Most interesting thing I didn't see at NAB

[Casey Green]

Hey there, Finner!

Great to see you again this week. The Hoff lives.

(Finner hangin' with the guys from 4KFest)

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

What I found very interesting at NAB though was the absolute lack of film cameras. None at the ARRI booth, think about this for a second as this is huge: ARRI did not have a single film camera at their booth.

Maybe I'm wrong, but why would they? I mean, they have lots of new gear hitting the market, and it makes sense for them to use every square inch at their disposal to promote their new digital tools, rather than having their film cameras there. It's not like the Arricam system or the 235 came out yesterday and need to be promoted.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

Farewell Kodak, thanks for the memories!

Working on commercials here in Toronto, I have done more film jobs in the last two months than I did all of last year. High-end agencies with good budgets still realize the advantages of film and the fact that there are some shots you simply can't do on digital (yet).

Interestingly though, most of the shoots have used Fuji film because it's cheaper than Kodak.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

and the fact that there are some shots you simply can't do on digital (yet).

OK.... I gotta ask for an example of one of these shots. I can't think of anything I could shoot on film that I couldn't pull off on a RED MX.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

OK.... I gotta ask for an example of one of these shots. I can't think of anything I could shoot on film that I couldn't pull off on a RED MX.

Shooting a fashion model on a rooftop, full sun behind her. No lighting, not a silhouette :


This is how my iPhone saw it.

I don't think any current digital system could hold that sky in frame along with the foreground without tons of lighting or grads.

 

[Bill Anderson]

I also would like to hear about the "shots you simply can't do on digital". And while were at it: what are "the advantages of film"?

 

[Bill Anderson]

OK, now I understand: "I phone" and what you "think" might be the case.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Shooting a fashion model on a rooftop, full sun behind her. No lighting, not a silhouette :

I don't think that particular shot would be a real problem on the MX... Or at least no more of a problem than with film. I don't want this to be a film vs. digital (or RED MX) debate, but what is it that you think film would buy you in this scenario? Smoother highlight roll-off? Perhaps. Better shadow detail? Not a chance. If you're showing 14+ stops of range in that situation (can't begin to guess from an iPhone photo), film isn't going to hold the sky either. It's just going to potentially look smoother as it fails.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Compared to the majority of digital cameras out there, film would do quite well in this scenario for sure, but not well enough to negate the use of certain other digital cameras.


An aside:
Given where Epic is at (not to mention where it is all clearly heading) film "roll off" won't help if it's rolling off 4 stops prematurely.

 

[jake blackstone]

Hm, why is everyone advocating film use acts like HDRx doesn't exist?

 

[Finner]

Maybe I'm wrong, but why would they? I mean, they have lots of new gear hitting the market, and it makes sense for them to use every square inch at their disposal to promote their new digital tools, rather than having their film cameras there. It's not like the Arricam system or the 235 came out yesterday and need to be promoted.

NAB is all about companies showing off the main goods they are pushing to the market and what they feel the majority of consumers want. The fact that ARRI did not have a single new film camera to promote or even bother to use a little show floor space to at least show off their current top film cameras reveals that the demand for film cameras is shrinking. You support my case by saying that "it's not like the arricam or 235 came out yesterday"; Kinda shows that they are currently not working on or building many new film cameras. Good or bad film is disappearing.

Working on commercials here in Toronto, I have done more film jobs in the last two months than I did all of last year. High-end agencies with good budgets still realize the advantages of film and the fact that there are some shots you simply can't do on digital (yet).

Interestingly though, most of the shoots have used Fuji film because it's cheaper than Kodak.

I have done a lot of commercials and film is a great choice for them. Production houses are comfortable with the workflow, it looks great, it appeases the client and agency and can be the deciding factor on if the production house wins the bid. The thing is commercials are a much smaller contributing force of keeping film alive then features or even decent or crappy TV work. The amount of cameras, camera support gear and even film processing consumed by a feature and TV work is what keeps film a viable affordable choice not commercials. As more and more of that work goes digital, film stock and processing will go up.

I have worked on a few features in Toronto and know you have a large commercial base of shooting there. However for most regions commercial work is much less then long format.

cheers
Daren

 

[jake blackstone]

Accidental 45 degree shutter is a two stop underexposure. If you take RED as an example, and assume it's normally exposed for ISO 320, using 45 degree shutter would mean the exact same as exposing for ISO 1280. Totally salvageable.

I think you should probably use ISO 800 as a starting exposure. With 2 stops underexposure that would mean ISO 3200. Should be no problem with proper noise reduction.
See example of MX @ISO 3200 http://vimeo.com/11758802
On the other hand, if the material was overexposed by two stops, then, yes, film would have no problem, dealing with the mistake and any electronic camera acquired material would be ruined.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

You support my case by saying that "it's not like the arricam or 235 came out yesterday"; Kinda shows that they are currently not working on or building many new film cameras.

Well, the Arricam was introduced 10 years ago or so, and frankly there's little room to improve it, it's just an amazing camera system. Arri didn't improve it even when there was a higher demand for film cameras and digital was not even on the radar, so they must believe it's as close to perfection as possible.

Good or bad film is disappearing.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe not as fast as some people have been predicting for years. I know I'm talking about an insignificant country in the grand scheme of things, but I've been on 6 different tv series sets in the last 3 months here in Italy, and every single one of them was shooting film (16mm, 1 Fujifilm, 5 Kodak). There are three big movies I know of that are starting in the next two months (2 Italian, plus 1 American rolling in for a few weeks, but it's still not confirmed), and they're shooting on 35mm. Higher-end commercials are still shot on 35mm, with some notable exceptions, and Red is used quite frequently in indipendent/low-budget movies. Alexa is having a big impact at the moment. It seems like Sony is not really present here as much as in other countries.
Maybe a year from now things will be different, who knows.

