OK... Film vs. RED

[Thomas Mathai]

I really do not see the big deal of having to re-archive. Diogn film-outs are so expensive..why not use some of that money towards making digital backup copies. Earthquakes and wars? "the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec. " If an archaeologist did find a film reel.. it could very well be decomposed by then (depending on how long we are talking here). I agree it is nice to have my project last for a million years..but this reason alone is not going to hold me back from going the digital route.

How many projects have you been re-archiving?

That's the thing, to keep re-archiving means either you pay someone to do it for years, or you do it yourself and be willing to do it consistantly.

 

[Tom Lowe]

If what you say is true, why did they bother shooting Half Nelson on film and doing a 2k DI? It had all the other elements - great story and acting. Why not shoot it on on an XL2? Because that would have limited its ability to get released in multiplexes. And that's with a big-name star in the lead. Imagine how much shooting on an XL2 would have hamstrung that movie without Gosling.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

For all the times I have seen this posted here, I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone here claim that the sensor will improve their sets, script, actors, etc. This is a strawman argument we have seen a billion times here needlessly.



Yes it does matter worth a damn. With all other factors being equal = acting, lighting, sound, script... a motion picture shot on RED will be far more impressive than one shot on an HVX, for example. DOF and image quality do matter.

Matter to who??

What 16-36 year old average male is going to notice?

Give the audience what they want and they won't notice the crappy paint job.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Hi KRD, welcome to Reduser. I don't think everyone agrees with your proposition regarding image quality as far as resolution, dynamic range, etc. Have you tried to market a feature shot on SD to a HD cable channel recently?

Actually if you run SD material through a Teranex box, it holds up nicely in HD. It's not the same as shooting HD, but still isn't bad.

 

[krd]

If what you say is true, why did they bother shooting Half Nelson on film and doing a 2k DI? It had all the other elements - great story and acting. Why not shoot it on on an XL2? Because that would have limited its ability to get released in multiplexes. And that's with a big-name star in the lead. Imagine how much shooting on an XL2 would have hamstrung that movie without Gosling.

I swore the last one would be the last one, but here goes: they shot on film and performed a DI because they had the money to do so.

Had they not succeeded in raising sufficient funds for film, but had all the other elements in place, any number of $5000 cameras would have done just fine, offering a full account of the drama.

I am NOT advocating that anyone shoot on an inferior format. I'm asserting that the perceived differences between formats -- once a reasonable standard of quality is satisfied -- is of far less importance (all else being equal), aesthetically and commercially, than people here want to admit.

Finally, "Half Nelson" didn't make much money, film and DI notwithstanding. And there is no evidence that video origination hobbles a film's likelihood of release. As I've noted in previous post, some pretty ugly and poorly shot films have succeeded in getting national releases, while any number of $1-$5 million fiascos have never seen the light of day.

 

[donatello b]

"Look at the handful of "independent" films which have been modestly successful over the past 20 years or so. Nearly all of them had pretty terrible production values, by "professional" standards."

IMO "handful" is the word ... yes the general public will watch a movie with bad production values, so so image, bad lighting etc BUT they are not going to go out to the cinema and watch one of these every week ... i pay $10-12 and i expect to see quality and yes i'll put up with a few bad images(films) but not film after film - hey on free TV i'll take a look but if i'm paying then show me something that at least looks GOOD ...
ie: the movie Tadpole was shot on a hand size DV camera .. had big star in it -IMO it wasn't a dv type project .. they shot it as if it was 35mm ... why didn't they just shoot 35? they had the names - it looks OK on TV but on big screen it falls apart ... GIVE me a REFUND ...

 

[Tom Lowe]

And there is no evidence that video origination hobbles a film's likelihood of release.

Haha. Then why isn't everyone shooting on XL2s? They could save millions in film costs! Why did Nolan shoot Memento on 35mm? What a fool! He could have shot that on betacam! According to you there is "no evidence" shooting on a crummy SD camera might have hurt Nolan's chances of getting into multiplexes - which is where many of us saw Memento.

 

[Gbabymogul]

Filmmaking
Giving filmmakers the choice to use all of their art - 35mm DOF, DR, color, movement range is the difference between a DVX100 and RED. That's real choice.

Biz
If i walk into a distributors office with a DVX100 feature or a 65mm feature (with all else being equal) you can be sure there's a difference.
If my film screens at a fest and the artifacts take the audience out of the story because i tried to tell a 35mm story with a SD camera, you can be sure
the storytelling isn't as effective.

