If RED=Film why Epic?

[number6]

RAW port

RAW port

Haven't kept up much with the Epic threads... the RED Ray and Scarlet have captured my imagination initially. But for someone who has, will Epic have the RAW port (without REDCODE processing in camera) that was initially proposed for RED One, enabled?

 

[mezmo]

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..

Hi CineM,
EPIC with higher bitrates shoud be a very different beastie to RED ONE.
It would record out to the RED flash drive which I assume is a flash card based device 300-600 Gig maybe, and 5K is probably there to get over the
Anamorphic hump using less Sensor area for a 4:3 capture requirement.
If the new Sensor has more on-board processing capability some form of
uncompressed RGB data output may be possible as the S.two people have
also announced a partnership. But who knows at this stage. This thing is still just an idea.
High quality Digital Anamorphic pictures would make a big difference to
an audience with a very noticable jump towards a bigger budget look and feel.
It's up to RED to deliver twice the camera for twice the price.
Cheers Mezmo

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

will Epic have the RAW port (without REDCODE processing in camera) that was initially proposed for RED One, enabled?

I think the RAW port's purpose is to enable uncompresed RAW output. In an uncompressed RAW scenario, no RedCode compression would be necessary.

But uncompressed RAW is 330 MegaBYTES\second so...

(My 2 bytes.)

 

[cinemano]

hehe wonder if REd team will make a time machine next

 

[mezmo]

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.

Yo Tetsuo,
With all due respect, me feels you are missing the point here Mon.
Nobody shooting film gives a rats arse that Digital has more resolution.
They shoot it for other reasons, so when are you Digi Nuts going to get this. Your another member of the Digital Police who insists everything
has to be shot Digital because you now own a RED ONE camera.
I shoot both Digital and Film for a variety of reasons like a lot of other
people on this forum and I don't think we are all f**king stupid for doing. so.
Think about this for a moment.
Think about the A list Cinematographers that have shot Digital and Film back to back over
the last 3-4 years, your saying all these guys and girls are stupid ?????????????
Mezmo

 

[number6]

I think the RAW port's purpose is to enable uncompresed RAW output. In an uncompressed RAW scenario, no RedCode compression would be necessary.

But uncompressed RAW is 330 MegaBYTES\second so...

(My 2 bytes.)

And I think I read the camera will only do about 100 MBs?... then that must mean no RAW port... got it. (Personally, didn't need it anyway. Radoslav, check the Scarlet link below for emoticon action) http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?p=1763&posted=1#post1763

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

but the costs not to mention the time machine would kill me

you say no little thing

digital doesn't hit the dynamic range of film yet

While it may be true, depending on some factors, I don't find this to be a problem with digital more than I did/do with film when I use SRLs and DSLRs.

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.

you too; and

It's opening up possibilities that would not have been possible for me with film.

: means something

"the human eye can't see more resolution than 1080p" etc.

Agree. This is wrong. Just for the chronicles, I never said that. Quite the opposite, I always wanted more than 1080p. Especially a dirty, muddy kind of 1080p.

I'm not talking strictly resolution here, but the "cinematic" quality.

it's got plenty of resolution, high dinamic range, 24 fps, shoot at 1/48, isn't that cinematic enough? what do you want more cinematic than that? It is designed to be cinematic in all the aspects but the chemicals, and it seems to deliver it extremely well. Or not?

this is perfect for offline work... the rest gets a little trickier

(Final Cut Pro)
Okay, but I think offline work is great. real time will be here in the near future. No problem.

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

I know the song. I find the world cinematic so vague and abused, what do you mean with cinematic - apart from high dynamic range, 24fps, and 1/48? what's the name of this decisive parameter?

Your another member of the Digital Police who insists everything
has to be shot Digital because you now own a RED ONE camera.

Well, I'm not calling you Film Police; you don't know me so well to call me Digital Police only for saying that to me Red at 4k may deliver better resolution then possibly any available film system once projected on a cinema screen - since the same best technology is applied to still photography - isn't it? - and I know that one, both digital and film. Not to mention that digital is so young and getting better and better at much higher rate than film. No, I always preferred the idea of shooting digital because shooting a film digitally gives you so much more freedom and you don't have to shoot in anxiety because every minute costs hundreds of euros with film, and I wanted that also when playing with MiniDv and HDV. I know those system sucked, resolution wise and quality wise, etc wise, nontheless they made possibile to make art without anxiety. I would never shoot on film anyway. I only shoot still photography on film. I love film. big, large format (and medium) film. But for anything in motion, for anything more than 1 frame per second, I don't want film. Even if it was free. too much hassle between me and my target.
I don't feel any need to justify shooting digitally, and I believe noone has to.
If so many people are going digital, perhaps it's because overall, it's a better solution, just - if not more, much more - like it happened with photography.

