Epic vs Film - the Decisive Battle is looming

[Tom Lowe]

Nova Invicta, we have to be careful not to lump all digital proponents in the same boat. Yes there are plenty of pimple-faced punks who are beating their chests, thinking that Scarlet 3K is going to make them the next Peter Jackson. But most of the people here are fairly sensible and level headed.

Many of us have a great love of film AND a great love of new technology.

 

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

The unmeasurable quality

The unmeasurable quality

be it digital or chemical based. I still listen to vinyl, on tube amplifiers (no transistors) because I like that.

Graeme

Graeme,

Any medium has an intrinsic quality that cannot be accurately measured or explained away technically. I'm so glad to know that you "get it". When I first saw "Crossing the Line", I went in (to your booth at NAB 2007) expecting to pick the image apart. Instead I saw the first digital capture that I actually would be willing to use myself. I was seeing the result of your visual aesthetic applied to the RED ONE's digital technology.

Even the best turntable / cartridge / vinyl record combinations and the best tube amps measure poorly on test equipment compared to relatively inexpensive CD players and transistor amps. Yet each of these "outdated, obsolete" technologies has a special quality (very enjoyable to listen to, non-fatiguing) that is simply not possible to replicate with transistors and digital. They are just simply more musical.

Despite this, I believe that when designers have the right values and a good aesthetic sense, they can mold new technologies to have as much of the aesthetic qualities of the traditional mediums as possible.

And no, it's not just thinking something sounds better or looks better because you think it should. I did not *want* to believe that a vinyl record, played back on a good turntable, could sound better than a CD. But I believe my ears.

I did not *want* to believe that a digital cine camera (RED ONE) that had been developed in just over a year by an unknown startup company could produce and image that would be a satisfying to watch on a big screen as 35mm film (and even hint at some of the qualities of 65mm). But I believe my eyes.

Cheers!

 

[Rubancam]

i agree with Tom, film will be obsolete soon just like it happened in Still Photography world. By 2010 they will address all inefficiencies in workflow, display capability etc.

The question i have is who will dominate the world in Cinema cameras.
RED has a great lead, Many are adopting it but who ever has the better chip will end up leading. It happened in Still photography world. Nikon used to be the king in film days but Canon killed it with it's DSLR with the great CMOS chips. i do not know who design/manufacture Mysterium chips for RED but RED should heavily invest in R&D in developing better chip (Less noise, better exposure latitude etc). Canon and Sony have edge on that. Not at all Panavision or Arri. Never know what Nikon has in store for Cinematographers : -)

End of the day, every Cinematographer cares the best quality ( very rich, Pleasing to look at ) images possibly one can get.

 

[Deanan]

Despite this, I believe that when designers have the right values and a good aesthetic sense...

Our highest priority internally is to put the 'soul' in to image regardless of technical specs. All the features and specs in the world are meaningless if you have a cold and heartless image. The tough part is that there's no way to measure these things .

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Digital Cinema will certainly gain a large share of the market,(and already has)
Trying to pin a date and time is very difficult.

I shot a Red test in Talladega for a NASCAR race and was amazed at the fact that NO photographers in the media room were shooting "film".

I asked one photographer how long it had been since he saw a "film" camera in the room and he said it was a few years!

The freelance photographers use digital cameras for these reason's:

Reduced cost.

Quick turnaround times.

Reduced cost.

Great images.

Reduced cost.

Easy and cost effective distribution.
______________________________________________________________________

Do you think any motion picture companies would benefit from the list above?

Do you know any producers that would like to reduce cost?

Seems like Mr. Jannard may have come to this conclusion a few years back!


While we were shooting on the "grid" I saw a well know sports "film person" shooting 16MM,one of his crew members pointed out the Red One we were shooting with and he glanced over and looked down his nose at the Red One. When I asked him if he had shot with it yet he said," Why would I want to shoot with that Star Wars looking camera"...That comment said it all...

It will take time and effort to move "film People" from film to digital, but just as the freelance professional Photography industry transitioned, so will a majority of the motion picture studios. Will it be 2010? It's unlikely, but the market share for Digital Cinema will certainly continue to grow!

