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 :)

NAB thoughts

My first post. Just got back from 5 days of NAB (including the Sunday morning Apple FCP seminar). The mere mention of the Red Camera on Sunday brought a huge round of applause. Last night at the Final Cut User's Group Supermeet, Red Crew showed the camera and got a standing ovation from the 1000 members at the meeting. Everywhere you went, people were talking about having seen the booth or going to and many were talking about plans for projects that the camera inspired. I ran into all kinds of folks at the booth including the producer of the "Rush Hour" movies. Lots of interest in the camera. Even today (Thursday), even though the convention center parking lot was only 2/3 full at 11AM, the Red Booth had a line around three sides of the booth with people waiting to see the footage.

Spoke with the Steadycam operator of the Peter Jackson demo who came over from Melbourne, Australia (guess there was no Steadycam Op in New Zealand?) to see the footage. I was interested to talk to him as he is one of a very few people who have actually used the camera. He said it was similar in feel to the Sony F900 (a little lighter than the Sony, he thought). He called the Genesis camera a boat anchor. Overall, was happy with the Red camera as an operator. I asked him if he found anything unusual about it and he said, "It worked like a camera," which to me means, everything he needed was there and it worked which is all I wanted to hear.

What I found especially remarkable was standing in awe with other Red reservation holders in the Apple booth where they were demoing the Redcode and had a clip from the Jackson movie on a Final Cut timeline. There, you were able to stop and start the footage yourself. Every frame was crystal clear - detail in blowing blades of grass under an airplane. No artifacts. And presumably, we were looking at a 2K proxy frame. Amazing.

Congratulations, Red Crew!
 
tonaci said:
anyways, im sure speilberg will be in the minority of people clinging on to 35mm film. but to each their own. I just find it amusing when some resist change for quirky reasons.
Click to expand...

What you call "quirky reasons" other people would call "art". If Van Gogh wanted to rhapsodize over a particular shade of cyan, that's his choice -- it doesn't have to make logical sense to other people. If I said I preferred blondes to brunettes, do I have to have a logical reason? Personal taste plays a big factor in artmaking, at all budget levels. Movies aren't made by engineers or robots -- you have respect and accept a certain level of "quirkiness" if you're going to let artists make movies.

I shoot a lot of Fuji film on features when most people shoot Kodak. Why? Well, one reason is that most people choose Kodak and therefore I not only question common wisdom just out of healthly contraryism, but also because if I shoot Fuji in a world of Kodak users, my work may have a (slight) distinctive edge. So as more and more films are shot digitally, you may see more and more people "cling" to film -- if they can afford it -- just to make a visual statement that is contrary to popular trends.

So there is an illogical side of art that is natural and driven by personal aesthetics and has to be factored in when having these discussions. What seems so obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another because that other person operates with a different aesthetic sensibility and arguing over it would be like arguing over whether apples tasted better than oranges.
 
Also I wanted to say:

I love that red has done it for all of us makers, I honestly can afford to own one, I will love to rent it out to test it and to make a great story with it.

For the Film vs digital discussion I have to say, Guys enough is enough from both sides this has become really anoying, from both websites (cinematography.com and here)
Trust me I try to put an end to it and I got Banned from it for 30 days
( welll actually the ability to post ), my language was rough but come on you or them are not sissys and I was so tired of it..... I propose that instead of fighting lets make better projects that we been seeing for the past years...... Lets make outstanding projects that our peers will admire.... stop the pointless bickering that take us nowhere... trust me" is not the camera that makes the film, but the filmmaker himself"

To those lucky bastards hehe that bought a Red cam.... show off your abilities as storytellers , show to the world that Jim has given you an amazing product to make amazing films.... dont understamate your current power of surprise..... go BIG!

This is from sombody that still loves the look of Super 16 and just bought his first film camera, and old Eclair NPR...., for his next feature.

I beg you if you want to think yourself us a new and better kind of "makers" don't be ignorant and talk pointless nonsense

Film has a span of life and is coming to it's final years, we know it..... let it go

Digital is coming, correction digital is here! who knows next year what red is going to come up with and what this years project are gooing to dictated...

Long live "GreatMaking" ( film, digital, paper maché, what ever!)
People have forgotten the great part of it

Best to you my creative Brothers!
 
Many films have limited budgets and with a 4K digital image a lot of tweaking could be done. I can't wait for the day that I can make a choice based on art instead of finances. If I want to shoot 35mm just shoot it. I guess I am speaking more from an indie point of view. Do you think that in the future digital cameras we'll be able to create the look of art that the majority of cinematographers crave from 35mm?
 
I don't understand how anyone can think that 35mm is dead.....

Film has a very distinct look that Red doesn't....some call it organic, I call it grainy. But, that grain sometimes lends itself to the look of the film.