Audience
The audience will tell the difference depending on the story you intend to tell. This is the reason why most digital films at that level have a specificity of story. If your trying to sell them with aesthetics that don't compliment the story then it's counterproductive and wasting money. Just as you wouldn't hire your kid brother to play Henry the 8th, you wouldn't shoot a story that demanded 35mm aesthetics with a handycam.

I've yet to see an SD film that tried to mimic 35mm aesthetics be effective, no matter how good the story. Where those films work is when the format fits thematically with the story.

Do you think that Lawrence of Arabia would have been just the same corker of a film if it was shot on the DVX100 ? I don't.

 

[PaulClements]

One of the big bonuses for me with Red vs Film is the opportunity to learn via trial and error. No respectable DP, cameraman, AC or whatever you are, or want to be, should ever believe they know it all. That ability to spend days and weeks shooting absolutely nothing and be able to see what works and doesn't work is an invaluable asset that film simply cannot offer because of it's cost. With Red you are less limited by the capabilities of the camera as you would be by a prosumer camcorder and less limited by the costs than you would be by current digital cinema cameras. The result is that you can harness techniques and skills at a higher level.

Interestingly, the skills learnt through the adoption of RedOne will help people to work with film. For instance a film school with a hundred students can shoot endless amounts of footage using lighting, lenses, accessories and so on and gain an understanding of the process that can easily be applied to shooting with film.

Strangely, RedOne then becomes a tool that could actually benefit Film.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

If what you say is true, why did they bother shooting Half Nelson on film and doing a 2k DI? It had all the other elements - great story and acting. Why not shoot it on on an XL2? Because that would have limited its ability to get released in multiplexes. And that's with a big-name star in the lead. Imagine how much shooting on an XL2 would have hamstrung that movie without Gosling.

Why did they bother shooting 28 Days later ON an XL1??

Did they have a lot of limits going into multiplexes?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Ok Jim.
You did it!
The worms are out -

Have fun!

Gunleik

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Haha. Then why isn't everyone shooting on XL2s? They could save millions in film costs! Why did Nolan shoot Memento on 35mm? What a fool! He could have shot that on betacam! According to you there is "no evidence" shooting on a crummy SD camera might have hurt Nolan's chances of getting into multiplexes - which is where many of us saw Memento.

Maybe because they are shooting more with DVX100s?

 

[krd]

Haha. Then why isn't everyone shooting on XL2s? They could save millions in film costs! Why did Nolan shoot Memento on 35mm? What a fool! He could have shot that on betacam! According to you there is "no evidence" shooting on a crummy SD camera might have hurt Nolan's chances of getting into multiplexes - which is where many of us saw Memento.

I'm not sure you're actually reading my posts. We're talking here about the films likely to be made by participants in this forum -- people who aren't being financed by national distributors, cable TV or Hollywood studios, and who have no money to spare.

On a project like Memento (comparatively low budget though it was), film stock and processing was not a decisive cost. I believe C. Nolan *could* have shot on a lesser format, with equal success (assuming a good film transfer), but there was clearly no reason to do so. He and his investors had a choice, and they made the obvious and sensible one, given their much larger investment in production and cast.

Conversely, Robert Rodriguez thinks HD is the last word in acquisition formats and has nothing but scorn for film -- which I suspect many people here would laugh at or bewail. But, obviously, his choice of HD, with maybe half the effective resolution of film, has absolutely no bearing on his commercial success, apart from reducing his production costs.

The point being: after a certain threshold of resolution and fidelity is reached, the acquisition format is irrelevant for mass-audiences, not only for the tone-deaf 13-36 year-old males one of my few defenders on this board cited, but also art house audiences looking for something new or different.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

A couple of points I want to randomly make...

Regarding whether audiences care about picture quality, what matters is that I care. Generally audiences want to be entertained, they want to be wowed, impressed, emotionally engaged, intellectually tickled, etc. There really isn't one type of movie experience, one type of film goer, one type of movie.

But in general, people go to be entertained by filmmakers who know how to entertain them -- i.e. people who know what they are doing. And in order to know what they are doing, they generally have to know more about their field than the average audience member. When I buy a house, I don't have to care as much about architecture or construction as the people who built it, but I expect them to care about such details. If I get an operation, then the surgeon better care more about the art & science of surgery than I do. Audiences don't care because they don't have to care -- they expect US (the filmmakers) to care, to care about whatever is important for that particular production and the viewing experience it is designed to deliver. Maybe that's a high level of technical polish, but maybe not. "Clerks" didn't have to look like "Lawrence of Arabia", in fact, it might have been detrimental to its charm if it did.

