Red vs Film

[Wesley Scoggins]

Hi,

I thought Benjamin Button looked very very good, I had issues with the other 2. I suspect the post budget of BB would have allowed for shooting in 65mm if they had wanted to.

Stephen

Well I thought they all looked fantastic (even if they weren't all necessarily my favorite movie), Benjamin Button I think looked really darn amazing. No one I talked too who saw Benjamin Button saw it and went, "Wow, those digital cinema cams they used REALLY held back the story, it could have been so much better if they'd only used film.".

No one I talk to who doesn't read American Cinematographer, had any idea it was shot with so many digital cams, and that's with just the latest generation, think of what we'll be able to accomplish with digital cinema 10 years from now, with an entire new class of digital cinema cameras, and 10 years of additional experience working with digital film.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Im a film production student and in our first term at university we still use 16mm B+W film in a spring wound Bolex to shoot a 30 second piece, we then edit on a steenbeck - using traditional editing methods. And I ask myself why we do this - why dont we just shoot a 30 sec movie using HD Cameras then wack it into Final Cut where we can cut and re-cut and do what we like to the footage?, and my reply from my tutor is: You only get 200 ft of stock for your 30 seconds so it really makes you think about all the elements in more detail, you will only have one take for each shot so it encourages you to rehearse more thoroughly, think about your cinematography etc and all the other things in much more detail. Also by editing on a steenbeck, once you've made your cut that should be it - you're literally cutting through your footage with scissors.

My point of all this is that if there is a massive battle between the formats how will the new trainee's and students ever learn if Digital Technology aims to mimic film to the point of wiping it off the face of the planet. Just because we have new technology shouldn't mean that we want to use it to get rid of old mediums. I feel that instead of trying to mimic film - Digital has its own pro's and cons and visual identity which makes it what it is, emulating the past doesn't help push the future I think. I'm very glad that we still get to learn about film at University because it allows us to learn about some of the traditional methods that make up our craft. I also think that I will use Film or Digital or even a crappy handicam just as long as the script justifies the use of that particular medium and the medium helps the story to be told.

I don't really see digital as miming film. We take the aspects we like of film and we discover how to replicate it, we take the aspects of digital we like and we integrate it and make them better, we take the aspects of both we don't like and we weed them out or discard them.

Digital has a potential to be something utterly different from what it is today, and I think that it can be something even more powerful than film.

I don't WANT film destroyed, I simply thing that decades down the road, it'll be at most a niche market since digital will be able to do all of the same things.

I love the discipline that film can require from you, but I don't see why that can't be replicated with digital too. Think of it, 10 years down the road, a film professor gives his students the latest iteration of the Scarlet with only an optical viewfinder, and only a 4 minute flash card (that he'll be able to detect if it's been overwritten using the latest version RedUndead), disables any auto-WB or auto-exposure functions and makes them do all the basic drills using just a light meter.

Other than having a much higher resolution, how would that really be any different than having them use a Bolex?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

...just like film.....

Except significantly less expensive.

 

[mike ogden]

Except significantly less expensive.

Can I just point out for the umpteenth time that shooting on a Red for a feature in reality makes no significant saving in the great scheme of things. This I know for a fact as I've just done a comparative.

The cost of film stock and lab isn't significant enough to warrant shooting Red as a cost saving unless your budget is sub a million and even then there are options.

Anyone who naysays this really has never budgeted well or properly. This isn't to cast aspersions on the Red cam, it's just a falsehood I am tired of hearing again and again.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

How is it not cheaper? Around 30,000 to buy a Red Kit equipped enough to shoot a feature, or rent a 35mm cam at a base minimum of several thousand a week (for how many weeks of shooting?) then the cost of film, processing, and filmout.

There are all sorts of workflow kinks at the moment for digital that can make it quite expensive, but as workflow is streamlined and computers get faster, it will make it continually easier.

We've already got people who have started doing CC and editing ON SET on their laptop, while the film is still being shot.

Even though digital for larger projects is still within the same league as film, for many of us here who often shoot shorter/smaller projects, the benefits of being able to have something that we can toss on our home computer and edit together on that, burn a disc and send that off to a film festival, instead of spending a week sending everything off to a lab and having to spent thousands of more dollars just to get back footage that we can finally start messing with... The benefits are definitely there.

Especially since buying the Red is a one-time cost, while for most of us buying a comparable 35mm rig is out of our budget, and renting one for every little short film or music video we want to shoot is prohibitively expensive.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Anyone who naysays this really has never budgeted well or properly. This isn't to cast aspersions on the Red cam, it's just a falsehood I am tired of hearing again and again.

People always cost more than equipment. Is film stock a huge part of a budget? Not if you have a reasonable budget. Does that mean you should be throwing thousands of dollars down the drain without any reason? No.

