal or better than film in ALL aspects (power consumption, latitude, weather conditions etc, workflow...)... it would be stupid not to use it.

Hold your horses.. This discussion was never a "film vs digital" one. You wont be getting a film vs digital argument from me. I view both as individual mediums in the artists palette. But this discussion wasn't about that..

Rather, this discussion is about s16 vs Red. The s16mm format being the key factor here.

All arguments aside, Art will always take precedence over medium, even though at times they are inseperable through technique. Perhaps I should have worded it differently, I never meant to convey my argument from a qualitative angle but rather a purely quantitative one. And in that regard, RED has the upper ground in all aspects.

EDIT: In MOST aspects

 

[Kristin Stewart]

If the Red camera will hold its promises (notice that at this point there is only a few seconds Redcine sample available), the main reason why some directors would still prefer 35mm is the archival format. On what are you going to archive your footage to be sure to be able to access to it in, say, 50 years ?

Not on a computer format ! Who can nowadays access to 10-year-old floppy discs ? Even if the DVD-HD with your files still exists in 50 years and is still readable, are you sure there will still be a working machine to read it ? And I don't even mention the codecs, obsolence is obvious (even for Redcine, are you sure Red will still exist in 50 years ?)

On the other hand, everyone (except blind people...) can read a 35mm negative... You just need your eyes...

One solution could be a 4K shooting to 35mm film, once the movie is complete. But in this case, I'm not sure it's gonna be cheaper than originating directly on 35mm or S16 (reducing the shooting ratio)

Kristin

 

[Mardi_Gras]

Hi,

Film will probably have a larger dynamic range, could be of interest to people who don't like clipped highlighs. Power consumption could also be an issue, where power is not available to recharge batteries.

Stephen

Again... all speculative.

When comparing RedOne to the tried and tested workflow of shooting in film, be it Super 8, 16 or 35mm, I have always emphasized that should the RedOne deliver on its advertized specs... note the operative word here... should, is also speculative, since no one has a RedOne yet to make practical comparisions on set.

So many professional photographers still prefer to shoot on 35mm (still) SLR films and proccess their films in "darkrooms" as it was done in the past, even with the availability of digital SLR cameras with over 10 mega pixels in resolution... all, simply for the love of film. So even though I'm tempted to argue that film (motion picture) will not exactly disappear... but again, I love to wait and see. The RedOne with its advertized specs is just way ahead of anything out there right now on nearly all fronts... (again, speculative)

So I suggest we all hold our briefs until the RedOne lands and then see who takes the day. Both mediums (film & digital) have their pros and cons. RedOne - as advertized, simply stands on its own... I think.

 

[Dominic Jones]

Hold your horses.. This discussion was never a "film vs digital" one. You wont be getting a film vs digital argument from me. I view both as individual mediums in the artists palette. But this discussion wasn't about that..

Rather, this discussion is about s16 vs Red. The s16mm format being the key factor here.

All arguments aside, Art will always take precedence over medium, even though at times they are inseperable through technique. Perhaps I should have worded it differently, I never meant to convey my argument from a qualitative angle but rather a purely quantitative one. And in that regard, RED has the upper ground in all aspects.

EDIT: In MOST aspects

Excellent post, Ace - I think it's something that everyone should try to keep in mind, Red is *one* option that will be available - a very good option, but not the only one...

There are features with parts shot in all kinds of crazy (less "good") formats for stylistic reasons, even though the main parts are shot in higher-end formats - "Nadia" (with it's Pixelvision dream sequences) springs readily to mind, and there are many more examples.

Red is very, very exciting, but it will never be the only camera in use in the whole world for a multitude of reasons (including ignorance and resistance to change, but certainly not limited to them!).

 

[Zk2007]

I don't think RED will kill any formats. There will still be place for 16mm, 35mm and HD. Film can deliver on areas where RED will most likely not. RED will most likely deliver on different areas where film can't. Pick your tool.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Again... all speculative.

Hi,

I am assuming the Dynamic range of Red to be about 11 1/3 stops, if that was to increase to 15 stops then I would be wrong, and put all my film equipment on ebay!

Stephen

 

[Mardi_Gras]

Hi,

I am assuming the Dynamic range of Red to be about 11 1/3 stops, if that was to increase to 15 stops then I would be wrong, and put all my film equipment on ebay!

Stephen

Stephen, we have heard Jim say time and time again that nothing with the RedOne is locked, not even the Mysterium sensor. So, I still maintain that whatever we know now remains speculation until the camera ships.

 

[Isaac Brody]

This is a rather moot discussion - since it's pure speculation. I really don't understand this obsession with getting rid of film, and persuading people to 'come over to the bright side'. Some people have good reasons to shoot on film. And RED might not take away all of those reasons. It'll take away lots of reasons, but I suspect that in its first incarnation it won't have quite the dynamic range of the latest kodak negatives.

Great post. I don't really understand those who want to kill off film. I think the more choices are great and Red is just another look in the arsenal, but not what I would brand the best one, just different.

 

[Adrian Correia]

my biggest concern right now is how the top of the image in terms of highlights will be rendered. In a harsh sunlit scene how will those burnt out elements be rendered? That will be one of the big tipping points for a good number of people.

I think the advent of the DI really added some strength to the S16 market. There has been some really great work in removing the optical blow-up. Look at Babel..or Never Die Alone (mostly nights Int. & ext. and anamorphic too!).