My other comment is that you guys can argue as logically as you want regarding why RED is a better choice than film, but movies are made by flawed, emotional, sometimes illogical human beings with a wide variety of tastes, eccentricities, prejudices, passions, etc. Movies aren't made by robots and accountants. Not everyone is going to come to the same personal conclusions as to what the right choice will be for them, particularly if they have some freedom to try different formats for different projects.

Look at Super-8 and how it's still hanging on, despite DV, HDV, etc. Can you say that it's a logical choice of format to work in? Probably not, but some people have an emotional investment in that little format.

 

[Desert Rune]

My other comment is that you guys can argue as logically as you want regarding why RED is a better choice than film, but movies are made by flawed, emotional, sometimes illogical human beings with a wide variety of tastes, eccentricities, prejudices, passions, etc.

Respectfully, there hasn't been much choice other than film.

It's only been in the last couple of years that digital cinema has progressed to a point it can seriously challenge film.

 

[Gbabymogul]

A couple of points I want to randomly make...

Regarding whether audiences care about picture quality, what matters is that I care. Generally audiences want to be entertained, they want to be wowed, impressed, emotionally engaged, intellectually tickled, etc. There really isn't one type of movie experience, one type of film goer, one type of movie.

I agree completely ,David. As a writer/director i look to have the script/story tell me what it needs, regardless of the marketplace, the audience, or the tech etc... I'll do my best to serve it to the best of my ability. Rarely have the same story demands been the same twice, which is why i find it perplexing that some people would assert that one shoe can fit all beneath a certain budget.

And your artist statement is true enough. Just to prove it - Paraphrasing Jarred about this forum "we're all bananas". I think it's part of being creative.

 

[Tonaci Tran]

How many projects have you been re-archiving?

That's the thing, to keep re-archiving means either you pay someone to do it for years, or you do it yourself and be willing to do it consistently.

discs still have a decent 5-10 year lifespan (blu-ray is like 10 yrs). even if we have to pay someone to re-archive.. its still way cheaper than film:

"For short films, about $350/minute for 35mm; sound, negatives, and print all included. $250/minute for 16mm. A feature-length transfer to 35mm can be as low as $20,000 (75 min) or $13,000 for 16mm (75 min). Also see our prices page, and try our JavaScript rate calculator."

Either way you look at it..not all of us can afford to shoot film, nor backup on it. Even when the time comes when I can afford, I'd rather opt for digital option..rather than film.

Mike Curtis discussed had this quote on his blog:

"“You walk into a film archive, and what you smell is the image coming off the print,”

....and then went on to advocate for lossless digital backups, with a schedule for migrating that data, checking that data for problems, etc:

Sun’s motion-picture archiving model is based around an enterprise-class tape library with a front-end server and disk drive. A studio would maintain two complete libraries in different locations, and each library would include two complete copies of each movie. The library would comprise components that would be changed out on a regular schedule – every five years for the computers and disks, every 10 years for the actual tapes (with an audit of each tape to be conducted every six months to keep on top of any developing problems), and every 20 years for the library systems. Data would be stored in an open tarball data format; as it’s copied from tape to tape, it can be recorded in whatever file format the current tape system uses. Content would be kept in the clear (unencrypted) and uncompressed for maximum readability in the future. The archive would have no network connectivity."

Newer and better long term digital archiving solutions will continue to come out like this.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I really don't know what kind of competition this is. Being of the younger set / having shot digital since I was a kid and knowing an online NLE work-flow, film seems like a real legacy format that hasn't been abandoned because the people who grew up shooting it haven't died off yet. I feel like people often get really romantic with the format because all of their favorite films were shot on film, but in time that will change. And in time, the Hollywood system will hopefully become de-centralized thanks to online distribution and developments like the Red. And if it does, digital formats like the RED will be very important to the future of movie-making.

Neither the RED or any digital format is perfect. Digital has its own quirks that are unique to itself and that is fine. What it really comes down to (in my opinion) is the market... if digital distribution does change the way that films are made and theaters become less prevalent then movies will become more niche, make less money, but increase in quality because of sheer numbers. And, if movies are making less because of a re-defined distribution system then the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to telling your story won't be 1-2 gained stops of latitude, but price and familiarity.

And if the future is commanded by a bunch of young-guns, then they will be most familiar with digital, they will work around any quirks just as Hollywood filmmakers have been working around the quirkiness of film forever. Whats exiting is that possibly very soon the only factor determine a films success will be the talent and the quality of the storytelling (as apposed to the quality of a filmmakers contacts and marketing strategy). Imagine: in a couple of years our kids will grow up with 4k camera's that we pass down to them and are editing on our "old" 8-core Macs, uploading their features on iTunes and having showings at friends homes on mass-market 4k projectors.

