making it messy

[Poi Boy]

Hey sweets,
I would say re read my previous posts, because you don't get it.
Aloha
-A

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

While you may argue for the latter, I don't believe that the former assumption is based in reality at the moment.

It's baffling that you feel you have to invent arguments I never made in order to be able to argue against them. Have a read of this, then reread what I said;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/if

Good night!

R.

 

[Chris Kenny]

But real grain forms the image, it's not something that you can add later.

The exact structure of the grain in an image captured on a film frame can be completely determined by knowing:

1) How the stock responds to light.
2) What light the frame was exposed to.

The former can be replicated in software. A fairly good record of the later is, of course, contained in the image you're processing.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily saying the current state of the art for film stock simulation or digital acquisition is capable of producing a completely accurate result; I'm just saying that such is possible in principle.

 

[d. sweetman]

Fist of all, geez this is not a film vs. video war, this is me considering Red to shoot a feature, and I want to know what the camera is capable of, IN CAMERA.

It's baffling that you feel you have to invent arguments I never made in order to be able to argue against them. Have a read of this, then reread what I said;

You sound like a politician. Your use of rhetorical implication made it quite clear that your usage of the word "if" challenged the very notion that the real difference between film and video cannot or will not be reconciled.

As for inventing arguments, perhaps you ought to re-read what I wrote:

"Your argument stands on the assumption that film and digital produce exactly the same end result to every eye, and furthermore that there is no subconscious effect on those who don't consciously realize the difference. While you may argue for the latter, I don't believe that the former assumption is based in reality at the moment."

You claim, through rhetorical implication, that the assumption represented in the first clause has seen or will see fruition by the time I am ready to shoot my feature.

The second clause adresses the assumption that while film and video are not or will never be exactly the same, their effect on the audience is the same. This could have very well been what you meant by "same end result" or "achieve an identical result," were the result is the audience's response, and not the real image. Because you did not define your terms, I did not know whether you were considering an identical real image or an identical audience response, or both.

Therefore no arguments were invented under either definition of the condition "may."

 

[Brook Willard]

Deep breath, guys...

 

[d. sweetman]

Deep breath, guys...

Hah, right, sorry, I've been reading too much of that Barry Salt book lately. (crazy argumentative British intellectual.)

It's not that I'm not getting it, Poi; it's just like you wrote - "I see it quite differently." I don't like the idea of being stuck with determining my look in post, I'd rather be free to create it on the set, insofar as it is practical and possible to do so.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

You sound like a politician.

Well if that's the case, I'd love to poll people here to see who sounds more like a politician, you or me.

Your use of rhetorical implication made it quite clear that your usage of the word "if" challenged the very notion that the real difference between film and video cannot or will not be reconciled

You can imagine all the implications you like, if it makes you happy.

"If you can get the exact same end result EASIER digitally than using film, the "why not just shoot on film" point becomes utterly reduntant."

I said "If it looks PERFECT, who the hell is gonna notice the difference"

Not "if it looks kinda like film, ish, But experts can probably tell the difference".

IF you can. IF. IF it looks perfect. It's all conjecture at this point. We are on redUSER.com discussing a camera that doesn't even exist yet, for crying out loud! In the not too distant future it won't be IF any more. It's ALL if. If the red camera has high enough resolution, and a great enough colour/contrast range, and motion characteristics of film cameras, and whatever the hell else it needs to have to precisely match the look of film footage, (with the ability to match the grain in post, which is, btw, not very difficult, at all - you can even sample grain from existing film footage to match it) then you will be able to produce any look you want - film, video, pixelvision, whatever.

And IF this camera isn't everything you hope and dream it could be, maybe the nextgen Arri, or Panavision digital cinema camera will be. Or the next gen after that. But it will happen.

Is that clear enough for you?

As for inventing arguments, perhaps you ought to re-read what I wrote:

"Your argument stands on the assumption that film and digital produce exactly the same end result to every eye, and furthermore that there is no subconscious effect on those who don't consciously realize the difference. While you may argue for the latter, I don't believe that the former assumption is based in reality at the moment."

Yeah... but I didn't argue any such thing. You invented a position I've supposedly taken, and argued against it.

