OK... Film vs. RED

[Sean]

I had a bad experience in the past downloading Azureus and being unable to completely uninstall it. Very invasive program. Wondering if Vuze has insited on an improvement to Azureus.

 

[RatX]

The film-vs-digital debate has pretty much come down to workflow. Sure, Stevie Spielberg and Ollie Stoned have the clout to demand the cumbersome celluloid process because they want to, and deserve the luxury of editing by hand. And the disrespect of asking Vittorio Storaro to shoot on DV! The old Masters have crafted their art by celluloid over decades, enthralling us with transcending flickerings in the dark sanctuary of the cinema. But change is upon us…

It’s great to see how some veterans have embraced new technology, mostly introduced by Hollywood’s respected gadget-fan at Skywalker Ranch. Michael Mann, David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh shooting digital. Walter Murch editing on Final Cut. Usually, they’ve taken up the digital camera because of the gratuitous immediacy of the workflow. Google up some interviews on the making of Apocalypto, Superman Returns, Zodiac, Miami Vice, etc… if you haven’t already. Pixel-originated movies can evoke those same thrills and gasps that the old film gurus blessed us with.

For the modern film-maker, knowing your technology is a must. And unless you’re booked for Spiderman 4 or having Tuesdays with Coppola, our budgets usually have us by the short ‘n curlies. One has to be cheap, fast, and deliver a masterpiece. Considering the pros of digital (40min takes, low-light capabilities, WYSIWYG, great-looking dailies, direct-to-post, just to mention a few) vs. the pros of film (better latitude, stuttering-grainy-contrasty-film-look (j/k , better dof, high-speed photography, and I’m not sure what else…) the decision should be simple. The answer is… RED! (and perhaps that 2K contraption from those Silicon Imaging guys – unless it’s sacrilege to mention them, oops). Forgive me, die-hard celluloid lovers. The latitude issues are almost covered by red, stuttering-grainy-contrasty-film-look can mostly be achieved in post if you really-really-really want it (ask Rodrigues how and so can slow motion (to an extent), dof is the same on the red. Spend more on your set design, lighting, rigging, pyros, catering and definitely, more on an effective post system (too many tears are shed over DIY blunders caused by undercutting postproduction).

While some (usually the religious hollywood old-timers) relish the process of “cut-checkthegate-print!” for the contemporary film-maker, it is simply cumbersome. The fifteen steps removed by shooting digitally allows one to work faster, be more streamlined, and sometimes actually finishing early with (gasp!) surplus $$$. The brutality of principal photography is grueling hours, bitching cast & crew, bad weather, budget cuts and Murphy’s Law. Don’t let the film process inhibit you further! When it’s gone dark, your actor’s just getting into the moment, you’ll have the shot in one more take, and tomorrow’s not an option on this location – you have to have that low-light capability, that extra time on the tape (oops – Red Drive), that assurance that your shot looks good and no damn lab might ruin it!

Film only really competes on acquisition and delivery. Film-only DP’s gotta catch up and learn how to see pixels and get over their emulsions. Cinemas gotta go digital – it’s basically glorified VHS, and pirated Blairwitch by the fiftieth viewing. Digital has caught up to film (Superman Returns, Zodiac, Apocalypto – these aren’t flukes) and RED not only surpasses what’s currently available for the digitally-enlightened, the little guy can get it now!

Well, that’s my two-cents.

 

[Craig Schober]

film still has workflow advantage today

film still has workflow advantage today

For the modern film-maker, knowing your technology is a must. And unless you’re booked for Spiderman 4 or having Tuesdays with Coppola, our budgets usually have us by the short ‘n curlies. One has to be cheap, fast, and deliver a masterpiece. Considering the pros of digital (40min takes, low-light capabilities, WYSIWYG, great-looking dailies, direct-to-post, just to mention a few) vs. the pros of film (better latitude, stuttering-grainy-contrasty-film-look (j/k , better dof, high-speed photography, and I’m not sure what else…)

i agree with all your sentiments except that you leave out the current workflow by choice for most is still film and will be for several more years. digital would be smooth and easy if it weren't for all those curmudgeon directors/dps/editors that love film so much. for every example of digital's streamlined workflow, there's an example of digital nightmares that bring production to a standstill and baffle old school dps and editors. but, like you say, in the hands of knowledgeable artists, digital will soon be the medium of not just efficiency but of choice too.

 

[Joe Carney]

I had a bad experience in the past downloading Azureus and being unable to completely uninstall it. Very invasive program. Wondering if Vuze has insited on an improvement to Azureus.

It's been updated several times over the last few months. It doesn't take over as your main bit torrent engine if you already have one installed. You can go into sort of an expert mode if you prefer the traditional bittorrent interface for general use.