Exited about the future.

There will always be young guns in the future looking to mix things up.

Remember Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Lynch, Scorsesse, etc were film school young guns who took on the industry.

Now they are the mainstream. The industry adjusted to them and brought them into the fold.

The industry will adjust itself even more as digital cinema takes off.

I can see the film industry moving to a broadcast workflow, faster and shorter production schedules on smaller budgets. More product released for a one week or less depending on how good the numbers are.

With digital delivery, an exhibitor can replace a movie easily if it's not filling seats.

Sure everyone talks about bypassing the theaters and bringing content to the consumer directly online. The telcos own the backbones and know this will happen and want their share of it.

While there will be $200 to $300 million films being made, I think a majority of films will be cheap.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are regional filmmakers, those who do well in a particular market and just stick to that. Less headache and risk than trying to break out nationally.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

consistently...but not necessarily frequently. discs still have a decent 5-10 year lifespan (blu-ray is like 10 yrs). even if we have to pay someone to re-archive.. its still way cheaper than film:

"For short films, about $350/minute for 35mm; sound, negatives, and print all included. $250/minute for 16mm. A feature-length transfer to 35mm can be as low as $20,000 (75 min) or $13,000 for 16mm (75 min). Also see our prices page, and try our JavaScript rate calculator."

Drives will getting cheaper. Newer and better long term digital archiving solutions will continue to come out.

What are the long term digital archiving solutions?

 

[Tonaci Tran]

i guess it depends on how you define long term. To reiterate, I'm not saying digital archiving is "better", I just think its more cost effective and is really my only option..as I can't afford to archive on film. Additionally, archiving might be a "inconvenience" but so is forking 20,000-100,000 dollars. As always, if money is no issue.. back on on both if thats the case.

Below is a possible option I read on Mike Curtis' blog.

"Mike Curtis discussed had this quote on his blog:

"“You walk into a film archive, and what you smell is the image coming off the print,”

....and then went on to advocate for lossless digital backups, with a schedule for migrating that data, checking that data for problems, etc:

Sun’s motion-picture archiving model is based around an enterprise-class tape library with a front-end server and disk drive. A studio would maintain two complete libraries in different locations, and each library would include two complete copies of each movie. The library would comprise components that would be changed out on a regular schedule – every five years for the computers and disks, every 10 years for the actual tapes (with an audit of each tape to be conducted every six months to keep on top of any developing problems), and every 20 years for the library systems. Data would be stored in an open tarball data format; as it’s copied from tape to tape, it can be recorded in whatever file format the current tape system uses. Content would be kept in the clear (unencrypted) and uncompressed for maximum readability in the future. The archive would have no network connectivity."

the lto option by quantum:
"Easy to Deploy - With its included gigabit Ethernet interface and built-in FTP, A-Series data tape drives can be easily attached to any network where they become instantly accessible to every workstation and server through Windows Explorer and standard browsers. The system can be used in stand-alone, rackmount and table-top configurations and the new SuperLoader 3A can be integrated into the full range of robotic tape libraries.

Flexible - The data tape format of the A-Series data tape drives includes a file system on the tape, making any cartridge readable anywhere, anytime. Traditional video archiving uses proprietary management software, which dictates that tapes must remain locked in a library system in order to restore any data. Quantum's Super DLTtape II cartridges are free from this restraint; they can be easily moved between libraries, stand-alone drives and even video facilities. With this flexibility, A-Series drives are ideal for serving the full range of video applications -- from hand-carrying video content out to a truck for live production to a facility-wide, long-term and secure archive.

Secure Yet Accessible - Quantum's Super DLTtape II data cartridges have a robust 30-year archival life that ensures the longevity of precious video content. At the same time, the A-Series is an ideal solution for archiving content because the files remain easily accessible. The A-Series enables partial restores of subclip files by timecode or even metadata with an ease unlike any other data tape solution – establishing a new level of accessibility in data tape that defines "working storage."

Unmatched Performance and Capacity - At a native 36 MB/s, data transfer is many times faster than real-time, even in HD. At a native capacity of 300GB per tape, a single tape can accommodate more than six hours of 100 Mb/s HD content.

Cost-Effective - In addition to its file-based, faster-than-real-time access to HD, SD and data assets, the A-Series data tape drives are a much more cost-effective storage solution than video tape. Because it is built on Quantum's popular, industry-leading DLT platform, the A-Series platform benefits from significant economies of scale."