I made no assumptions, or claims about currently available technology. I repeat - we are discussing a camera that's not even available yet.

You claim, through rhetorical implication, that the assumption represented in the first clause has seen or will see fruition by the time I am ready to shoot my feature.

I made no claims about what will or won't be ready by the time you shoot whatever. This only happened in your mind.

The second clause adresses the assumption that while film and video are not or will never be exactly the same, their effect on the audience is the same. This could have very well been what you meant by "same end result" or "achieve an identical result," were the result is the audience's response, and not the real image. Because you did not define your terms, I did not know whether you were considering an identical real image or an identical audience response, or both.

Tell you what, you define whatever terms you like, and you can argue with yourself instead. But if you want to argue with me, argue with things I've said, not things you imagine I'm saying.

Btw, earlier when I said you were in the minority "here", I meant "regarding this point" as opposed to on reduser.com. But I guess it's safe to say that's probably a safe bet also. In fact, it may be hard to prove conclusively, but I'd say it would be a fairly safe bet to say that your opinion on this specific matter is in the minority among working professionals, on the planet.

I can 't vouch for other worlds though

R.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Hah, right, sorry, I've been reading too much of that Barry Salt book lately. (crazy argumentative British intellectual.)

It's not that I'm not getting it, Poi; it's just like you wrote - "I see it quite differently." I don't like the idea of being stuck with determining my look in post, I'd rather be free to create it on the set, insofar as it is practical and possible to do so.

Stuck creating a look in post... free to create it on set...

isn't that the wrong way round?

 

[Ace]

Stuck creating a look in post... free to create it on set...

isn't that the wrong way round?

My sentiments exactly

 

[Stephen Williams]

The exact structure of the grain in an image captured on a film frame can be completely determined by knowing:

1) How the stock responds to light.
2) What light the frame was exposed to.

The former can be replicated in software. A fairly good record of the later is, of course, contained in the image you're processing.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily saying the current state of the art for film stock simulation or digital acquisition is capable of producing a completely accurate result; I'm just saying that such is possible in principle.

Hi Chris,

It may in theory be possible, but cheaper?

Stephen

 

[Nick Shaw]

It may in theory be possible, but cheaper?

If you are a working professional, you have to balance time spent doing something with the cost of paying somebody else to do it. But for a self funded indie film-maker, anything that doesn't mean giving money to somebody else has to be good! Shake's film grain tools are pretty good, and with GenArts Sapphire plugins even better.

Digital acquisition means that after the capital costs of equipment and software purchase, your on-going costs are substantially just your time. I know you can scrounge short ends, and possibly some lab and TK time, but it's never easy!

Nick

 

[d. sweetman]

Stuck creating a look in post... free to create it on set...

isn't that the wrong way round?

Well, it is if you enjoy or have the money to create the look in post. It's cheaper to create it on set, it's easier, I enjoy it more.

And lastly, because it will never be physically possible to achieve exactly the same result, considering that "exactly" regards the real image, your usage of the word "if" indicated the possibility of what is in all reality a physical impossibility, rendering the hypothesis moot (hence for rhetorical effect) and my response vindicated.

Anyway all language is implication and indication. semiotics. read some Saussure. (crazy, I'm the cinematic conservative here and I'm bringing up Saussure.) [and that's equivocation, but I stand by it.]

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Well, it is if you enjoy or have the money to create the look in post. It's cheaper to create it on set, it's easier, I enjoy it more.

Ok, (we're still in IF territory here, so keep your pants on)

IF shooting red is a practicality in the not too distant future, you will be cutting out stock and development costs, so it's hardly CHEAPER to shoot film. And either way it has to be graded - and if you go for DI, well it's no more expensive to do a DI grade on digital images than scanned film, and with DI you have more control over the image to create various looks than using printer lights. You have to create a "look" anyway, so adding grain to digital images, or whatever you want, you get for free. On a no budget smaller scale project, a copy of after effects and magic bullet or cinelook, or whatever way you want to do it shouldn't cost all that much - it's just your time if you are willing to learn the tools.

so what we have left is - you enjoy it more.

Ok... But I'm going to avoid the temptation to assume that because, after narrowing them down, the other things you've said here don't apply, doing stuff you enjoy is your only practical concern, however much fun it might be to wind you up.

