Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

If RED=Film why Epic?

C

cinemano

Banned
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
376
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hello..

Sorry for the silly question.. but if RED is like/better than 35mm film, why is the EPIC necessary? 35mm seemed sharp enough for the last 100 years.

Could it really be more for our own excitement as filmmakers than for the audience? They may never see the diference from 4K to 5k?
I think one could get away with RED 4K for the rest of his life.. (well until 3D is the next norm)

I remember my parents saw a commercial in the cinema I made and they couldnt even tell it was blown up from SD video. (16mm to BetaDigital to 35mm)

Thoughts please..
 
Red is digital cinema. It isn't film. You can express a story in whichever medium you want. Epic is an evolution on the digital side. Just like different film stocks have come about over the years. In case you have noticed, the history of just about everything has been our attempt to keep making improvements. Whether they actually are or not is left to history.
 
I personally think that the Epic is everything the Red One was supposed to be but because it was their first camera, wasn't.

I know the Red is upgradeable, but something seems off. Why not just upgrade the Red with the 5k Mysterium X sensor?

Obviously, they can't for whatever reason.

The Epic is going to deliver true 4k and it weighs less. I imagine those reasons alone are enough to build it. Plus the 100mbs data rate.

And I know what you meant, but Red is not better than film. I prefer the term "different" than film. Different tools with different looks for different filmmakers.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
:) got the "better than film" analysis from lots of forums in here.. not my words :)
Somewhere in this forum even compares a 35mm print to RED where RED seems sharper in a blow-up.. hense my question on 5k's essencialness.. (if that word exists lol)

Good point about the sensor in RED not being upgradeable.. is EPIC the true-future proof aquisition this time? (since it can upgrade sensors)..
 
cinemano said:
:)

Good point about the sensor in RED not being upgradeable.. is EPIC the true-future proof aquisition this time? (since it can upgrade sensors)..
Click to expand...

The Red can be upgraded, and will in summer 09, but it will still be a 4k sensor.

I think if it has the same dynamic range as the Epic sensor, then the Red will be future proof for a long time.

Especially since most film prints are at 720p resolution, the Red is more than enough resolution. It is just the dynamic range that is not quite there yet.
 
As far as film is concerned too, resolutions exceed 35mm film. IMAX stuff is shot on 70mm film stock. From wikipedia:

The intent of IMAX is to dramatically increase the resolution of the image by using much larger film stock at a resolution comparable to about 10000 x 7000 pixels (70 megapixels). To do this, 70 mm film stock is run "sideways" through the cameras. While traditional 70 mm film has an image area that is 48.5 mm wide and 22.1 mm tall (for Todd-AO), in IMAX the image is 69.6 mm wide and 48.5 mm tall. In order to expose at standard film speed of 24 frames per second, three times as much film needs to move through the camera each second.
Click to expand...

10k...:w00t:
 
If (big IF)... If RED = film and Epic > RED, then Epic > film. My two cents. Plus 35mm film hasn't been the same resolution for "the past 100 years," rather it, like any technology has vastly improved, and especially with the new Kodak Vision2 stocks.
 
I remember hating the T grain when it came out.. I miss the old 16mm pink cans of 200 asa (7293 film?).. then they brought the 200T stuff which to me looked like 400 asa.. some of the progress to my eyes went the wrong way.

Agree that film improved in the century and that 70mm is better : )
But audiences never complained as far as i know...
 
cinemano said:
Hello..

Sorry for the silly question.. but if RED is like/better than 35mm film, why is the EPIC necessary? 35mm seemed sharp enough for the last 100 years.

Could it really be more for our own excitement as filmmakers than for the audience? They may never see the diference from 4K to 5k?
I think one could get away with RED 4K for the rest of his life.. (well until 3D is the next norm)

Thoughts please..
Click to expand...

You seem to be limiting Red's merits to sharpness/resolution. Here are 3 other reasons:

If you like 4K at 30p, having 4K at 100fps or higher is a definite plus. Opens possibilities for plates, special effect shots and more.

5K gives that little extra room for cropping, panning, resizing, etc. Again, more options.

We can always use better dynamic range, (I am assuming Epic will improve this area).

Just my 2 cents.

Phil
www.artbeats.com
 
Epic > Red > film. Full stop. Can we finally pass beyond this. Since 12 MP still cameras are considered equal or better than the scanned 24x36mm (=864mm2) film of photography (and in 8000DPI scans, I see the grain in Fuju Provia 100), then 11 MP are better then the 18x24mm (=432mm2) film of motion pictures, being no less than the double.

