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 :)

Dragon Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vinyl records were gone. Now they are back in a niche market. Film is almost gone and will probably exist within a niche market. I'm not sure why it is important to discuss "better" at this point. Digital is the reality now and going forward. Dragon is finally going to help a lot of people feel more comfortable with that idea. But comfortable or not, digital is the reality. Done deal. So are these esoteric conversations really necessary? zzzzzzzz.... :closedeyes: :wink5:
 
Les Dittert said:
Phil,
We should put this film vs digital topic in a new thread.
Let me know if you are shooting in the LA area, I can bring by my Scarlet E for the test as well.
Might be revealing ...

65mm super panavision is 2 inches across . Super 35 is 1 inch. So in theory 65 will resolve twice what 35 will, disregarding optics.
I believe I have twice the resolving power of 35mm from my test shoot. And I shot 4K.
You can see where I'm going with this ;)
Click to expand...
Pm me a link to thread of started please!!
 
All is quiet on the western front
 
I hope we might be getting some insight on the DRAGON today, if not then, next week is going to be loonnggg. :mad2:
 
Andy Roberts said:
Vinyl records were gone. Now they are back in a niche market. Film is almost gone and will probably exist within a niche market.
Click to expand...

One possible hiccup is that low-volume production is quite a bit more challenging/expensive for film than vinyl records and it may end up too expensive for even diehards, but in principle at least I totally agree with you.
 
I expect some film will be around for quite a while

Film in some ways is still a good long term archival format. Properly stored it will be no problem viewing film shot today in 100 years. Sadly I can not say the same for an LTO tape with R3D files on it. There maybe no working LTO drives on planet in 100 years and who will know what an R3D file is?

Digital is great on so many levels. Long term archiving is one of the biggest challenges. We are copying old LTO 3 to LTO 6 just to stay with a format the is current. The new LTO 6 drives will only read LTO 4 and LTO5 not 3.

With Digital it is good to plan to copy the old files to a new format every few years. Lots of work and overhead to insure images are safe and readable.
 
Lee Saxon said:
One possible hiccup is that low-volume production is quite a bit more challenging/expensive for film than vinyl records and it may end up too expensive for even diehards, but in principle at least I totally agree with you.
Click to expand...

Yes Lee, I wonder about this as well. I've heard that print stocks is where Kodak makes/made the real money. With the widespread move to digital projection, I wonder if film for acquisition-only is a viable for any company to produce?
 
THR had an interview last year with the 2012 Oscar nominated directors. During the round table, Tarantino said, and most of the others agreed, they will only ever shoot on film. They refuse to capture digitally, and don't care if that very same film ultimately gets digitally scanned and projected (ie. the end product is digital anyway). I loved it. Coming from a young guy new to this world, I find those statements hilarious.

Vinyl records are gone because after a few plays, the grooves wore down and that supposed superior sound quality vanished. And they weren't portable, were oversized, and frequently damaged due to the elements. They were heavy, fragile, and piss poor quite frankly. The romance is with the analog and the oversized cover artwork.

Fortunately for all of us, the romance in movies is with the projected image and the beauty of the story, the shot, the sound, and the heroes on the screen. Telling stories, making movies, and sharing the spoils. The romance of movies has nothing to do with film stocks or even silicon chips. Those are the technical trimmings. Holding onto a now surpassed medium for the anguish and pain of your crew, budget, and investors is just plain silly. RED is a tool that makes the important stuff more possible and that's the beauty in digital and what RED has done. I'm only here because of the revolution RED ignited and I'll stay here for the real heart and soul of what this business is about.
 
Rob Anderson said:
THR had an interview last year with the 2012 Oscar nominated directors. During the round table, Tarantino said, and most of the others agreed, they will only ever shoot on film.
Click to expand...

One thing that spawned from that discussion during the interview was the overall effect of how the on set workflow and general pacing has changed due to the penetration of the digital medium. Longer takes, longer setups without brakes, less time for mag changes, etc... Increasing setups per day, increasing "efficiency", speeding up production. Producers and studios like that.

There is something to be said about having time to think and observe while shooting. Moments in between. Taking the time to get things right. Occasionally chasing a happy accident. It's up to the folks behind scheduling their days to plan accordingly and figure out what money goes where. It's up to the Director to usually impose their will in terms of how they would like capture the film, work with the actors, and how to pace their days. Each is different. No one is really right or wrong.

Of course there's also something to be said about being able to shoot a feature in 15-35 days nowadays too.

Odd duality where technology has given us something and yet at the same time has taken something away.

It can be a good thing if you use it for it's strengths though.
 
Rob Anderson said:
.

Vinyl records are gone because after a few plays, the grooves wore down and that supposed superior sound quality vanished. And they weren't portable, were oversized, and frequently damaged due to the elements. They were heavy, fragile, and piss poor quite frankly. The romance is with the analog and the oversized cover artwork.
Click to expand...

Can't blame you if you cannot hear "the supposed superior" sound but honestly your "romance" statement about vinyls being all about covert art is silly. As for filmakers not wanting to shoot digital, that it should all be about story.. Tarantino is pretty good at telling a story don't you think? He wrote and shot a couple good ones right? Some people have standards, their "bar" is very high. Using tools that they feel is inferior is not an option. Respect for that.
 
Craig Weeding said:
I expect some film will be around for quite a while

Film in some ways is still a good long term archival format. Properly stored it will be no problem viewing film shot today in 100 years. Sadly I can not say the same for an LTO tape with R3D files on it. There maybe no working LTO drives on planet in 100 years and who will know what an R3D file is?
Click to expand...

This is where film will end up. Archiving. The Academy sees film as the top archive system, it is also cheaper to store than digital. The technology to play film will always be around compared to the fast changing technology of other cameras. With a storage life up to 100 years that's what I'd use to archive a major project. But it'd be shot on a RED of course. Ha.
 
If we are regressing into a (half-hearted) discussion about film vs digital then it must be time for a status update on Dragon, Red Projector, etc. Reduser is becoming a desert for useful information of any kind lately.

LET IT RAIN, RED!!!
 
Robino_J said:
Can't blame you if you cannot hear "the supposed superior" sound but honestly your "romance" statement about vinyls being all about covert art is silly.
Click to expand...
Also silly that you'd take my quote, cut it in half, and claim I only find the romance in the art. I said, "the analog and the oversized cover artwork." That's a two part piece there. Convenient for your argument I guess. But for giggles, consider this:

Even so, some audiophiles claim to hear a natural sound, vaguely described as “musical warmth,” when listening to vinyl. What they’re hearing, Lipshitz says, is most likely the deficiencies of the record player. Sound waves from the speakers and the needle’s rise-and-fall passage over the grooves cause the LP to vibrate. The needle picks up these extra vibrations and adds them to the music, creating the “fullness” that’s associated with LPs. “Some people mistake this defect for a virtue,” Lipshitz says.
Click to expand...

Record grooves wear down and the sound degrades with every single playback. You are hearing a musical track quality diminishing with each listen. Add to that the impossibility of a signal recorded today sounding 'truer' on vinyl and you're basically romanticizing a format for the wrong reason. There is romance there -- it's in the analog and the large cover artwork, like I said -- but it's not in the medium and the medium is not better than the digital.

Looking forward to having this conversation for many decades to come. ;)

Robino_J said:
Using tools that they feel is inferior is not an option. Respect for that.
Click to expand...
Sure. If the tools were inferior, you'd be onto something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top