 

[RatX]

i agree with all your sentiments except that you leave out the current workflow by choice for most is still film and will be for several more years. digital would be smooth and easy if it weren't for all those curmudgeon directors/dps/editors that love film so much. for every example of digital's streamlined workflow, there's an example of digital nightmares that bring production to a standstill and baffle old school dps and editors. but, like you say, in the hands of knowledgeable artists, digital will soon be the medium of not just efficiency but of choice too.

Hollywood is so traditional - it's a lot of "Don't mess with the system!" Rodriguez has this funny story he tells - "mom used to always cut the ends of the roast off. when asked about it, she said that's how her mom always did it. so they asked grandma and she said that's how her mom did it too. great-grandma was asked about it, and she said her pan was too small for the roast." Film has over a century behind it, so it'll take some time to convert the conservatives. It's started... and RED, I believe, is going to be a convincing preacher for the unbelievers!

 

[Craig Meadows]

The idea that the lower cost of entrance will open the gates to the masses and enable a new breed of film maker unleashing numerous quality and original films needs only to look at the history of desktop publishing.

When Aldus Pagemaker and the Apple LaserWriter printer first appeared everyone with publishing needs thought they could buy these two products and cut out the type setter, printer, ad agency, copy writers, illustrators, layout artist, etc. and do it themselves.

What did we get at the time? Alot of real, I mean real crappy looking news letters, rack cards, corporate reports, direct mail pieces, etc. They had the technology but lacked both talent and experience.

Luckily this same technology was adopted by the very professionals some thought antiquated or unneeded. The final realization then and now is that talent and a team of experienced professionals are required to complete professional level work.

Some would say the same thing happened with the emergence of digital video. Suddenly anyone could buy a mini-dv camera and make a movie. Of the thousands made how many are good enough to remember or make a difference?

The same will happen with high-end affordable digital imaging technology like Red. Many people will buy it. We will see alot of unremarkable stories. But, we will also see some marvelous footage and story telling. Those with talent, experience, and passion about their craft and knowledge of their tools will prevail.

 

[RatX]

The same will happen with high-end affordable digital imaging technology like Red. Many people will buy it. We will see alot of unremarkable stories. But, we will also see some marvelous footage and story telling. Those with talent, experience, and passion about their craft and knowledge of their tools will prevail.

Can't agree with you more. However, RED is not quite a VX1000, considering price, functionality and workflow. To get something shot and delivered, one needs rudimentary understanding of cinematography and have a workflow in place, and be willing to invest a substantial amount to ones setup. Not a simple "20G's and I'm set!"

Since publishing went desktop, we've seen that evolution - lots of crap as a start (and still plenty around) but people began to pick up on the art and craft. Today, there are numerous photoshop-jocks who produce astounding art -- as a hobby.

Video is still developing - but as technology improves for the masses, the talented and persistent plebs (needles in haystacks) can produce imagery that'll compete with ASC DP's.

Technology doesn't improve talent. It just sometimes brings it out. RED will never be a substitute for passion, talent, and hard work...

 

[Priyesh P.]

Can't agree with you more. However, RED is not quite a VX1000, considering price, functionality and workflow. To get something shot and delivered, one needs rudimentary understanding of cinematography and have a workflow in place, and be willing to invest a substantial amount to ones setup. Not a simple "20G's and I'm set!"

Video is still developing - but as technology improves for the masses, the talented and persistent plebs (needles in haystacks) can produce imagery that'll compete with ASC DP's.

Technology doesn't improve talent. It just sometimes brings it out. RED will never be a substitute for passion, talent, and hard work...

Then why do most of the high end 16 & 35mm productions suck?
The cameras they´re using are even more expensive than red and those people involved have more than just rudimentary skills.
It is not just a couple of skill sets but way more that makes a difference. Persistence, discipline, knowledge and so much more and I fear that most of the people who easily buy into equipments to solve their problems don´t really face all those factors involved.
You have only to read about the real issues great directors had to tackle on their way up, like James Cameron, Fincher, Gilliam and so on - it rarely were technical ones but social, economical, political and others.

Cheaper technology may lower some minor entrance hurdles for newcomers, but not more and not less.

 

[Stuart English]

RED following Digital Publishing?

RED following Digital Publishing?

The reference to Digital Publishing seems apt. But it is also true that the nett result of this lower cost digital technology is that today there is a vastly increased amount of high quality printed materials available in the marketplace. One has to assume that the number of professionals increased in a similar proportion, so many new players got a chance that would have otherwise been denied to them.

 

[OakleyKnockoffs]

RED - The camera looks better

Film - The image looks better

 

[yojorge]

where's da mini me?

where's da mini me?

