Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Interesting kodak talk on film & digital

Another aspect of the video that in my understanding is inaccurate is that light striking a film emulsion goes neatly straight down into the emulsion and stays there. The crystal structure of the emulsion while extremely thin does scatter the light and some is reflected from the back of the film base ( although this is limited by the anti halation coating on the back of the film) and generally bounces around, all this reduces the perfect resolution of film a little at higher exposures. I've always like this effect in film. While this is not a big effect its just that none of it is mentioned in the videos utopian assessment of film stocks. Smells like bias.
 
I think Kodak makes the sensor in the M9 and the S2 -- and those are both AWESOME cameras that produce fantastic images, so if I were them I would focus primarily on sensor manufacturing ....
 
Halation is one of the best things film has to offer.
 
It's odd. He talks about how in the past cinematographers wouldn't nerd out on the chemical composition of emulsion on new film stocks, but would test the stock and evaluate it projected. He laments, "What happened to the cinematographers that didn't trust this stuff" referring to digital technology today. Hell, that's all I hear with cinematographers that I know, we want to look at the image not the specs. Test, test, test. Hell, Jim talks about tests all the time. Strange.
 
100% FUD. Many 'problems' are irrelevant with modern CMOS sensors, others are flat-out wrong. I hope the audience doesn't simply swallow what Kodak presented, but really test digital cameras themselves. They would then see how good digital cameras have become.
 
RED is being used on most of the largest budget features in the industry. That doesn't happen if there is a big "gotcha". RED does not overheat, have dead pixels if you fly (commercial or in your dreams), is actually the easiest to post, has "real" resolution even though it is a Bayer pattern camera, does not need Uncompressed RAW to look incredible, and is a stable platform. Any issues are handled quickly through our Bomb Squad, firmware upgrades and personal posts here.

The amount of FUD surrounding RED is unparalleled. The only thing we suck at is delivery dates. We accept that. If someone wants to trash us... that should be the headline. Not dead pixels...

Jim
 
Matthias Hutter said:
100% FUD. Many 'problems' are irrelevant with modern CMOS sensors, others are flat-out wrong.
Click to expand...

Such as? And his talk about fill factor in sensors I suppose that's 100% false too.
Oh and the part where he says that Bayer pattern is actually very good for creating images and that Digital cameras can also create beautiful images? Is that 100% FUD?
 
I have never seen dead pixels on a RED or CMOS cameras. I have in fact heard of dead pixels on SONY CCD camera's after flights. A very close colleague of mine had this happen to him and SONY would take the camera in and pain out the dead pixel. This was with a BETACAM 600WS camera. BETACAM, is that how for back KODAK is reaching to make an arguement. sheesh!

When I watched the talk I thought he was refereing to CCD imagers when he was talking about dead pixels.

My friend who did have dead pixels flew an incredible number of hours and it was a CCD camera.

This said,

There were serious pot shots taken at 4K, but as Jim stated, people are missing the point.

What we (cusstomers) have:

A camera that produces 4K and 5K images
A sensible recording method that makes it possible
RAW picture manipulation
Very accurate color reproduction.

Looking at the tradeoffs RED is providing a tool that the industry desperately needs. Rather than pick apart 4K film vs. 4k digital (which is a futile arguement anyway) why doen's KODAK use their resources to provide something better. Taking the position that "film is better" is just wrong thinking in my view because there are SO MANY OTHER factors to consider.

David
 
Back to basics...

Film is great. But it doesn't submit to Moore's Law. It will never get cheaper, smaller,easier to process or more environmentally friendly.

Digital is a good alternative ONLY if it can improve in several areas and not have any glaring deficiencies.

We believe that the resolution, dynamic range and "feel" of film needs to be maintained. If we can do that in a box that is smaller, lighter and cheaper... all the better.

RED's goal is to do this... and not punish the customer as technology improves at a rapid rate.

Jim
 
I'd consider not needing a lab and being able to make multiple copies of original neg a very big improvement over film.
Other people might not but the biggest barrier to learning and shooting film has always been stock and developing.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
Such as? And his talk about fill factor in sensors I suppose that's 100% false too.
Oh and the part where he says that Bayer pattern is actually very good for creating images
Click to expand...
I didn't say every statement was false, but many are irrelevant with modern CMOS sensors. The fill factor 'issue' is way exaggerated. In fact, many modern sensors have gapless microlens arrays (or are close to it), so they capture light from the whole sensor area. Also BAYER is KODAK's invention, so it's no surprise that they hyped that.

Edit: Canon Rebel T2i:
canon_t2i_microlensesje7t.jpg
 
Jannard said:
Back to basics...
Click to expand...

To me capturing REDcode is getting back to basics.

By NOT being a point and shoot system, RED brings all the good things about the sensibility and aesthetic of shooting film.

We all love(d) film, but we are in a new era.

All the good stuff stayed, but the big barriers (most of which Deanan mentioned) are GONE.

What I see now are young filmmakers learning the craft of filmmaking using a tool that helps you utlize craft as a professional. This has been the best part. Doors are opening.
 
