NAB thoughts

[PaulClements]

True, that! As a painter I thought I'd always be using oils... love that smell ... until I found that you could get acrylics with great pigments, lower price, nearly as good a feel, greater control over drying time, greater durability, less harm to the environment, less harm to me, plus also the ability to still use them when I moved from a nice painting area in South Africa to a small apartment in LA!

I think Red is going to be such a killer palette of acrylics that even Spielberg will be tempted.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Exactly, but many art lovers would argue that a painter who can handle oils well is a better painter than someone who can handle acrylics well, because it is a harder format to work in. Personally I don't think either makes one artist better or not, but relatively there will always be individuals that will respect film makers for capturing the final shot and not editing it in post over digital capture with half an eye on adjustment in post.

The problem I have with most film these days is that in post it is edited, color corrected, effects added and so on and goes through the digital process anyway. By the time it comes out the other side of post you have lost the essence of it being film. You might as well start with a digital acquisition if this is how you intend to finish the production.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Definitely a few interesting topics raised on this thread.

The references to still photography and painting are key here. It's still important to recognize that film and digital are different media. I agree that in still photography, almost nobody shoots 35mm anymore; however, I still shoot large format (4x5) film, and even though it's a real niche market, I'm not likely to stop shooting large format for awhile. They are still different media, and for me, the deliberate pace of shooting large format (and the knowledge that shooting this one photo will cost me at least $2) in most circumstances leads to better photographs. It's certainly a hassle, but oftentimes, it's worth it.

Same with oils and acrylics. You can do things in one medium that you can't with the other. Oils just don't dry quickly, and so you can work at a more deliberate pace in mixing colors, etc, without the worry of it drying on you. Acrylics definitely allow you to work in much more flexible and cheaper ways, but that doesn't always lead to better paintings (though it certainly can).

I think there may be applications here for motion picture film and digital cinema.

One of the things that is often overlooked in terms of image quality is the texture of an image. Acrylics don't have the same texture as oils, 35mm film doesn't have the same texture as digital cinema, Super 8 doesn't have the same texture as 70mm, and DV doesn't have the same texture as HD.

Image surface texture plays a major subconscious role in how an image is recieved. And quite frankly, image texture (by which I do not mean the texture of what is shown, though that too is important) can usually be attributed to imperfections or degradations in the resolving medium. Grain, visible pixels, compression artifacts, scratches; all of these things IF USED WELL can enhance the image.

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.

Clearly, if RED holds up in real-world tests as far as image quality and workflow go, it's going to shake things up in the industry big time, and demand will continue to be huge; more importantly, it has the potential to completely change things on the lower end of production (budget-wise).

But this doesn't necessarily mean there will be better movies, though one can hope. There still aren't many great poets in relation to the population at large, and the technology of writing has been around and widely available for a very long time.

Hopefully, though, this will give people more leeway to experiment with high quality imaging, and really put something out there that's groundbreaking and worthwhile.

Basically, at the end of the day, and probably what some skeptical cinematographers are (wisely) thinking is this: good technology doesn't make good movies. And more good technology won't necessarily mean more good movies.

As Robert Bresson said: Someone who can work with the minimum can work with the most. One who can with the most, cannot, inevitably, with the minimum.

All that said, I'm still really excited to see RED in action, and I can't wait to be able to try one out myself. But until then, I still gotta work with what I have.

 

[Kyle Spicer]

Very Well said Jason! I think to each their own, and there are always reasons to use one medium over the next.

 

[PaulClements]

I think Red's next camera should be one of the following:

A Cubist camera
A Pointilist camera
A Surrealist camera

 

[JustinGD]

Personally I don't think either makes one artist better or not, but relatively there will always be individuals that will respect film makers for capturing the final shot and not editing it in post over digital capture with half an eye on adjustment in post.