Don't forget about this guy named George Lucas that has embraced Digital Cinema and used the benefits of the medium to his advantage, releasing a few popular movies........

P.S.

I never owned a Porsche or Ferrari but that day in the Photo room with the Red One gave me that feeling, as crowds of people gathered around to see the Red One and ask about it!

Dave

The photography model is a little different from motion picture.

They are all about immediate turnaround for publishing and online deadlines. They may shoot dozens or hundreds of shots. They can easily archive their choice shots to negative if they want to.

I don't even know if the digital negative is even important for some, as long as prints are made.

Motion pictures may acquire millions of feet per project that need to edited together. How do you decide what to archive and what not to? Historical value isn't always evident til much later.

The dvd producer of Blade Runner said, dozens of boxes of Blade Runner material were labeled for disposal. He was lucky they just never got around to it.

I look at music as an example of where the tea leaves may fall for movies. Majority will use digital tools, but in pockets a choice will be made to go traditional.

 

[mezmo]

The whole concept of producing image for motion picture drama is to
create somthing unique and different for each project.
What a boring world with everyone forced to use digital as the 'demise of film
dudes' keep predicting.
Variety IS the spice of life, including art. More tools the better, RED included.
Mezmo

 

[AntiMutant]

All due respect to the original post by Tom. This is a fun place to speculate and chat about the present and the future and ... cool gear. I often speculate myself on these issues.

But what interests me is why people find it necessary to evangelize the world as to Red's (or any other camera's) prowess. I mean my SI-2K and Red One are far superior cameras, as far as I can tell, to what the digital Star Wars films were shot on. I mean ... WOW. Think about it. Many of us posting here own, or plan to own, cameras that could have done a "better" job than what Lucas used (at least in terms of image quality). I think even some of the earlier Genesis projects were shot at 1080p with a 4:2:2: colorspace due to the limitations of the tape format used at the time.

I think the reason people get defensive, or offensive, about the Red camera is because if the rest of the world "admits" that the Red is amazing then they feel validated in the value of their investment. If you buy a Lotus, but everyone laughs at it because it isn't a Mustang, then you feel personally attacked, even though you can drive pretty damn fast.

I think the only other reason that makes sense to me is that if you are planning on supporting yourself by renting the Red, and you feel people aren't buying into it, then of course you want the world to believe the hype.

However, I think we ought to rejoice. Everyone that has a Red is free to make movies that will look pretty damn good ... providing every single other aspect that goes into capturing beautiful footage is respected.

Again, I love the topic. I'm curious as to when (and if) film will die. I'm just also curious why people are happy that film will die, and feel the need to convince others that Red is good. So what if 90% of movies are shot on film 10 years from now? And you (we) are in the minority shooting on digital? Isn't that OK?

Again, not trying to argue anything here, just mildly curious. And way too long winded due to fatigue.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

Nova Invicta, we have to be careful not to lump all digital proponents in the same boat. Yes there are plenty of pimple-faced punks who are beating their chests, thinking that Scarlet 3K is going to make them the next Peter Jackson. But most of the people here are fairly sensible and level headed.

Many of us have a great love of film AND a great love of new technology.

Peter Jackson was once a pimple-faced punk without a budget... He made "bad taste" for a tiny budget (he would have used scarlet if available) over four years on weekends. Badly shot. Badly editited, bad sound, lame plot, terrible acting. Great movie. Sold well...

If you haven't seen it, then i recommend it.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

What's wrong with being a pimple-faced punk? h34r:

 

[Joseph Ward]

I think most independent film makers want digital to have a ''look'' of Film. Film is a love/hate relationship with indepedents. They want the overall last results of film, but hate the process/cost. How many of us just wanted to make a movie that was on par with and be shown at a theatrical release? Maybe now its about the creative art and business side instead of tech. :umm:

 

[Jim Exton]

Maybe now its about the creative art and business side instead of tech. :umm:

It should always have been this way. Shooting on 35mm or the Red isn't going to automatically get you a distribution deal.

Making a film with a good story and/or having a name actor can get a regular 16mm or mini DV film in the theaters.