 

[Jonathan Carbonaro]

Shooting a fashion model on a rooftop, full sun behind her. No lighting, not a silhouette :


I don't think any current digital system could hold that sky in frame along with the foreground without tons of lighting or grads.

I just did a shot like this on a commercial. I was the DIT and they brought me a shot with direct sunset and talent standing in the Shadow of the building.
They had stopped down to expose the sky and everything else pretty much fell into the shadows.
We brought it in to RedcineX, graded, and no problem at all! Beautiful shot when it was finished. (Keep in mind, that was ONLY using RedCineX!)
I would post images but I am not allowed.
All that to say, that shot, is not an issue for Red One MX.
I was actually quite proud of that to be honest

 

[Eki Halkka]

I think you should probably use ISO 800 as a starting exposure. With 2 stops underexposure that would mean ISO 3200. Should be no problem with proper noise reduction.
See example of MX @ISO 3200 http://vimeo.com/11758802
On the other hand, if the material was overexposed by two stops, then, yes, film would have no problem, dealing with the mistake and any electronic camera acquired material would be ruined.

Well, if you start with ISO800, two stop overexposure would be the same as shooting ISO 200.

Depending on case, the results might be more or less perfect - Sure, you lose two stops of highlight headroom, but not all shots need those two stops, and many that do wouldn't necessarily be completely ruined, but rather only slightly more "videoish". Of course there are some cases where important areas would be clipped, but in general it's not as bad as it seems in the first glance.

Edit: Also, when shooting video, you have real time playback of the real deal instead of an unreliable video tap, and you should be able to catch any serious clipping on set much easier than with film...

 

[jake blackstone]

Well, if you start with ISO800, two stop overexposure would be the same as shooting ISO 200.

Depending on case, the results might be more or less perfect - Sure, you lose two stops of highlight headroom, but not all shots need those two stops, and many that do wouldn't necessarily be completely ruined, but rather only slightly more "videoish". Of course there are some cases where important areas would be clipped, but in general it's not as bad as it seems in the first glance.

Edit: Also, when shooting video, you have real time playback of the real deal instead of an unreliable video tap, and you should be able to catch any serious clipping on set much easier than with film...

Overexposing with electronic camera is the worse offense a shooter can possibly do. Two stops overexposure is just not salvageable, unlike with the film. If you exposing in a manner, that even with two stops overexposure you still have enough highlight protection, then you're not really overexposing
I don't think there is a such thing as "slightly more "videoish" look. It's either is or it's not. If it is "videoish", then your exposure is plain wrong, not slightly wrong.
And I agree, with electronic camera a mistake like that is easy to catch...

 

[Jannard]

and Red is used quite frequently in indipendent/low-budget movies.

Interesting. The largest budget movies for Hollywood Studios are now being Shot on RED. "The Hobbit". "The Amazing Spider-man". "Jack the Giant Killer". "Prometheus". Did I forget "Pirates 4"? Also "The Social Network", "Contagion", "Underworld 4", and quite a few others.

I'd hardly call these indies movies. The good news is that indie movies can be shot on the same camera that the biggest features are shot with.

Yes... this is name dropping. But to infer that RED is for indies only doesn't do our program justice. Just saying.

Jim

 

[NEIL ANDREW BATES]

That's probably why everybody here loves this company. It's such a big leap for indie filmakers from the top rung of the bottom ladder to the bottom rung of the top ladder and RED's camera revolution has made that jump possible

EDITED:

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

But to infer that RED is for indies only doesn't do our program justice. Just saying.

Jim, I don't know why a lot of times I post something my words are interpreted in another way. Maybe I cannot express my thoughts clearly due to the language barrier?
Please, please read my post again and then tell me where I "inferred" something like that. I was just merely describing one of the many realities (on the other hand, from what I've seen, Ireland is pretty much all "red"), and I pointed out very clearly that I was referring to Italy, not to the whole world, in a very specific period of time, i.e. "now". I also added, who knows what will happen a year from now...

 

[Eki Halkka]

Overexposing with electronic camera is the worse offense a shooter can possibly do. Two stops overexposure is just not salvageable, unlike with the film. If you exposing in a manner, that even with two stops overexposure you still have enough highlight protection, then you're not really overexposing

Sorta yes ;-)

...but to make the comparision compatible with shooting film, i assume we were talking about using traditional off-camera light meter and exposing for ISO 800, just like with the underexposure example?

I don't think there is a such thing as "slightly more "videoish" look. It's either is or it's not. If it is "videoish", then your exposure is plain wrong, not slightly wrong.
And I agree, with electronic camera a mistake like that is easy to catch...

I'd like to bring a real world example to discussion here: say you have a practical light fixture with the bulb visible in the scene next to the subject. Regardless of what one shoots with (possible exception being Epic in HDR mode), the filament is bound to burn out to white. In most cases, the whole bulb blowing out is pretty much acceptable too. Next to clip is the interior of the light fixture - usually this is not desirable, but it's not really the end of the world if this happens. Open the iris more, and maybe a bit of the white wall right next to the lamp will clip. Open more, and you'll blow out the table top too. And finally, with a lot of overexposure, the talent will be clipped.

Now, i'd call the above progression a gradual shift from "film like" highlights to "video like" highlights. All but maybe the last two steps can be tolerable, depending on the case.