I agree, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who can capture the final shot without editing. However, I think it's their technical ability not artistic ability that is to be respected. Digital capture and editing makes it easier to get the right shot, but they are still just tools. Art has always been about creating a vision, and if digital makes it easier to take something from inside your head and put it on a screen, then the art becomes more "true" in some ways.

To use the painting metaphore, using digital capture and post production is like having a wider variety of brushes to paint with. Some may call it cheating because it's easier, but I believe that the final product will be more true to what the artist saw in their head.

That's what I think, but I'm of the digital generation and hope to grow with the medium. So what do I know?

 

[PaulClements]

It's all very subjective, and that's the point. For instance I think it can be the artistic ability more than the technical ability that can be respected in capturing such a shot, a reverse of what you think Justin.

It's the fact that opinions on different artforms exist that, to me at least, mean film will continue to be used for quite some time and is of course the basis for why people argue about using one over the other. Some people cannot except another persons point of view which is the saddest thing, and I can safely say that within the film vs digital there are many such people on both sides of the coin.

 

[Tonaci Tran]

Definitely a few interesting topics raised on this thread.
Image surface texture plays a major subconscious role in how an image is recieved. And quite frankly, image texture (by which I do not mean the texture of what is shown, though that too is important) can usually be attributed to imperfections or degradations in the resolving medium. Grain, visible pixels, compression artifacts, scratches; all of these things IF USED WELL can enhance the image.

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.

Like evryone said..this is ALL so subjective. I love the clean pristine look. I hate grain. After seeing peter jackson's red mini movie... a period piece by the way... the lack of grain did not make it look any less nostalgic. It did not suffer from not having that oh so classic film grain.

 

[Tonaci Tran]

Photography and Cinematography are quite different though. Professional photography exists in a world of rapid workflow; newspapers, magazines, websites etc.

Cinematography by contrast involves days, weeks, months and very often years to deliver a piece that lasts about 2 hours.

That demand for delivery of the final product is what seperates the two.

Don't both demand rapid delivery? Time is money. I think the big movie companies put alot of pressure for the film crews to finish projects as fast as possible, just as magazines demand quick turnaround from their photographers.

But i hear ya Paul. I just have a different perspective.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Like evryone said..this is ALL so subjective. I love the clean pristine look. I hate grain. After seeing peter jackson's red mini movie... a period piece by the way... the lack of grain did not make it look any less nostalgic. It did not suffer from not having that oh so classic film grain.

You are, of course, correct, Tonaci. It's a very subjective thing (like most aesthetic decisions are). I shoot 4x5 stills (and have occasionally done the occasional 8x10 contact print), for example, because I don't want any visible grain in the photographs. I've shot Super-8 and really low-end DV for the exact opposite reason. But one of the likely unintentional side-effects of high-end digital cinema is now that texture can be a conscious aesthetic choice that isn't tied to method of origin. Two recent digital examples: the grainless, clean images of Zodiac worked really wonderfully in the movie, and on the other hand, the only interesting part of Robert Rodriguez's half of Grindhouse (beside Rose McGowan's machine-gun leg, of course) was the deliberately textured and distorted image, which was used in a near-expressionistic manner.

Not being at NAB, I haven't seen PJ's mini-movie, and I'm still kind of sad that I won't be able to see it projected in 4K, unless RED decides to show some stuff up around NYC in the near future (hint, hint :biggrin. I've seen 4K-projected footage originating from Dalsa's camera, as well as 65mm, 35mm, and 1080p, and it all looked pretty good, the 4K & 65mm@4K especially, so I can imagine that PJ's piece looks quite stunning.

There is certainly no need for nostalgia to be grainy. It's probably more interesting if it's not.

 

[Zach Hilton]

I think we broke the record... I dont think there was a line anywhere that i saw, except for to go pee or to buy a hotdog.

