Film isn't dead.... unfortunately.

[Van Royko]

I'd love to believe the hype. That film is indeed dead. But I saw a film last night that confirmed it for me in such a clear way.
The film is Submarine. In my mind a masterpiece. Obviously influenced by Wes Anderson but a million times better than anything he has done. But I digress.

I havn't seen this texture, skin tones and subtle color palette on any other medium than film. When I turned off the film I was wishing with all my heart that I would discover that it was shot on Red or Alexa. But it was Vision 2 500 asa.

Let me be clear. I never want to want to shoot on film again. I loathe film fetishism. Film is dirty, expensive and elitist. And it doesn't tell stories that Digital ultimately cannot. But it captures something in a moment that I havn't seen captured on digital. Cheeks- the separation between the rosiness of a young woman's cheek and the underlying skin tone. The translucent color in pale skin. There is something transcendent in those colors. This is important and in my mind we are still waiting for it in digital.

So I am calling on shooters and colorists to prove me wrong. With all the power of Epic and the RAW workflow and optical filtration is there not away to feel skin like we do in the film Submarine.

Supposedly Deakins swore off film after shooting Alexa. Why? Does it capture these ineffable colors? I havn't seen tests or proof of this conclusively. Do they exist? But I trust the opinion and purism of Deakins more than most other Dps. People have explained that Alexa achieves it's look through softening the image optically. That there is a low con filter in the gate.
Frankly if this is the case- I dont care. A quadrillion pixels and unlimited latitude will only account for so much if I cant make a human look like they do on film.

Red is better in low light. Its does look like 65mm. It undercranks like a champ. Its small. Its inexpensive. Its the most democratizing cinema technology in history. It is a dream come true. But to really kill film we need to sort this out.

 

[mikeburton]

Jesus, I feel like I've been saying this a lot lately. Why do you want to kill film? If you don't want to shoot it anymore like you mentioned, DON"T SHOOT IT! This thought process from people that there should be one easy tool to rule them all is just ridiculous. Film is a choice just as RED and Alexa are and if you don't like what you have seen from them from your own tests and can only get what you want on film than be thankful that you have that as a choice.
It seems a bit unfortunate to me that that we are still seeing threads like this and frankly I usually just assume stay away from them but this one just really makes me cringe just from the title alone.
Be careful what you wish for folks, cause once its gone, well...its gone.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I still shoot more 35mm than anything else, I own an Epic, when the only lab in Switzerland closes I guess the Epic will be used more.

 

[Van Royko]

If we would have held to that rule when we were shooting on F900 or HVX200 we wouldn't have the miracle of Red. This isn't a question of stocks. It is a question of technology and technique.
And film being dead is tongue and cheek. CDs and MP3 didn't kill vinyl. But holding onto vinyl didn't stop people from running their entire studio through analog tube per-amps before recording to hard disk. And thats what Im saying to the community here- the same way we built 35mm DIY adapters, maybe we can hack this color thing.

There is nothing wrong with asking for your cake and eating it to if it's in the spirit of always making the most of what we have.

The Jannard himself has relished in the prospect competition, the struggle for perfecting image technology. This is what Red is all about. And I think my sentiments are in that spirit.

 

[Brian Robbins]

I just don't understand this, the whole desire to see film phased out. I love watching films shot on film, just as I love watching films shot on the latest digital cameras. I don't wanna watch movies that are all shot on the same camera. Film, RED, Alexa, etc...they're all tools for story telling.

 

[Van Royko]

Some Brits once said Americans dont understand irony. Let's not prove them right now ok.
Of course we never want to see film dead.

The point is- is that we (we meaning humanity/civilizaton) were chasing film when we invented HD. When we invented 4k. High fram rates. Increased latitude. Film has been our point of reference for improvement as long as video has been used for 'cinematic' endeavours.

Why is it only ok to compare Red to film when its favorable for Red? I loathe propaganda. So lets stop with the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil spiel.