Anyway, I was just answering Cinemano ("why Epic").
Even on Reduser this shadow of film. The lord. The shadow of the dead. Every konw and then, people wishing to fight for the glory of film, just now that digital cinema, with its limitations, is real and with great results, higher than most people expectations, as far as i see. All right then, don't shoot digital 4k, shoot film! Long live film! hip hip hurray! 2008 is the year of film at Reduser.com!
Sorry for the long post.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Your another member of the Digital Police who insists everything
has to be shot Digital because you now own a RED ONE camera.

I simply said that I looks stupid to me - I am wrong, of course, someone else may have different needs from mine... I don't know - to keep making movies with film, now. Yes, you got it right, now that I got a Red One, film looks even less a good tool to me than before. Now it is a real pleasure to shoot and see so beautiful pictures. Only for me, of course. You know: I am crazy.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

please keep on the subject, no personal attacks.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

about resolution, according to digitalpraxis and many others, today film projected at cinema screens is 1 MP more or less. So the fact that people shooting film today are not doing it because of resolution, is obvious.
Also when a MiniDV movie was made for the big screen, the format was not choosen because MiniDV "is good": it's not good at all for the big screen, it's too poor. Sometimes it was specifically shoosen because they needed its bad quality. I don't want to discuss such (anti)aesthetics because they are too subjective.

Think about the A list Cinematographers that have shot Digital and Film back to back over
the last 3-4 years, your saying all these guys and girls are stupid ?????????????

Honestly, yeah, I think so.
Sorry, I can't find any reason for going back to film. Maybe they are sort of testimonials, and surely have enough budgets to simply not care about that.
Anyway it's not my problem. I'm talking about what I would do, not others. I don't care what others want to do, unless it seems clever to me. I don't care if someone goes from digital HD to film. Of course film has better quality than HD.
Ok, leave aside very specific and/or subjective tasks: I think someone abandoning Red for film is stupid. This is what I think. I can't help with that. So what? stupid people - or normal and clever people doing stupid things, if you prefer - do not exist? is the cinema world so free of stupidity? Is everyone always doing the best thing? A director shooting both film and digital might simply want to try, to compare and learn, and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Sorry, edit.
Actually in the last 3-4 years there was no red camera. So, they are forgiven completely.
I said now.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

your saying all these guys and girls are stupid ?????????????

... or stupid, or misinformed, or not ready yet, or decent digital cinema cameras were not available, or they had a dream, or they wanted to use BNCR lenses, or they only liked panavision, or their uncle would beat them, or they had certain contracts, or thay simply like film and don't bother to change, or they made themselves a promise, or... hey, i got my Red camera just six months ago, and I ordered it 2.5 years ago. It's a recent thing.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Tetsuo, as great as the RED is, it is not without its flaws, which Jim will be the first one to jump in and admit. Film has its flaws. Humans have their flaws. What this really comes down to is artists/craftsmen making decisions both technically and aesthetically as to what will accomplish the task at hand and meet the vision of the director/producer/DP, etc. If you know that a particular film stock will give you exactly the look you are after, but the digital camera for whatever reason will be harder to achieve that look, would you reach for the digital anyway because it's the way things are going and you need to comply? You go with the film stock, unless there is a reason that prohibits you from making that choice.

I think we get too analytical about this subject sometimes. As long as film is still available, there will be those who choose it. And there will be those who choose RED or other digital cinema cameras. Why make it anymore complicated than that, right?

 

[Brook Willard]

Easy, kids. This discussion is heading down the path that its title almost guaranteed.

 

[mezmo]

about resolution, according to digitalpraxis and many others, today film projected at cinema screens is 1 MP more or less. So the fact that people shooting film today are not doing it because of resolution, is obvious.
Also when a MiniDV movie was made for the big screen, the format was not choosen because MiniDV "is good": it's not good at all for the big screen, it's too poor. Sometimes it was specifically shoosen because they needed its bad quality. I don't want to discuss such (anti)aesthetics because they are too subjective.



Honestly, yeah, I think so.
Sorry, I can't find any reason for going back to film. Maybe they are sort of testimonials, and surely have enough budgets to simply not care about that.
Anyway it's not my problem. I'm talking about what I would do, not others. I don't care what others want to do, unless it seems clever to me. I don't care if someone goes from digital HD to film. Of course film has better quality than HD.
Ok, leave aside very specific and/or subjective tasks: I think someone abandoning Red for film is stupid. This is what I think. I can't help with that. So what? stupid people - or normal and clever people doing stupid things, if you prefer - do not exist? is the cinema world so free of stupidity? Is everyone always doing the best thing? A director shooting both film and digital might simply want to try, to compare and learn, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Hi Tetsuo,
So Peter Jackson (who owns several RED cameras) and chose to shoot
'The Lovely Bones' on 35mm Film is learning, comparing and or stupid.
Or just not ready yet.
Have I got this right?
Mezmo

 

[mezmo]

... or stupid, or misinformed, or not ready yet, or decent digital cinema cameras were not available, or they had a dream, or they wanted to use BNCR lenses, or they only liked panavision, or their uncle would beat them, or they had certain contracts, or thay simply like film and don't bother to change, or they made themselves a promise, or... hey, i got my Red camera just six months ago, and I ordered it 2.5 years ago. It's a recent thing.