Jannard said:
RED is being used on most of the largest budget features in the industry. That doesn't happen if there is a big "gotcha". RED does not overheat, have dead pixels if you fly (commercial or in your dreams), is actually the easiest to post, has "real" resolution even though it is a Bayer pattern camera, does not need Uncompressed RAW to look incredible, and is a stable platform. Any issues are handled quickly through our Bomb Squad, firmware upgrades and personal posts here.

The amount of FUD surrounding RED is unparalleled. The only thing we suck at is delivery dates. We accept that. If someone wants to trash us... that should be the headline. Not dead pixels...

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, I started the other thread about this -- which you kindly commented on -- and I apologize if you got the impression I was implying this is something that affects Red. I really was not saying that. Because you're right -- I've NEVER seen a post about a dead pixel or anything.

In my case, I was just curious and more asking the question ... "could this really ever happen?" because I'm not nearly as knowledgable about camera tech as others here. I even included that it seems like BS and did not want to spread FUD.

Anyway, thanks so much for taking the time to post.
 
Jannard said:
The amount of FUD surrounding RED is unparalleled. The only thing we suck at is delivery dates. We accept that. If someone wants to trash us... that should be the headline. Not dead pixels...

Jim
Click to expand...


I have been in awe of this fact since the beginning. I can think of no product or company that has endured more unsubstantiated attacks --- ever. It is so vast and unrelenting that it now has the effect of actually endorsing the product. Its a fascinating phenomenon.
 
Anthony... I know you meant well. My replies are really directed to the article and mis-info found there. Several comments are just not based on technical reality and imply a negative conclusion that doesn't exist.

Jim

AnthonyFlores said:
Jim, I started the other thread about this -- which you kindly commented on -- and I apologize if you got the impression I was implying this is something that affects Red. I really was not saying that. Because you're right -- I've NEVER seen a post about a dead pixel or anything.

In my case, I was just curious and more asking the question ... "could this really ever happen?" because I'm not nearly as knowledgable about camera tech as others here. I even included that it seems like BS and did not want to spread FUD.

Anyway, thanks so much for taking the time to post.
Click to expand...
 
this is really sad to see... i mean the guy from kodak is not talking about HIS OWN experience - he is simply playing sad role or someone forced him to do so. in front of viewers. this looks more like theatrical experience, not like conference. poor guy. i am sure that he KNOWS how it looks in reality, but since he is inside that company - he is representing the official tone of the company.

another view - i am wondering WHY kodak was so passive all these years? they invented lot of things in both film and digital worlds - but they are still sleeping. who is using negative film right now for the still photorgaphy? 1% of the market? 0.1% or maybe 0.01%? this is significant. but kodak was not interested in new visions. (vision?) why kodak did not jump into digital projections? like DOLBY?

DOLBY ? just imagine what you will think if this statemant was said 10 years ago... kodak vs dolby? which company will survive in DIGITAL CINEMA WORLD? DOLBY? ... hm... dolby is AUDIO COMPANY. not directly involved in visual side of the movies... but KODAK...

really sad...
 
Last edited:
The days of the RED rumors are coming to a close. Most people now know that there are no glaring RED issues anymore. The few that were around in the early Beta days of the RED ONE are distant memories now. (And most were exaggerated or false to begin with).

RED has basically become one of the top level preferred Cameras in the industry in a matter of a couple of years. An amazing feat... and EPIC is poised to show they have just scratched the surface.

Film is still, of course, a great tool, but obviously on it's way out, now that Digital is capable of incredible resolution, ease of file based production and post, compatibility with premium lenses, high Dynamic Range (HDRx), high frame rates (up to 120fps at 5K and 300fps at 2K), all in a modular package 1/3rd the size of most high end digital cameras.

While ARRI has a good (while larger) solution for current TV production (not necessarily for future distribution), and Sony is working on it's new camera (also quite large by comparison and confirms 1080p is not good enough), they are welcome admissions that RED's statements that past few years are true. It seems evident that RED is now being considered the new industry leader (especially for Theatrical release) and that the companies that had tried to hold them back by using FUD techniques, are more and more changing their tunes by releasing products that are similar to the RED ONE. EPIC, however, still seems light years ahead... for now.

It's very interesting to be living through the midst of this changing of the guard. Witnessing RED's emergence has been truly inspiring.

I've always been an early adopter when it comes to technology, and to keep this post true to that statement, I can't rule out what competing companies have on the horizon as something I will be interested down the road. I have much respect for several of RED's competitors, but when I see the games some of them are playing by spreading rumors or releasing false test data, it really saddens me and turns me off.

I'd much prefer to see innovative designs. Let's see some healthy competition.

RED is here to stay. Their products and service are outstanding. And it's still so early on... Imagine this company in 5 years? I know I'm investing.
 
Casey Green said:
While ARRI has a good (while larger) solution for current TV production (not necessarily for future distribution), and Sony is working on it's new camera (also quite large by comparison and confirms 1080p is not good enough),
Click to expand...

I don't think it confirms that at all rather it says that Sony recognizes that there is a demand for digital acquisition at 4k resolution and higher. That or they are selling 4k projectors so they should probably have a camera worthy of creating images that can be shown on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top