"Here" meaning within the quote above, within this post, as opposed to "here" meaning the entire thread, or all of reduser.com, or all of the planet, or the galaxy, or the universe, or the multiverse. I hope that's clear enough for you.

And lastly, because it will never be physically possible to achieve exactly the same result, considering that "exactly" regards the real image, your usage of the word "if" indicated the possibility of what is in all reality a physical impossibility, rendering the hypothesis moot (hence for rhetorical effect) and my response vindicated.

Ok, I'll clarify it one more time, because it's still not sinking in.

Exactly, as in, you could shoot the same subject digitally, and with film, and you, me, James Cameron, your sister, and Jesus Christ wouldn't be able to tell which was shot on film and which was shot digitally. As opposed to "the exact same image" which is impossible even between two different film stocks. Let alone digital vs film. Everyone else understood what I meant, please don't pretend you still don't. Or try to make it look like I was saying something else.

Anyway all language is implication and indication. semiotics. read some Saussure. (crazy, I'm the cinematic conservative here and I'm bringing up Saussure.) [and that's equivocation, but I stand by it.

I have no interested in joining your debating society, but thanks for the tip.

Btw, good luck with the film,

R.

 

[Ace]

Lets all take a deep breath shall we..

 

[Vincent Rice]

Anyway all language is implication and indication. semiotics. read some Saussure. (crazy, I'm the cinematic conservative here and I'm bringing up Saussure.) [and that's equivocation, but I stand by it.]

As the Cinematic Conservative surely you should just stick with film?

The whole point of a digital workflow is to move these creative decisions to later in the process. One gets the impression that you find this notion somehow morally or intellectually inferior.

 

[Ace]

As the Cinematic Conservative surely you should just stick with film?

The whole point of a digital workflow is to move these creative decisions to later in the process. One gets the impression that you find this notion somehow morally or intellectually inferior.

I don't think Sweetman finds it inferior, rather I think he has the impression that it is easier and more cost effective to manipulate on set while filming.

I tend to disagree in large part, but I do agree that things like lighting, good makeup artistry, good focus following etc shouldnt be approached with a "fix it in post" mentality. But the thing with digital is that it lets you do that if you wish. It gives you creative latitude.

 

[d. sweetman]

you will be cutting out stock and development costs

No, I'm talking about getting the image in-camera with RED vs. getting the image in post with RED origination. Like I said, this is not a film vs. digital war.

(how did "exactly the same" get in here anyway? I don't want it to look the same!)

The whole point of a digital workflow is to move these creative decisions to later in the process. One gets the impression that you find this notion somehow morally or intellectually inferior.

I think that is one benefit of digital, but my reason for shooting digital would definitely be first and foremost to tell the story in the most fitting visual medium.

 

[JohnF]

Being able to adjust the Gain/ISO-ASA rating is of primary importance both to enable getting actual images in a variety of lighting conditions and to impose a feel/mood/tone fitting the artistic vision of us film makers.

In my view fixed or limiting Gain/ISO setting would hamper both the technical and artistic potential of any camera.

As an observation if you are sure of your look you want then why waste hours/days of time in post when you can do it instantly in camera?

I'm interested in the Gain/ISO ratings availiable to RED, anyone know yet?

JohnF

 

[Mike the beginner]

Being able to adjust the Gain/ISO-ASA rating is of primary importance both to enable getting actual images in a variety of lighting conditions and to impose a feel/mood/tone fitting the artistic vision of us film makers.

In my view fixed or limiting Gain/ISO setting would hamper both the technical and artistic potential of any camera.

As an observation if you are sure of your look you want then why waste hours/days of time in post when you can do it instantly in camera?

I'm interested in the Gain/ISO ratings availiable to RED, anyone know yet?

JohnF

From what i have read over at DVXuser and DVinfo the comments by one of the red team indicate that you may be able to adjust the ISO by a considerable margin. I think it was said somewhere that it would be similar to the way film cameras adjust. If you want gain you just add more until you become happy or unhappy with what you have. That was mentioned some time ago but as you know things can change! Oh and remember i am just a beginner

Michael