RED - The camera looks better
Film - The image looks better

bitter aren't we?
hmm thus da knockoffs... hmm makes sense now...
so u trolln 'round or r u waiting 2 hear about dis misterious mini???

im hopn for a 2.5k sensor and still be able 2 ramp...
have interchangable lenses options with a special set built by red just 4 it...
and a price point that the now grown up dv kids can afford???

comments welcome...
:spidy:

 

[Poi Boy]

oaklynoof,
What an idiot !
-A

 

[mattbatt]

This is such a long thread—learned a lot.

My largest problems with digital are harsh edges, unrealistic color banding near the edges and moire patterns, blown out highs and a "plastic" feel to the images (I talked to many people who aren't pros or tech minded, all knew something was different about Superman—it felt, looked behaved different than film. Not having grain by no means = better. Grain is an artform. I do concede that not having grain can be a new artform, but digital will always contain some sort of noise, which is completely unusable and distracting. While putting digital back on film creates a sense of film, it still is different, that is why it is hard to say which is better. To me, grain is much more artistic than digital noise and artifacts)
.
My experience with film vs. digital for photography:
35mm at ISO 400 = 12-15 MP with greater fstops in sensitivity. A scanned 35mm = 80-100 MP which is why post editing, color correcting, curves, saturation, levels are more forgiving than digital—there is more data, not necessarily more detail however.

Shooting 4X5 film = 45-50 MP Hasselblad digital backs.

I'm guessing the RED may have a similar picture quality (though it is a little harsher) as compared to the dSLR Canon 5D (12.8MP, full frame camera). If so, I'd say it is reasonably safe to say that it is very close to 35mm film. Not medium format or anything, but 35mm.

Some samples for still photography:

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/proje...tal Shootout (Hasselblad, 35mm, Canon 5D).htm
Here is the Canon 5D vs. 35mm, 6x6 cm. Notice the canon 5d has great detail, more than 35mm, but 35 is much warmer, the edges aren't as blown out, but it has grain. For my taste, I love the softer grain over the blown out edges. the 6x6 cm does the best.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/santaysablefarm.htm
Look at the tree edges. Here we can see 4X5 compared to 35mm and the canon MarkII and 10 D. The 10D stands pretty similar to the 35mm, (compare bottom 2 images) and I'd say the Canon 5D is better than the 10D used, so if the Red is equal to a Canon 5D, it would be between the 2nd image and the 3rd from the bottom, film being at the bottom of the page).

 

[Joel Kaye]

more than 35mm, but 35 is much warmer

The Canon looked better to me. "warm" is a color - and I've got software for that. You obviously need to stick with film. In fact, I hope everyone does.

(cause I'm gonna be producing a lot faster using the RED work flow - and WORKFLOW is way more important than a bit of image quality to me).

 

[Rob Lohman]

and a "plastic" feel to the images (I talked to many people who aren't pros or tech minded, all knew something was different about Superman

This was an artistic choice (if I remember correctly). It's also difficult to compare a finished product since you don't see how the original footage looked, nor do you know what was done to the image.

it felt, looked behaved different than film.

Yes, digital is not film and film is not digital.

Not having grain by no means = better. Grain is an artform. I do concede that not having grain can be a new artform, but digital will always contain some sort of noise, which is completely unusable and distracting.

And grain is not "noise"?

I'm wondering if you do like digital SLR photos or not. Do they have the same plastic feel? Obviously they don't have the grain but do have the noise (although I rarely see it or find it distracting with my Canon DSLR).

I have to agree with joelnet. Perhaps you need to stick with film? Nothing wrong with that. To each his or her own!

 

[mattbatt]

T
And grain is not "noise"?

I'm wondering if you do like digital SLR photos or not. Do they have the same plastic feel? Obviously they don't have the grain but do have the noise (although I rarely see it or find it distracting with my Canon DSLR).

I have to agree with joelnet. Perhaps you need to stick with film? Nothing wrong with that. To each his or her own!

Ok, first of all, I just talked my aunt's producers into placing an order with RED for our next film project. And I have been a Mac fanatic for 15 years (since I was 10 years old) and love the plug in to FCP6. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to critique or strive for excellence, no matter who the company is—even though I have never shot a movie on 35mm. I do 35mm stills though. (I'm not 'big' yet—my background is as a graphic designer, photographer and film minor. I eventually want to work in this industry, though right now, I am working as a senior designer, but I love technology and what is forth and coming).

As a graphic designer, I major in detail, color, layout, form/function—this is my livelihood. Its what I do all day, everyday. Man, I can tell you, digital artifacts, banding, harsh edges—its not what anyone wants. That said, I am a believer in RED, though I think it can come farther along. It is where I want to go, though I'll use film however long I want, whenever I want, for artistic expression.

I haven't jumped on all this HD stuff—even when HD first came out. I never believed in it—it was too prosumer. You need to shoot higher res and compress down if you must. I've always had a large mindset and vision, 4k is what I like, so I was really excited about RED.

