OK... Film vs. RED

[Graeme Nattress]

Axel, maybe you can help here..... Our Stouffer test wedge we use for measuring dynamic range has a 4.0d optical density range, and that equates to 13.3 stops. A stop being 0.3d. And as I read, Cineon works over a just over 2.0d range, which would be the above math equate to a miserly 6.6 stops. What am I missing here?

Graeme

 

[Bachman]

Regarding the use of video and the non excusable burn outs: Using the zebra function is therefor a must, its meant to save you butt and it does if used the right way. Most time.

Hey Axel. As an editor I have a constant battle with DP's over burn outs (and time code breaks). I work in Australia and New Zealand and we have very hash sunlight/shadow levels which push the limits of Digital video. Some DPs wont use zebras, because they feel it's an insult to their intellegence. Im interested to see how our RED will handle these conditions but so far the stuff they shot with PJ looks promising.

Cheers Tony

 

[Fix]

If Im not misstaken.. They dident use any suport of zebra shoothing the PJ flick with Red? Or Did I totally miss out something? Pretty remarkable dealing with a LCD screen and not EVF. But than again, they did underexpose in a couple of shoots. I cant blame them. sun+lcd screen= not good.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Just saw "Next", shot digitally on the Genesis camera, shot by David Tattersal, who has a lot of digital experience from the Star Wars movies.

As a frame of reference, I peaked into the next door theater showing "In the Land of Women", shot in Super-35 on Fuji stocks by Paul Cameron.

My immediate response was that "In the Land of Women" looked a lot better, richer colors, contrast, sharper.

The trouble with "Next", ignoring the occasional telltale digital clues, is that most people will think it was shot on film -- just that it was some sort of mediocre film stock. Blacks are not that black but don't have decent shadow detail in them, whites are often clipped-looking (and this camera has about 11 stops of exposure range) and there is a persistent low-level noise that looks like grain. Plus the image looks simultaneously soft but sharpened and edgy. Skintones are sort of that bland band-aid color you see from some digital cameras.

Just thinking about how much richer the next door movie looked, shot on film, made me worried all over again about the rush to switch to digital. Lately I've gone to see every digitally-shot movie in a theater (Zodiak, Reign Over Me, Grindhouse - pt. 1, The Lookout, etc.) plus I've seen trailers for other digital movies like "Super-Bad". Most look pretty close to film, it's just that it's sort of mediocre film from a technical standpoint. Sort of depressing actually. I think the lack of resolution is one problem, since none of these used 4K cameras -- despite the fact that most 35mm D.I.'s are done at 2K, there still seems to be an advantage from working with an "oversampled" image in post. The quality of 35mm-to-2K is still higher than 2K digital origination.

Also, the 2K digitally-shot movies that end up getting released from an IP/IN dupe, seem to suffer more - the lack of quality and resolution get accentuated.

 

[Mike Devlin]

David were any of the digitally originated films you saw projected digitally, and did that make any difference relative to film projection?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

None of them were released digitally as far as I know, although I didn't look hard (I wanted to see "Next" in the neighborhood). I'm sure it would have helped, although in the case of "Zodiak", the transfer to film helps keep it from looking too modern and digital. Same for "Grindhouse". Both are attempting some of sort of 70's moviemaking aesthetic. But a sci-fi movie like "Next" probably should have been released digitally. I mean, I'm sure some of the look was intentional, maybe a faint bleach-bypass look was attempted digitally, but it didn't come off quite as intended. And I think the studio should have spent the money to release it on a print stock with deeper blacks, which would have hid some problems and improved the sharpness. But I worry about digital cinematography needing so much "babying" just to get it to look good in the theaters. When film goes "bad" it still looks like film, just bad film.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Let's take a step back here and look at the back end of the film vs digital debate. The manufacturing and developing of film involves a a few less than desirable chemicals that are disposed of by way of drain or incineration. The impact on the environmental isn't huge and there have been steps to make it less so with closing the loop for some chemicals and recovery processes for others- but the impact would be even less if there weren't several million kilograms of the stuff used every year.

Digital has its own problems here but the Red camera's impact over its lifespan will be a fraction of what an Arri 435's was.

I'm not a greenie but I played in in this post.

 

[Joel Kaye]

My immediate response was that "In the Land of Women" looked a lot better, richer colors, contrast, sharper.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the best film will beat the best digital to some eyes (DP's, Directors, etc.) for a long time... but it's not going to matter to audiences.

So yeah, I can see that being a bit depressing. Kinda like the disappearance of analogue audio depresses some audiophiles.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Philosophically, I just don't want to sacrifice image quality for convenience, budget, ease of post, whatever, even though practically I have to do that everyday. I'm still an avid and ardent moviegoer ultimately. I want to go to see a movie on a big screen and be impressed, that's all.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

David,

and do you think RED will be a worthy contestant for Film, as far as image quality goes?

Thanks,

 

[android]

¿has someone here . or had, in your hands aRED camera?Too much talk , too little first hand info .I would like to talk to somebody who earned one of this cameras ,I want to buy two of them!!!!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Both the RED and the Dalsa camera seem to be the best digital movie cameras out there, not having seen more footage coming from either.

I've noticed over the years a trend of a new digital camera coming out, the initial footage looks fantastic, and then over the years as you see actual movies shot on it, for various reasons, it looks less-than-fantastic. It tends to make me wary. I think that many of these cameras in best-case scenarios take great pictures, but in the real-world situation of making a feature with thousands of shots in it, the weaknesses come out of hiding.