If I presented two systems. One which cost $3k and one which cost $60k and provided identical outcomes why would you want to spend $60k? Sure it's less than 1% of your budget but it's still $55k wasted.

Get better catering for the crew. Rent the faster lens package.

128GB SSD provides about 45 minutes @ 50MB a second and costs $300.
compared to film which would be about 4000' @ $2500 if I'm remembering correctly. Explain to me how the difference between those two choices isn't dramatically more expensive? (And that's ignoring processing and getting the film into a digital format.)

If the digital can match the film look pixel perfect why would you want to shoot film? Film doesn't have some ethereal soul which can't be measured. It's predictable chemistry. If you like the sound of film humming through a magazine you could afford to have little speakers installed and still come out ahead.

 

[Stephen Williams]

If you like the sound of film humming through a magazine you could afford to have little speakers installed and still come out ahead.

Hi Gavin,

One point many people miss is that modern sync sound film cameras are way quieter than digital cameras. Dealing with sound also costs time & money.

Stephen

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I've shot with a lot of noisy digital systems, and none of them a loud enough to show up on the soundtrack even when i'm using cheap boom mics.

For how loud the Red is, it never seemed loud enough (even with my ear against it) to be a significant issue to me, except MAYBE in a car or some other hyperenclosed space where you literally have to get inches away from your actors and they are whispering and got a mic right against one.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hi Gavin,

One point many people miss is that modern sync sound film cameras are way quieter than digital cameras. Dealing with sound also costs time & money.

Stephen

And by the time digital is capable of fully emulating film I'm sure digital cameras will be passively cooled and 0db. Point being the quietest smoothest bearings in the world can't beat a stationary object. It's something of a mechanical miracle that film cameras work as well as they do, as accurately and reliably as they do and we're pretty close to the physical limits of the technology. Just like we're probably nearing the physical limits of film.

We have 1080p(ish) cameras now that are passively cooled, record to solid state drives and fit in the palm of your hand. Go back in time 5 years and that would have been a modern marvel. A camera which surpasses film (and is capable of perfectly emulating it), is pasively cooled and the size of a deck of cards isn't more than 10 years into the future. Film won't be able to compete with that. Film is on the fast track to becoming the next polaroid--it simply won't be economical to manufacture. And why should they make it when there is a superior, less expensive and more robust solution?

Computers get cheaper. Software gets easier. Computers replace all. It's the way of things now.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I've shot with a lot of noisy digital systems, and none of them a loud enough to show up on the soundtrack even when i'm using cheap boom mics.

For how loud the Red is, it never seemed loud enough (even with my ear against it) to be a significant issue to me, except MAYBE in a car or some other hyperenclosed space where you literally have to get inches away from your actors and they are whispering and got a mic right against one.

Camera noise has always been an issue ever since the days of betacam, the noise is way louder than around 20db from a film camera.

 

[Sam Keogh]

Film is toast. Why bother trotting out the same arguments in favour of old technology that I've heard time and again over my many years in post production?

They all boil down to a sentimental affection for the "old ways", and always seem to come parcelled up with schemes of denial and delusion that would fell an ox.

Look at the audio studio industry, magnificently overhauled by technology, giving quality production techniques to a zillion more users and democratizing music into the bargain.

Look at the world of stills photography. Photoshop and digital SLRs rule. Only the most curmudgeonly of the old guard shoot on film, and then only because they haven't properly understood the new methods, and are surrounded by people who trust what they say.

Red cameras are the thin end of a very efficient wedge. When the hammer falls, the rock will split into a million pieces.

And the only reason anyone likes the look of film is associative - everyone's seen their favourite films made on film. If all films in the past had been shot on reds and then someone showed up with something made on film and suggested it looked better they'd be laughed at.

So you can pretend to yourself that film is "more like the human eye" and fold oil painting and sculpture into your arguments in an attempt to shore up your denial, but the fact is that film is over with. The choice is this:, do I get in early and help shape the new way of doing things, or do I gripe from the sidelines that it's not like the good old days and then have to play catch up once the inevitable happens?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Appreciate the past, keep an eye on the future, and make sure your running shoes are in good shape.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

The next advance in archiving will most likely come from the nano-technology sector. Imagine "writing" your data on a pure carbon substrate using single molecules of gold or other precious metals. Or "burning" your data onto a synthetic diamond by nano-focused lasers, creating molecule-sized voids that are read by passing another laser through it. LTO is just temporary. Effective for now, but ultimately temporary. True archiving must include the following:

1. Impervious to magnetic, electronic, atmospheric interference.

2. Waterproof, Fireproof, Non-Oxidizing.

3. Can be fully re-constituted using more than one technology.

There are other factors, but these are the ones that impact film the most.

 

[mike ogden]

I'm not complaining. Film is better for some jobs, Red/digi systems others. But if you have a decent budget, it makes no difference financially. I just use what's best for the story first, production second. The actual cost rental of film camera packages can be got for the cost of a Red package. I'm talking about a decent rental house here I can rely on, not some owner operator who, if it went wrong, would just scratch his/her head. On a feature, that pick up a phone and a guy comes out backup is essential.