It is so easy to accept. It is accepted in photography that 35mm DSLR have higher resolution then 35mm frames, once digitized. Motion picture talkers seems so unnecessarily philosophical. I don't find it painful to accept this fact. it's so easy to experiment with still photography and digital, and to understand than motion pictures cannot be better than the best still pictures, being half the area.
I have heard someone saying that film has infinite resolution: for such a stupid statement, there is no real need to replay, it's so obviously wrong.
A hundred years from now, there will always be someone stating (without believing, I hope), for whatever reason, that also 8mm film will still be better that Epic, because in his mind, film is infinite. And in his mind, he will not feel bored yet. But who cares. In the sport of talking, film is an ideology, like the idea of fishing with a certain type of rod or playing tennis with a certain tennis racket. I's a waste of time discussing. I think nowadays making movies with film is simply stupid, if only for the waste of time processing and editing and/or scanning, for that improbable resolution that nobody has seen yet but that, according to someone, we should all have notice, and at a cost of the ugly price of film.
 
5K gives that little extra room for cropping, panning, resizing, etc. Again, more options.
Click to expand...

Of course. If these modern digital cameras equal high quality lenses, then film is way behind, once projected. If scanned, then... even more so.
Film makes sense only in medium or large format still photography, where digital is monstrously expensive and worse.
Red cameras are overall better solutions: if so many people are selling their film cameras it must be for some good reason... or what?
Also, the story of Red workflow being not friendly convenient, makes me laugh. Grab a Mac with Final Cut Pro. Is the film workflow more friendly or convenient? Pull the other one.
Other are the problems.
 
what film is for people is the devil they know. RED is much easier but not everyone has been glued to these boards since its inception. digital doesn't hit the dynamic range of film yet. but I've no doubt it will get there.

film is no slouch either. it hasn't been static for 100 years. each stock got better and better. modern film is quite amazing. it has a fairly straight forward and known work flow and film's cost doesn't phase the studios. they are paying for proven work flow. in the scheme of those pictures film isn't all that expensive. RED will be the devil we know at some point and some other upstart will try and knock over its apple cart. thats progress. films just been the champ for a long long time. I still love the look of film. always have. if I could I'd shoot on stocks from the 60's and 70's i would. but the costs not to mention the time machine would kill me
 
This topic has come up quite often on this forum, and I still hold the same opinion. RED (and other digital cinema cameras) capture the world differently than film. You can argue which one your prefer to watch, but there's no getting around the fact that they are too different acquisition formats that have unique looks. And it becomes really difficult to make a blanket statement of which one is better because film has various film stocks, so it makes it even tougher to compare. What RED has brought us is a camera with 35mm characteristics in a digital form factor at a price point that makes it very appealing to independent filmmakers and production companies. As much as I like the look of film, I am very happy that I have this tool to work with. It's opening up possibilities that would not have been possible for me with film.
 
Tetsuo said:
Also, the story of Red workflow being not friendly convenient, makes me laugh. Grab a Mac with Final Cut Pro.
Click to expand...


this is perfect for offline work...
the rest gets a little trickier like you can see at the whole bunch of other threads regarding this topic.

add crimsonworkflow and you have something to start with.

Scratch is right now the only finishing tool with native redcode support.
 
Why Epic?

Why Epic?

This reminds me of the arguments that circulated when the first HD cameras hit the market. All this B.S. about "it's equal to 35mm", "its better than 35mm", "the human eye can't see more resolution than 1080p" etc.

I looked at the images and it was clear to me that they were not equal to 35mm quality. I'm not talking strictly resolution here, but the "cinematic" quality.

When I saw "Crossing the Line" at NAB 2007, it was the first time I had ever seen the result of a digital camera and thought "I would like to shoot a movie with this camera". (I have never seen high quality projection of D20 or Dalsa footage).

There were times, looking at the 4k projection at NAB, where the image hinted at the impact of 70mm projection.

ARRI did some tests, shooting Kodak EXR 50D (5245) with an "old school" Zeiss Planar 1,2/85mm @ f2.8. The 80 lp/mm target was resolved, and the 100 lp/mm target looks almost resolved. Using Ultra or Master Primes might have increased the MTF at 100 lp/mm.

At 80 lp/mm this gives a pixel size equivalent of 4153 x 3112. Very similar to the RED One - but - with a digital camera you have to use OLPF, so the MTF at max resolution = zero. As Graeme mentioned, the RED One practical resolution is about 0.78 x 4K = 3195 horizontal lines.

With a 5K sensor, the result would probably be: 5120 x 0.78 = 3994. So with Epic's 5K sensor you get true pixel level detail resolution at 4K. With full 4K capture, and if that 4K quality is maintained in the post pipeline all the way to the projector, I think that with the right lenses, you could get an impact very similar to 70mm projection from Epic.

And yes, there are definitely lenses that are good enough to deliver this resolution to the sensor.

So the camera is aptly named. I love 65mm, but it's not coming back. The only filmmaker that could probably successfully resurrect 65mm (Spielberg) does not seem interested. So that format is all but dead. The only way to get 65mm cinematography back is to create a digital equivalent to 65mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top