I'm not so interested in the "good enough" arguments because good-enough technology tends to be "not-quite-as-good" when pushed to the limits, and most movies push the technology to the limits, either accidentally or intentionally.

I'm just talking about ideal picture quality, not what's affordable or practical.

So I hope that the RED camera, being 4K with decent dynamic range, will overcome some of the traditional limitations of digital cinematography and allow us to maintain a best-case scenario of image quality in the theater.

 

[Mardi_Gras]

... So I hope that the RED camera, being 4K with decent dynamic range, will overcome some of the traditional limitations of digital cinematography and allow us to maintain a best-case scenario of image quality in the theater.

Hi David,

Its a pleasure reading your posts here. I always learn a lot from them. My question to you is, do you intend to take up on Jim's offer to test one of the prototypes yourself, soon? It would really be interesting plus very resourceful having someone of your calibre (professionally) getting down and dirty with the RedOne and posting your impressions afterwards. Is this something you might soon undertake?

 

[Tom Lowe]

How will the dynamic range on the RED compare to the Panavision Genesis?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Give me a Genesis I'll tell you

Graeme

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure I'll get a chance to try out the camera soon, maybe this summer.

It's hard to do extensive tests without the financial umbrella of a production to pay for them. If I wanted to compare the RED to a 35mm camera, I'm sure I could do the test at a rental house, but then there is the whole problem of finding a place to do a 4K scan of the footage, and then if I wanted to color-correct RED side-by-side in a D.I. theater, and then if I wanted to film out the tests at 4K to 35mm, etc. So it's a lot of favors to ask if it's just for my own edification. For now, I'd probably just get some frames scanned at 4K and just compare them on a computer.

 

[Jim McKinney]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the best film will beat the best digital to some eyes (DP's, Directors, etc.) for a long time... but it's not going to matter to audiences.

Sorry to disagree - somewhat. While many might not notice, many others will - either conciously in a way they can state - or in an inarticulate but discernable awareness.

It's like my step-mother asking some years ago why all the BBC exteriors looked so different than the interior shots.

-Jim McKinney

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I'm sure I'll get a chance to try out the camera soon, maybe this summer.

It's hard to do extensive tests without the financial umbrella of a production to pay for them. If I wanted to compare the RED to a 35mm camera, I'm sure I could do the test at a rental house, but then there is the whole problem of finding a place to do a 4K scan of the footage, and then if I wanted to color-correct RED side-by-side in a D.I. theater, and then if I wanted to film out the tests at 4K to 35mm, etc. So it's a lot of favors to ask if it's just for my own edification. For now, I'd probably just get some frames scanned at 4K and just compare them on a computer.

Luki -
I think it would be very smart if you could help Mr. Mullen out here - I'm sure he'd love to play with some REDCODE RAW in SCRATCH - maybe eFilm would be happy to help out with some Northlight scans and Record out tests ...? Just a suggestion ....

 

[Joel Kaye]

Sorry to disagree - somewhat. While many might not notice, many others will - either conciously in a way they can state - or in an inarticulate but discernable awareness.

I guess I haven't really tested RED vs. Film with my step mother yet. I'd agree that 1/3" and 2/3" chip stuff often looks video-ish vs. film - even to the untrained eye.

But how many fewer people saw Superman or Zodiac because they were digital? My guess is ZERO. Ergo - shooting digitally doesn't matter to the mass audience IMHO. At that point whatever's cheapest, fastest and safest will win out UNLESS a DP/Director overrides those things and goes for THEIR ideal for highest quality because movies are part "art" after all. I also think we'll see the argument that film is safer for a while.

 

[Michael Hastings]

pretty close to film

pretty close to film

David:

I think you make a good point. Up until the mid-eighties the television networks basically spent whatever it took to get the best image quality (within the limits of NTSC), spending 10 or 20K more (in real 1980s dollars) for cameras to get a couple percentage points better performance. Then the trend started to reverse and it was all about getting the minimum acceptable for the cheapest cost.

I hope the highend features don't follow this trend, and continue to try to put the most they can up on the screen. I think it was Spielberg or Lucas that pointed out that whether he spent 30 million or 300 million making the movie, they still charged the same price for a ticket at the box office - and that is one of the beauties of modern film - we get to see some amazing stuff for our $9 admission.

As a video guy for 25 years, with a niche, and some good credits; as far as feature production goes I'm still a wannabe. The RED system gives me a chance to upgrade the stock nature stuff I've been doing, but it also allows me to experiment with feature style production, and produce a short demo of a feature idea (similar to the PJ short shot with RED) to prove you can do it and generate some excitement to help raise funds - without the major outlay for film stock.

If RED proves to be a useful tool to really achieve the highest quality - either by itself or in combination with post production software tools - then that will be great. If it seems to max out at almost the top quality - well that's fine too because it still makes a lot of smaller budget projects feasible - and I will be happy with my investment. But I think a funeral for film is a bit premature, and the death of film isn't necessary for RED to be an important step forward.

Just thinking about how much richer the next door movie looked, shot on film, made me worried all over again about the rush to switch to digital. Lately I've gone to see every digitally-shot movie in a theater...

Most look pretty close to film, it's just that it's sort of mediocre film from a technical standpoint. Sort of depressing actually.

from later post:
Philosophically, I just don't want to sacrifice image quality for convenience, budget, ease of post, whatever, even though practically I have to do that everyday. I'm still an avid and ardent moviegoer ultimately. I want to go to see a movie on a big screen and be impressed, that's all.