NAB thoughts

[zak forrest]

Tarantino shot Death Proof on film.

nice..

 

[zak forrest]

Mark...
My statement is still correct. quote in it's entirety

"You tried to coax Tarantino, a film purist, into going digital. What was your argument? I told Quentin we could make a digital movie and have it look exactly like a film from the era. He said, "If you can do that, I'll be convinced." I took footage from Sin City and From Dusk Till Dawn, degraded it digitally, and mixed it with some music. I wanted it to look like a living graphic novel. I showed him the results, and he was blown away. He said, "All right. You win.""

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/robert.html

Quentin was "convinced" by Robert that he could produce the film effect to satifactory results. Quentin's choice to shoot film therefore, was not due to quality issue, but perhaps his comfort level with shooting film vs digital which may be foreign to him. This doesn't mean that Tarantino won't ever shoot digitally. If he is blown away by robert's tweak with Sin City and From dusk til Dawn, I wonder what he would think of Peter Jackson's red demo.

NICE. i think quentin might say it didn't look like film. i wonder if he would ever use red, i could see him taking a long time to switch, or perhaps never. i could be wrong, im just saying the whole thing of things being comfortable for someone goes a long way, possibly the only way.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Everything you said undoubtfully stands.
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.

But since most film is scanned to digital these days, you have all the same tools for film images as you do with digital ones, and often you're working with an original that contains more exposure information to start with than most digital cine cameras can deliver. So with film, you have all the advantages of film plus all the advantages of digital in terms of image manipulation. The main advantage that digital gives you is lower cost plus the speed of moving it into the digital post environment.

So I don't buy this notion that you have more creative possibilities in digital post with digitally-captured images versus film-captured images.

 

[jonahlee]

Doesn't matter what format Tarantino shot Death Proof in, the movie is terrible any which way.

 

[TedSikora]

I'm a bit late, but I've been sick. First time poster. Love RED guys. Blog excerpt from my NAB review below.

www.herotomorrow.blogspot.com

The biggest buzz came from the RED Digital Cinema booth. Those who attended the Digital Production seminar at the Cleveland Int. Film Fest will recall that I was suggesting that RED will change the industry as we know it. After sticking my neck out on that one I feel completely vindicated after having experienced their booth.

Until NAB 2007 the Red One Camera was a concept and promise. The concept was based on the premise that - if we have digital still cameras that can create 11 megapixel images that are superior to 35mm, why can’t we take that same technology and apply it to sequencial video frames? It's important to note that they didn’t set out to make something as good as 35mm - they set out to make something better.

This year they were promising to show actual footage. And not just any footage – this was ‘12 minute short film shot by Mr. Peter Jackson starring Kevin Dillon’ footage.

The line to see the film really felt like the wait at an amusement park for the hot new ride. People from all over the globe waited hours to see what this small company from the U.S. of A (that’s right, America) developed. (Cap would be so proud.)

When I finally saw it I can tell you honestly that I was FLOORED. It has well over 4 times the pixels/definition of most current hi-def cameras. I couldn’t believe I was watching digital video, AND it gets even better because this footage was shot with a prototype camera that had NO internal settings and only one shutter speed. Much of the film was shot in the daylight and bright sun which is always the worst condition for digital video, but somehow these bastards actually pulled it off. Don’t take my word for it. Check out still frames and footage on their site.

This is a really hip company, and they really care about keeping this stuff affordable. The price point on the camera is around 18k - I don't know how they can do that. They're also in the process of developing the world's first mini-professional video camera ("not prosumer, mind you") as well as a 4k digital projector. I spoke briefly with company spokesman Ted Schilowitz at a Final Cut Users Group, and basically thanked him for what they are doing for us indie guys.

To date this is probably the most powerful tool digital filmmakers have ever seen. The camera comes out later this year and the worlds of 35mm and digital are about to level out considerably.

God bless you Red people.

 

[Desert Rune]

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)

Actually, I don't mind the film vs Red discussions. To me, it means Red is on to something. I'd be more worried if no one was debating Red vs film. As long as personal attacks are left out of discussions, I embrace them!

 

[Kyle_Doris]

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.

good post, that's basically how i feel exactly.