If you're happy to grade on your laptop 'on set' I'm happy for you. It doesn't make any difference in the long run, you're still gonna have to do it somewhere properly in a dark calibrated post house.

Stop acting like fanboys. It's embarassing. Have a sense of proportion. Red is exciting and interesting but it wont revolutionise film making because the whole process more than just the camera.

Film isn't dead. Red is another choice. We live in interesting times and it's best to keep all your options open.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Camera noise has always been an issue ever since the days of betacam, the noise is way louder than around 20db from a film camera.

The camera noise from Red wasn't significant when I used it. I've used louder Bolex's.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I'm not complaining. Film is better for some jobs, Red/digi systems others. But if you have a decent budget, it makes no difference financially. I just use what's best for the story first, production second. The actual cost rental of film camera packages can be got for the cost of a Red package. I'm talking about a decent rental house here I can rely on, not some owner operator who, if it went wrong, would just scratch his/her head. On a feature, that pick up a phone and a guy comes out backup is essential.

If you're happy to grade on your laptop 'on set' I'm happy for you. It doesn't make any difference in the long run, you're still gonna have to do it somewhere properly in a dark calibrated post house.

Stop acting like fanboys. It's embarassing. Have a sense of proportion. Red is exciting and interesting but it wont revolutionise film making because the whole process more than just the camera.

Film isn't dead. Red is another choice. We live in interesting times and it's best to keep all your options open.

I'm not trying to act like a fanboy, i'm not saying Red is the greatest thing ever. Red is a great camera, but it's not the best camera in all circumstances, and film still beats it in many ways.

We've all been saying that once the workflow is maximized for digital production, and once long-term data storage is able to beat analog storage in reliability, cost, and size...

We'll REALLY see things begin to change. The camera is just one of the most obvious points of a larger paradigm shift, a shift that has already completely changed the audio and photography industries (as has been stated previously.)

We aren't there yet, and no Film ISN'T dead, BUT film if it's anything in a few decades will be at the best a niche medium. We're on the edge of a big change here, and stuff like the Red is just an example of what's to come. What we'll be shooting with in 2019 will be just as mind-blowingly different as what we've got now is to stuff we have back in 1999.

It was impossible to edit 4K footage on a laptop 10 years ago (and there wasn't any cameras that could shoot that). Now you can pull the card on set and start messing with the footage immediately.

Maybe you're not going to get a professional quality grade going, but having your Colorist working on his laptop on set, and getting 90% of the work done is a huge step, and vastly different from what has been capable of in the past.

It's not fanboyism, it's just observations. We aren't there yet, but things are changing, and they are changing VERY fast, and we've got to be prepared for it.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

. Only the most curmudgeonly of the old guard shoot on film, and then only because they haven't properly understood the new methods, and are surrounded by people who trust what they say.

I still only shoot film and I'm hardly curmudgeonly or part of the old guard. I just like how it looks. If I could get the same look out of digital as easily as I do from film now I would. We're *almost* to the point where I think film will completely dissapear but not quite.

I don't see it as a slow drawn out affair though. I really think it'll be as fast and as wide as RED was. Someone will create the perfect solution which is so undeniably superior and incomparably flexible that film will disappear 'overnight' in a matter of 1-2 years.

I think there's going to be almost a moment in time when the teater totter of usage is going to rise up and then slam down on the other side. Because it won't be a question of preference. If you like the "Film look" or the "digital look" they're going to be the same camera.

 

[Stephen Williams]

The camera noise from Red wasn't significant when I used it. I've used louder Bolex's.

Hi,

The bolex is an MOS camera, the hard drive alone on a RED makes more noise than a modern sync sound camera. Clearly if you found a bolex usable for sync sound then this conversation is a waste of time.

Stephen

 

[Charles Angus]

Film is toast. Why bother trotting out the same arguments in favour of old technology that I've heard time and again over my many years in post production?

They all boil down to a sentimental affection for the "old ways", and always seem to come parcelled up with schemes of denial and delusion that would fell an ox.

Except for the argument that image quality and latitude is better on film. Oh, and the workflow is better established.

Keep in mind that film stocks are changing and evolving, too.

Digital has its benefits, but for the utmost in image quality and latitude, film is still king.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Hi,

The bolex is an MOS camera, the hard drive alone on a RED makes more noise than a modern sync sound camera. Clearly if you found a bolex usable for sync sound then this conversation is a waste of time.

Stephen

I'm aware what the Bolex is. I'm simply saying that Bolex's aren't that loud to begin with (even if they are loud), yet the Red was quieter.

If the Harddrive is loud, switch to the SSD or Flash cards. Not like the harddrive is the ONLY option.