For instance, would Aranofsky's Pi have been the same without that grainy 16mm stock? Would Seven have been as "gritty" if shot on Red?

You hear people talk of digital footage being treated in post to have the same look as film, but I've yet to see it come to light.

The best example of digital mimicking film IMO is Zodiac or Flyboys. Yet even those still have a distinctly digital look to them.

My outlook on Red is not that it will kill film, rather, it will give cinematographers a new stock to shoot on. An ultra clean, high resolution, dynamic and extremely affordable stock. It resolves as much if not more than 35mm, but has a very distinct visual quality that 35mm does not.

Will it become the more popular stock? In due time digital will be the leading medium, but for now, it is just a new, very promising and exciting tool that we cinematographers can hone.
 
One creative possibilty, if a transfer to film is planned, is to transfer the digital file to camera negative stock rather than intermediate stock, to get a grain texture. You could go even further and do tricks like a bleach-bypass to the film for more "texture".

I once did an experiment with the help of the folks at Swiss Effects transferring some 25P PAL footage to different film stocks -- most were a little disappointing in that I felt I could have just digitally color-corrected for that look, but the most interesting was when I transferred the footage to 35mm color-reversal and then cross-processed it into a negative. I got sort of a high-contrast saturated look like some bizarre version of Kodachrome, with an off-color bias.

Only trouble with this approach was that the look was so unique that the only want to distribute the move later for home video would have been to do a telecine back to video. Hence why most people want to "bake" these unique looks and grain textures into the original digital master.

Everyone talks about how easy it is to add film grain in post, but I was talking to Matthew Labitique (DP of "Pi") about his photography of Aronovsky's "The Fountain", shot on push-processed 35mm Expression 500T for a strong grain texture, and he had to shoot the greenscreen stuff with un-pushed stock at the request of the efx people, who said they could then later match the look of the final composite to the pushed footage -- but in the end, they couldn't so the movie has some shots that are grainier than others.

Adding noise is not the same as adding film grain.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Adding noise is not the same as adding film grain.
Click to expand...

David, very interesting post. One question though... Do you think that Super 16mm is still a viable origination format whose look can't be replicated somehow in post? The reason I ask is because I have an A-minima and I would hate for it to become irrelevant.
 
I think both film and digital will be around for many, many years together. As David and others have said over and over again, it really is personal preference and really project dependent. If somebody is using the exact same look, wether it be grainy or crystal-clear, on every project they do, I would argue that they are creatively limting themselves. Different looks help to tell different stories.

After seeing what RED can do I truly believe that RED has changed the landscape of digital cinema, but it is still ultimately just a tool of storytelling. A very cool and important tool, but a tool none-the-less.
 
David, bravo on apples and oranges.

People really seem to want film to go away. Even if the merits of digital are completely rock solid, which some of them seem to be, film is film and digital is digital. Preference. I don't think it's going away and I would prefer to have it around as a production format and an archival format, at the very least.

I'll bet that even the people at Red still have a fondness for film, although due to the nature of their work I doubt too many of them would exactly be eager to step up the plate an defend its continued usefulness.
 
JasonMurphy said:
The strength and weakness of high-res digital cinema is that it doesn't seem to have any inherent texture (this isn't quite true, but it's more true now than before). It's grain free, and there are no visible pixels or compression artifacts. The lack of texture can make things look strangely hyper-real, but one can texture (or not) the image any way one likes. It means that a filmmaker has more control of this tool, but my guess is that most won't take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

With hyper-real picture in the start, as well as all the 12 bit color data, artists basicaly get a pure canvas to add the texture they choose and by that "the feel" of the picture.
Once you told the story - as you woud have told it with film (little bit harder, though) you get another creative freedom in post to an extent which couldn't be reachable with a predetermined factors of film.

There lies a whole new world in post, with films like "Sin City" and "300" although brilliant - barely scratching the surface.

I think RED will lead a significant role in the evolution of this fairly new artform of picture manipulation.
 
Talking about film look and feel, wanted to remind you what Graeme's main business is.
http://www.nattress.com/
We are very lucky that Graeme is on RED team, his plug-ins among many, can add different effects to the movie.
Once camera sensors will have sufficient dynamic range and bit resolution, it will be relatively easy to design profilers to add different film look of different film stock to the digital data. After processing digital film through such profiler, only experts that knows what to look for, will be able to recognize film from digital in terms of origination of the material. Remember at this moment, most movies that we see in the cinema, are scanned with 4K sensors and some distribution copies in the film format are originating from fully digital cameras. So the process of presenting the digitally processed movies has already started few years ago. Sure once you watch masters it will be easy to see the difference but on final copy that goes to the distribution channels of the movie theaters even experts will have trouble to see the difference.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
What you call "quirky reasons" other people would call "art". If Van Gogh wanted to rhapsodize over a particular shade of cyan, that's his choice -- it doesn't have to make logical sense to other people. If I said I preferred blondes to brunettes, do I have to have a logical reason? Personal taste plays a big factor in artmaking, at all budget levels. Movies aren't made by engineers or robots -- you have respect and accept a certain level of "quirkiness" if you're going to let artists make movies.