Who's Uncle is beating them Tetsuo????

 

[el_stupido]

...say.... what gives?

...say.... what gives?

vfx, 4k rgb signal
4k rgb @ 100 MB/sec....
murphys law
weight
4k CC

wait really? It's going to do 4K RGB @ 100 MB/sec?

What about all the fluff about how raw was the better choice that they've been saying all this year?

Now I'm confused

El Stupido

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

wait really? It's going to do 4K RGB @ 100 MB/sec?

What about all the fluff about how raw was the better choice that they've been saying all this year?

Now I'm confused

El Stupido

5k raw------encoded to 4k rgb......imo this is the reason why epic is 5k raw.
and all of this @100 MB/sec

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Hi Tetsuo,
So Peter Jackson (who owns several RED cameras) and chose to shoot
'The Lovely Bones' on 35mm Film is learning, comparing and or stupid.
Or just not ready yet.
Have I got this right?
Mezmo

Mezmo, I really don't know, but being stupid isn't impossible for anyone. I can't say he is doing the wrong thing, because I don't know what exactly he has in his mind. Since for many people the debate film/red is not over, anyone may believe in his/reason - me too. As I said - and we all agree - for particular tasks film may be a better option. Don't forget that this might not have to do with picture quality. Ergonomics, cold or hot weather, availability, dimensions, energy, weight, often have a role. Or it might just be for picture quality in some particular situation. Let's say film offer one stop of dynamic range more than Red, and his film just needs that: he would be right going film. Lets'say his whole movie paints a torturing room with just one lamp, or the camera is right against some strong lights and has big shadows. If he thinks - with reason or not - that film would do a better job . I am not discussing shooting in general condition, because - given the little difference in picture quality between film and red under general conditions (with Red winning in most aspects, to my eye), well, yes, I would consider film a stupid choice.
But, if you just want to make me say "Peter Jackson is stupid" just so that a number of malicious or sheeps would laugh at me - I would not certainly be afraid if I had to do it, If i really believed it.

I know Peter Jackson is not stupid, from watching many of his films. I just want to say that even clever people may do wrong things, and that I can't judge a film that is not made yet. And even more difficult would be, after a film is made, to speculate how much better, or worse, it would be if it was made with a camera that offers a quality so close to film. I can understand that producers or directors of expensive movies may have priorities and be conservative. In cases this has no foundation, I can perfectly understand and forgive the wrong - and from their point of view, a right one - decision of the riches. A lot of money creates a world apart, and it looks completely unreasonable for people like me who, in comparison, are complete outsiders. I'm not saying that outsiders are more wrong. Little fishes have their reasons too, and perhaps more down to earth. They can't afford extra waiste just for the sake of being "more sure" about - let's say - that so important extra aperture stop. They may need it, but would rather make a shoot work finding that stop somewhere else, preparing the scenography according to what an already excellent camera can do.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Tetsuo, as great as the RED is, it is not without its flaws, which Jim will be the first one to jump in and admit.

Yeah, I know, it has some flaws, as I stated in other forum pages. But not much in picture quality. I don't like it's accessories, and some metal works, some are badly designed. I think the LCD is bad, too small, not as helpfull as it would, could, and should be. And the metal work on the bottom plate has screw holes that bend like butter and brake the first time you turn the screws... the cables stay in an uncomfortable position, the connectors are exposed to every risk, there is no optical viewfinder, etc... it's not perfect at all. But I think it's one of the best camera on the planet, if not the best, even with its flaws.
But it's very modular, and better accessories could be available in the future.

would you reach for the digital anyway because it's the way things are going and you need to comply?

I don't want to comply, and in this moment, I can't afford to! I want nice pictures, and the idea of eating kilometers of film makes me sick.
"Comply"??? I always hated digital, until I bought for photography a Canon EOS 5D (so, I was quite late), and for video the Red. Video remained an unsolved problem for me until Red.

No, no, not at all. I would reach for the digital anyway for others, and very good reasons: I can't afford to shoot many takes in anxiety thanks to film, and I'd rather fly to Bora Bora instead of using the money for some more frames of 35mm film, just for the benefit of a hypotetical higher dynac range or obscure "cinematic effect" that a Red already gives me. In general conditions, if George Lucas used Cinealta and a crowd called him a hero for this reason, it's not believe shooting with Red camera is unrealistic.

Who's Uncle is beating them Tetsuo????

My uncle.
Don't take me too seriously...

Cinemano politely asked "Why Epic"?
I would say: because native 5k makes optimized 4k. Because Red is so closed to film that also many trained eyes have difficulties in telling the difference, and Red Epic will probably be the next, final step in going beyond 25mm quality, with all the benefits this brings. (think 65mm, vistavision, special efx... cropping... ). And dynamic range. Perhaps it will also have better or faster software (?)
I think there is plenty of reasons why Epic.