It's amazing what some professionals say about RED...

[Jannard]

I smell an agreement turning into an argument.

Jim

I think you're underestimating the ability of colorists to match elements regardless of where they come from. The fact is that there have been many digitally shot projects that have incorporated film shots when desirable, as it sometimes is for things like high speed work. If properly exposed and properly scanned, there isn't really much of an issue making it look like the surrounding digital footage, especially if grain reduction/removal techniques are used. I wouldn't want to have to match coverage within the same scene, but for standalone shots, special coverage, and complete scenes it can and has been done, by myself and by many other colorists. Now, if we're talking about badly exposed film, or film shot under changing weather conditions, or film with golf ball sized grain, I agree with you. But professionally shot film - and we're approaching the point where that's pretty much all of the film being shot - doesn't usually have those characteristics.

 

[Bryce O]

DSLR video and 16mm color negative are not in the same league, not when you are talking about highly compressed 8-bit 4:2:0 video with limited DR compared to something that can be scanned at 10-bit Log RGB with no compression and having something like 15-stops of DR and no aliasing artifacts. Resolution-wise, maybe they are close, but there's more to an image than resolution!

I was just talking about pure look wise, not quality. I don't like the look of 16mm. Digital 2/3" format is nice, but straigt-up 16mm film has an awkward feel to me. Good for certain stuff like Black Swan (i.e. awkward) but not something I would associate with "high value" or "quality"... despite it actually having higher quality. Numbers are deceiving... Look>Quality, any day.

 

[M Most]

I smell an agreement turning into an argument.

Jim

From ME? No, I would never do that. Never. No way. Not me. No, sir. Not in my nature. Certainly not.

I'll stop now.

;-D

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I like digital being its own thing. But I also like 5217, I also like Fujicolor I also like...

Sure it's nostalgia but the one thing I'm never nostalgic for is the film workflow: loading, exposing, scanning and printing. So to say "If you want the film look shoot film" completely ignores one of the most significant advantages of digital: workflow. The great thing about digital is that you can start 'clean' and degrade the footage to any number of looks. If you shoot B&W 16mm... you're shooting B&W 16mm. There is also a lot of hands-on processing now with VFX sneaking into even romantic comedies and indie dramas. It's easier to work with a clean 'flat' plate and then process it as "B&W 16mm" than to match it in the composite.

I love the idea of one camera that can shoot all of my favorite film stocks and then also shoot perfectly clean background plates and reference photos. With my Mamiya it's pretty easy to switch film backs. With Digital it will be even easier. And at that point there is no more "Digital vs Film" since digital is both digital & 'film'. Digital can be anything. Film can only be film.

 

[Chi Ying Chan]

"there isn't really much of an issue making it look like the surrounding digital footage, especially if grain reduction/removal techniques are used. I wouldn't want to have to match coverage within the same scene, but for standalone shots, special coverage, and complete scenes it can and has been done, by myself and by many other colorists."

A lot of film captured movies after the DI process when projected looks very very digital,over sharpening?
BTW the development of modern film stock especially Kodak,they try to capture information as lots as possible,DR 15,16,17...... HDR?
Thats why i prefer FuJi when shooting with film when no DI.

Regards
Chan Chi Ying
DP HK

 

[Jannard]

I know my buddy M Most is going to hate hearing this... but I could never get clean shadow detail exposing film at ISO 2000.

Jim

 

[M Most]

Don't hate hearing it in the least. Agree with it. Strongly.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Yep. They're out there. And in number. There's the odd one comes IN HERE too (meaning my place of work). Sounds like you handled it elegantly and for this you should be congratulated. I'm nowadays of the policy to just walk away from these discussions. They rank with religious and political discussions and those conversations that begin with "Do you have a personal savings plan?". Back away. You can't win. Just go get another drink, scout around and find the guy who's actually learnt how to use a Red and talk to them. They're always much more fun. Enthusiasm and positiveness always is better than negative, "It'll never work mate" talk.

I'm Italian - I don;t walk away but instead try to educate. I've converted a few people.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

All it will need in the end is a bit of time and lots of Epics out there and this discussion will be over once and for all.

Smaller movies will use EPICs because it is the only thing that is affordable to them and after a while people might start asking why the 15 million production looks as good as the 80 million production (or according numbers).

You can't rush fame. You can just deliver and wait.

Buy the way, delivery dates? Anyone?

Couldn't resist...

this si silly - the higher budget movie will have many other advantages - like set design, more lighting, not to mention a development process on the script.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

this si silly - the higher budget movie will have many other advantages - like set design, more lighting, not to mention a development process on the script.

I'll agree with most of that and then some. There is a huge difference between camera support and movement options for example.

But, "development process on the script" is just silly. That is effectively free if you aren't working a WGA show, just ask for revisions - or make them yourself!

I've seen tons of high budget films with awful scripts and no budget indies with great ones.