Two days straight! Heck yeah! I would have to echo a lot of comments made today. I do feel the desire to post about my experience with the RED booth. Although, it is incomplete without pictures, and the like. The RED booth was the first place I went. Got there yesterday at 10:40 AM and there was already a 45 min. wait. This morning just after 10:00, the line was atleast 1 1/2 hours long. Apart from being the ONLY place that had that much traffic, it was the ONLY booth that kept me thinking the rest of the day how silly and crappy all these other cameras are. I'm glad I got in (reservation wise) when I did...even though it was a little late. Okay...onto the experience.

The Red team in general were very friendly. Jim, thank you for taking a personal interest in the booth. It was nice to meet you and talk to you. You are a very friendly chap. At first, a lot of the Red team seemed to be very on the defensive side, and I can understand why. But some advice...relax, you know you blow everyone else out of the water. Just eat it up and let all the criticism hit off the metal walls of the Red booth!

I did have multiple opportunities to talk to Jim's fiance, Meesha or something? Very friendly gal as well. Congrats! But the funny thing is, she spotted my friend and I 20 bucks to pay for our lunch...very embarrassing (yes we paid her back today) but can I say, the team went out of their way to make this the best booth, in and out of it...and it definitely shows. Couldn't have asked for a better Reservation Holder treatment than being let in and not having to wait the 2 hours in line (very helpful...thank you!), having Jim's fiance spot us money (once again, thank you!), and the on-hands experience with the cameras. A huge success in my opinion.

Another funny thing was watching Mike and a representative from Arri talk about the camera...thank goodness for a cell phone camera...it will be posted in a bit.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is, very AWESOME presentation. Richard Bluck said some pretty interesting things. They shot night for day on a couple of the shots. It was getting late, and the light was fading fast, so they just put up white cards in the distance because that was going to be out of focus anyway and shot that for a day scene. Very impressive. Also, there is a low-angle shot of the pilot sitting in the cockpit. You can see incredible detail in the shadows and such, and the sky is absolutely beautifully exposed as well. I asked him it that was sky replacement...and it was not. Straight from the camera. At the time of shooting they had 9 stops of latitude (according to Richard) and I heard mentioned in the booth that it is up to 11-12 now. Very, very impressive. Just can't say it enough. Thanks Jim. Thanks Red Team. Have a great rest of the week. Smile...and let the criticism roll of the shoulder, and the applause come from all around. Standing ovation here!

 

[Steve Gibby]

I wonder if there are any other booths at NAB with an hour-long wait to get in?

In two days of walkiing throughout all the exhibit halls of NAB, I don't remember seeing any lines for any other booths at all. The RED booth lines were the only apparent booth lines....and they were long all day both days. The Apple booth demonstration theater was always packed though...

 

[Zach Hilton]

In two days of walkiing throughout all the exhibit halls of NAB, I don't remember seeing any lines for any other booths at all. The RED booth lines were the only apparent booth lines....and they were long all day both days. The Apple booth demonstration theater was always packed though...

As was Adobe's, but those two I think that are a little different.

 

[feb31films]

, and I can safely say that within the film vs digital there are many such people on both sides of the coin.

Way to play it safe, Paul. :sarcasm: Seriously though, there seems to be an interesting dichotomy on this thread between the individual artist and the (members of the) media company. Many here are looking for an alternative way to express themselves and will shoot on many formats, Red being only one. Others are looking to shoot the same high quality footage as before at a fraction of the price to increase the profit margin.

 

[Ziggy Uszkurat]

It should be noted that Tarantino still ended up shooting Death Proof on film, despite having been "convinced" as he said. In my humble (and perhaps uninformed) opinion, I think Grindhouse is a good demonstration of how great film still beats great digital.

Box office returns and most critics seemed to think Death Proof was a pile of doo doo. The medium is just the medium - making it on film doesn't guarantee a quality story (neither for that matter will shooting on Red).

Just my 2c worth...
Ziggx

 

[Brook Willard]

We are all entitiled to our own opinions and practices...

 

[Andrew Benz]

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.