I shoot a lot of Fuji film on features when most people shoot Kodak. Why? Well, one reason is that most people choose Kodak and therefore I not only question common wisdom just out of healthly contraryism, but also because if I shoot Fuji in a world of Kodak users, my work may have a (slight) distinctive edge. So as more and more films are shot digitally, you may see more and more people "cling" to film -- if they can afford it -- just to make a visual statement that is contrary to popular trends.

So there is an illogical side of art that is natural and driven by personal aesthetics and has to be factored in when having these discussions. What seems so obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another because that other person operates with a different aesthetic sensibility and arguing over it would be like arguing over whether apples tasted better than oranges.
Click to expand...

Everything you said undoubtfully stands.

But you have to admit that there are emotional elements here also. An artist tends to stay devoted to his/hers tools, which has to be respected. As art is influenced by emotions, emotions also have an influence on artist's choices.
Also, many times it's like creativity is the one that "clings on" to a certain tool, as if your expressive mental workflow is used to specific elements and any change creates a disturbance in that mental workflow.

What I like about digital is that the artists get a choice of unlimited tastes, and not only it goes far beyond "apples and oranges" example, but allows the creation of infinite number of "fruits".

In digital you can get a totally unique distinctive edge. It just puts that unlimited choice at the end, in the post - as oppose to choosing the type of film in the start.
 
omen said:
What I like about digital is that the artists get a choice of unlimited tastes, and not only it goes far beyond "apples and oranges" example, but allows the creation of infinite number of "fruits".
Click to expand...

This unlimited choice of fruits is what makes me recognize film still photographer from digital film photographer when I am watching art photography.
Digital photographers are using different techniques that digital post allows them to use.
However more and more often I see that film photographers do scan their work and use the same tools in the post that digital counterparts use. Then the only way I can recognize the film versus digital art work is the content and only if I know the artists.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
The "user base" of the NAB trade fair has a wide gamut and for many of the attendees it is simply about paying the bills. Many of the folks on this forum approach this work as something that means a bit more. Are we delusional? Maybe, but please don't pinch me.

The RED booth does seem to somehow exist in its own dimension on the show floor. Walking around with my RED reservation holder badge and even my Titanium R around my neck has been an experience.

IMHO people who belittle the RED either lack imagination or see RED as a threat to their livelihood. I suppose the elitist viewpoint would be that they should take a bigger bite out of life. The more charitable view is simply to pity the waste.

In any case, I have found my personal interactions at NAB with many of the folks that I only knew from this forum to be soul stirring. Passion, imagination, excitement, intelligence, humanity and most of all humor. I feel lucky to call myself a REDhead, to be a dreamer, to question paradigms and to be able to enjoy the company of this group - even if it usually just cyber.

I raise my glass to you all.
Click to expand...


And 6000 miles away a glass is risen to you, fellow dreamer.
 
Andrew said:
This unlimited choice of fruits is what makes me recognize film still photographer from digital film photographer when I am watching art photography.
Digital photographers are using different techniques that digital post allows them to use.
However more and more often I see that film photographers do scan their work and use the same tools in the post that digital counterparts use. Then the only way I can recognize the film versus digital art work is the content and only if I know the artist.
Click to expand...

I share the same impressions on that. For me, the important thing is that the post doesn't affect concentrating on the content, although there are applications where content becomes a secondary issue.
 
We've really got a lot of great discussion going on here! I attended a D-20 workshop about a month ago at a rental house and during it, they showed a film where I believe the director of the ASC (correct me if I'm wrong) orchestrated a shoot funded by Disney comparing all the new cameras, from the F900 (may have been F950) to the Dalsa Origin, Genesis, D-20 and more. Like some have brought up here however, the conclusion he seemed to have come to after testing all the cameras was that digital and film each have their very own uses where one does better than others. A good example was from a shoot that they showed after the tests in Winnipeg by the DP doing the presentation. They had shot a darkly lit room with wood paneling and on the D-20 footage, the wood looked much more rich and vibrant. On the film footage however, the wood wasn't so nice. Yet there are also many cases where film will perform better. I guess it really just depends, like David Mullen suggested, on what your needs are. Tarantino needed to do crazy stunt shots for Death Proof so he shot film where I'm assuming he didn't have to worry too much about the cameras themselves. Anyways, really cool stuff this discussion is quite informative! :w00t:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top