Lets stop averting our eyes from the truth and make Red as good in color as it is in latitude, resolution etc.

 

[Solomon Nero]

Film is beautiful, Digital is beautiful. Its all good...and...

...they're all tools for story telling.

This is well said. Different tools for different people/jobs

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

wrong place

wrong place

How dare you come to digital forum and preach film!!!!!:nonod:
You must have missed the word in the top left corner of this page:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Van Royko]

Yeah, my PD-150 was so 'beautiful'.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

I'd love to believe the hype. That film is indeed dead. But I saw a film last night that confirmed it for me in such a clear way.
The film is Submarine. In my mind a masterpiece. Obviously influenced by Wes Anderson but a million times better than anything he has done. But I digress.

I havn't seen this texture, skin tones and subtle color palette on any other medium than film. When I turned off the film I was wishing with all my heart that I would discover that it was shot on Red or Alexa. But it was Vision 2 500 asa.

Let me be clear. I never want to want to shoot on film again. I loathe film fetishism. Film is dirty, expensive and elitist. And it doesn't tell stories that Digital ultimately cannot. But it captures something in a moment that I havn't seen captured on digital. Cheeks- the separation between the rosiness of a young woman's cheek and the underlying skin tone. The translucent color in pale skin. There is something transcendent in those colors. This is important and in my mind we are still waiting for it in digital.

So I am calling on shooters and colorists to prove me wrong. With all the power of Epic and the RAW workflow and optical filtration is there not away to feel skin like we do in the film Submarine.

Supposedly Deakins swore off film after shooting Alexa. Why? Does it capture these ineffable colors? I havn't seen tests or proof of this conclusively. Do they exist? But I trust the opinion and purism of Deakins more than most other Dps. People have explained that Alexa achieves it's look through softening the image optically. That there is a low con filter in the gate.
Frankly if this is the case- I dont care. A quadrillion pixels and unlimited latitude will only account for so much if I cant make a human look like they do on film.

Red is better in low light. Its does look like 65mm. It undercranks like a champ. Its small. Its inexpensive. Its the most democratizing cinema technology in history. It is a dream come true. But to really kill film we need to sort this out.

Go watch Game of Thrones. Now tell me what was shot on film and what was shot on Alexa.

 

[Stephen Williams]

The thing is the clients I have that don't have the budget for film, don't have the budget for Epic either. They Love the 5D / 7D & EX3 because it's cheap so they can make some money. Remember it's just a business.

 

[Van Royko]

I'm waiting for the first death threat...

I loooooooove digital ok. I love shooting night scenes with very little noise or 'grain'. I love doing an extra 5 minute take and not worrying its breaking my indie budget.
I love playback. I love not fearing the lab is going to botch my processing. I love, I love, I love.

SD video is not as good as 4k. 1080 is not as good as 4k.
Digital color is not as good as film color.

I guess I am pushing the powers that be for redcolor 3. Or for a colorist to reveal a magical LUT.

 

[Van Royko]

Go watch Game of Thrones. Now tell me what was shot on film and what was shot on Alexa.

Thanks Gabe. I certainly will. Thats exactly what I want to see. And if its what you say it is- I'd love to see a simmilar example with Red.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Come on guys.

Magic Lut?

Firstly - there is no "magic bullet" - the idea that there is a one-button solution that makes whatever you point the camera at look good is facile.

Secondly, I also watched Submarine, and I said - okay, this looks great, but there is nothing here that I couldn't do with my Epic, some good glass, a good one-light, and a good post house (or some time)

To think that the film looked that good coming right off the negative implies that we don't need colorists and a DI.

It doesn't work that way.

So, enough of fretting over the tools, please, learn the craft to the 99th degree, then, come back here and show us what you can do.

 

[Zeb B]

I own a Sinar P2 4x5" view camera - that's a 4x5" sensor my friends. Nothing in the digital world comes close to the resolution of that much less with zero long exposure noise. My daddy shot 8x10" film - now that's big dick resolution for you pixel freaks.