Great post my man, you have framed the DIFFERENCE between us and the others pov very well. I have a story about a gentleman that is a head engineer for a local, but make the purchasing decisions for several stations. He is a very intelligent man, but RED did not compute for him or more importantly he could not understand why it would compute for me (even though I am a crossover shooter and have skillsets that no one in any of his station posses) or why I would want one of the first 1500 ... I will go into details later-- I was away for 36hrs. and need to catch up--- too bad we can't just "jack in" ala Wiliam Gibson-(RED is the closest thing to cyberpunk aesthetic for me).

Thank you again Blair.

Cheers-- Andrew

 

[Nathan Troutman]

Some people love black and white. Some people love records. Film is moving into the world of black and white. If it wasn't for the digital abilities of post production film wouldn't look all that good at all. Just watch a film from ten years ago and see how poor it looks (just watched Sleepy Hollow a few days ago. The grain is annoying. I didn't remember it from before but film isn't all that film anymore.)

How much "film" is left when the first thing that happens is turning it into digital and doing all kinds of digital post-production to make it look good - including getting rid of grain. I've never heard an 8-year old say, "Cars, doesn't look like film." Why is it I love to show digitally prestine animated films on my HD projector? Clear, vibrant, colorful, WOW. HD is changing what the audience sees as amazing video. None of these changes involves anything that film does well. Any film that tries to acheive this look must do so with tons of digital enhancements to make it look more. . . well. . . clear and less grainy and washed out.

I'd love to see someone show the actual "film" from a movie minus the digital post production process. There's nothing special there - only nostalgia. It's in the past. Only the industry has fought to keep it alive. The only reason why is control. The less people that can make films the more control the few people that can make films have and the more money they can make. With Red - outsiders have a real chance. With digital distribution the industry has even less control. 2007 - the year of the rebellion.

 

[JCallahan]

Box office returns and most critics seemed to think Death Proof was a pile of doo doo. The medium is just the medium - making it on film doesn't guarantee a quality story (neither for that matter will shooting on Red).

Just my 2c worth...
Ziggx

Hardcore digital apologists always use this argument. It's true... but I didn't say anything about story. I prefered the overall look of Death Proof to the look of Planet Terror. That's all there is to it. It might not matter to some members the audience, but it should matter to the people who are most obsessed with it. If you are behind the camera creating something that you care very deeply about, and one medium offers a certain style or a coloration that you feel better serves your vision, you are going to try to pursue it if at all possible. True?

I'm up in the air about digital. I think that digital's biggest and most important role is that it's like a flight simulator for analog formats. Get some digital equipment, shoot on it or record on it, make amazing things. Then later on, if you see the need, shoot on film and record to analog tape. The word doesn't need another analog vs. digital debate, but I'm suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't offer a proper archival format....

That said, I think Red is brilliant. It looks like it is finally going to close the quality gap between analog formats and their flight simulators. I swear I'm not here to piss in anyone's cereal. So far, I think that a lot of new technologies, particularly in the digital realm, are about ease and price alone. Quality has often taken a backseat. Digital editing of video and sound have also served as destructive influences on the creation of art (not that any misused tool wouldn't be a destructive influence). I want to be wrong about this. Red seems to be a push in the right direction, and the philosophy behind it as a product is the most decent thing that the industry has ever done.

 

[Chris Kenny]

The word doesn't need another analog vs. digital debate, but I'm suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't offer a proper archival format....

See, that's all a matter of perspective. I've got more of an IT background, and I'm extremely suspicious of any paradigm that doesn't let me make multiple flawless copies! The idea of having my "data" in only one place scares the hell out of me.

 

[Peter McCully]

As a kid I remember being enthralled by Cinerama and 70mm films. There was something special about being immersed in big, beautiful images that were inspirng and exciting. Later when I could just afford to buy and process 16mm reversal film and make my own art school movies, I felt that here was the power at last for me to create imagery for the big screen! Ha. After viewing PJ's tremendous little film at the booth on Monday I can see that the power has really arrived. That imagery had the presence and sparkle that 70mm used to have over normal 35mm presentations. Bring it on!!