I can no longer buy my 4x5" film of choice since both Fuji and Kodak are shutting down the factories that produce it. This is a loss. One that will soon be in the film world I'm afraid. Oh and, when digging through the attic a couple years ago I found priceless negatives and prints my parents shot in the 40's and 50's. Me . . . I can't find the 1000's of files I shot on my Canon D60 in 2002 much less have a current use for the computer they were stored on.

 

[Van Royko]

Come on guys.

Magic Lut?

Firstly - there is no "magic bullet" - the idea that there is a one-button solution that makes whatever you point the camera at look good is facile.

Secondly, I also watched Submarine, and I said - okay, this looks great, but there is nothing here that I couldn't do with my Epic, some good glass, a good one-light, and a good post house (or some time)

To think that the film looked that good coming right off the negative implies that we don't need colorists and a DI.

It doesn't work that way.

So, enough of fretting over the tools, please, learn the craft to the 99th degree, then, come back here and show us what you can do.

So you think the daylight skin tones in Submarine could be done on an Epic? BTW- there was no implication that film looks great off the negative. I just havn't met a colorist or a DP I really respect say specifically that they can get as good skin tones in digital.

I'm being agnostic. In fact less so- I want to believe. As I said though. I just hate watching a film and seeing that 'thing' and guessing right that it was film. The only film I was fooled on was 'Begginers"- but it was very low contrast.

And isnt fretting (translate: discussing) over tools the point of this forum.

 

[Phil Holland]

Film and digital are just two different mediums. I don't think film will "die" anytime soon, but it will become much more expensive to use it on productions. It already is pretty expensive in the first place. I come from a feature background and the turnaround time and cost of dailies alone has always been a pain. Also, the lack of "true color control" through different chemical baths to make a review print is a bummer. I think this is one of the more powerful arguments for a pure digital workflow.

At the head of shoots the last few years we've been shooting a lot of tests involving different cameras and locations just to see how things "feel" and get the full effect of different systems during production. Comparing latitude, small color shifts, how skin tones are rendered, producing color tests. For me personally, a lot of fun as I love new technology. There is a "liveliness" to film that stems from the subtle effect of grain, slight gate movements, color imperfections, etc... The promise of digital is indeed full control and a closed loop workflow. It makes tremendous sense in terms of production workflow and pipelines in post.

I was a digital colorist before I was shooting anything "important" and before DI was even an industry term. I can't tell you the amount of film wasted shooting out color wedges of corrections and grades. The time. The money. Daily or weekly client color approvals. Rough business before there were more powerful color tools around.

I do see those subtle hues that I'm looking for with modern cameras like the Red Epic. And to really get those you need to light properly, do a proper correction and perform your grade. Just like you did with film. Nothing has changed on that front.

The medium is subjective and a choice. Unless you see the same motion picture shot on two different mediums, with the same shooting mindset, and the same post processing mindset you'll never truly know. Tests at the head of a production provide the info everybody needs to make that choice and move forward. Also keep in mind that digital cinema tools are relatively new as is the color science and sensor technology. Things will only get better from here as Red has even proven with the difference in quality between the original Red One and the current Epic builds.

 

[Van Royko]

There has been the implication from Red techs on this forum that there is no difference in color handling between Red One and Epic. I clearly see it - so there is another mystery.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Phil, you rock.

@Van - yes I could achieve this look with my epic, some cookes, some filtration, some young people, a good location, proper time of day, some lights, a grey card, a large cappuccino , and some time in the color suite.
Oh, and I'd like to hire Phil to consult as well

 

[Dan Kanes]

There has been the implication from Red techs on this forum that there is no difference in color handling between Red One and Epic. I clearly see it - so there is another mystery.

Maybe this is something I should do next week if I'm not working.
Side by side.

Maybe things changed between builds?
What kind of tests are being performed or is it a "hunch"

I'm certain that the image is better from my epic than R1MX. Even at 4KHD.