And if people want to talk about the future, they already have Super High Vision made, its just not feasible for broadcast streaming. But it puts 4k to shame—at 7680x4320. This resolution would be in one's livingroom too—think TV's becoming household walls.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php

ANYWAY, honestly, I see movies going to medium format resolution, which would be around 45-50 MP for a digital sensor (4X5 for film).

Yes, digital is an entire different medium than film, just like with dSLR's. And right now, no I don't like digital still photography—the Canon 5D is pretty good and has low noise—that's why I am willing to spend 3k for a dSLR when others are $500—but its not just MP or image size one needs to consider. It is the resolving power of the sensor, color gamut width, contrast sensitivity. There are numerous tests for digital CMOS sensors
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page31.asp
For me, it's all about the resolving power for lines because you see line throughout nature and within good composition and it becomes a nice article for movement. If your camera can't resolve line detail, or in digital's case, starts banding the edges between parrallel lines, its a problem for me.

Grain has always worked better for me in softness, skin detail, art. When digital stops blowing out my highs and edges, I'll be a better fan.

And by warmth, I mean softness. Try softening blown edges in photoshop without blurring the image. Try it.

Look at the edges in my last post's link—the 35mm doesn't resolve all the fine detail, but it starts to look like a watercolor painting—the grain becomes a type of canvas. Then look at the Canon 5D—its bright, sharp, clean and clear . . .but totally a digital feel. It's overly sharp, edges are more harsh, sure isn't photo realistic. Our eyes don't blow out edges—they become soft further in the background. Digital only knows 0's and 1's, so as it becomes 'stronger' with more megapixels, it actually becomes less realistic according to our eyes. Talk with pro photographers, they'll tell you, anything over 50MP actually resolves different and changes the photograph, DOF, refraction (because of the size of the sensor) and becomes problematic.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Then look at the Canon 5D—its bright, sharp, clean and clear . . .but totally a digital feel. It's overly sharp

No - film is overly soft. ;-)

Seriously though - that milk girls stuff looks like nice, soft, clean hi resolution footage to me. It's flat, but it's great. I'm happy right there - just give me that. You may see it differently and not really like the camera. That's totally cool... BUT I don't think shooting on film will sell one more ticket than would have been sold if the same movie was shot on RED. Sure YOU can tell the difference but not many civilians will alter their buying patterns if a movie is shot film opposed to RED.

 

[jaadgy akanni]

No - film is overly soft. ;-)

Seriously though - that milk girls stuff looks like nice, soft, clean hi resolution footage to me. It's flat, but it's great. I'm happy right there - just give me that. You may see it differently and not really like the camera. That's totally cool... BUT I don't think shooting on film will sell one more ticket than would have been sold if the same movie was shot on RED. Sure YOU can tell the difference but not many civilians will alter their buying patterns if a movie is shot film opposed to RED.

Incidently, the Milk Girls footage is closer to the look I'm gonna be shooting for than Crossing The Line, 'cause the latter IMHO is less organic looking, too smooth for my taste.

 

[krd]

BUT I don't think shooting on film will sell one more ticket than would have been sold if the same movie was shot on RED. Sure YOU can tell the difference but not many civilians will alter their buying patterns if a movie is shot film opposed to RED.

A few hundred posts back, I also argued that format considerations are all but irrelevant to audiences, but there is an issue here: dreams are not in 4K. Digital sharpness and increased resolution may actually work against dramatic illusion for a lot of people. And film grain, generation loss and projector weave may in fact increase viewer involvement in the action, by more closely replicating the lower-res dreaming state.

Maybe kids brought up on 4 and 7K! projectors will feel differently, but based on what we know now, virtually nobody prefers the tack sharp and rock solid image of HD acquisition and projection to film, for fiction (I haven't seen RED footage--maybe it's far more involving). This phenomenon, which arguably has a basis in human physiology and perception, could at some point affect ticket sales, unless digital is altered in post to look more like film (and dreams). Or people may conclude that there's not point going to a theater, since they can get the same digital source material, with much the same look, at home. Though, again, I can't speak to Red footage.

But it's also true that some people claimed CDs would kill off the music business, because vinyl was so much more natural-sounding, so who knows how consumers will respond....

 

[Rob Lohman]

Man, I can tell you, digital artifacts, banding, harsh edges—its not what anyone wants.

Exactly. This is why RED:

- does no sharpening WHAT SO EVER. If you want to sharpen in post, go right ahead. We're not going to burn that choice in your footage however.

- has a 12-bit signal to deal with banding

- drops no samples (like 4:1:1 or 4:2:0) and is full raster (unlike 1440 x 1080 for example)

- developed our own compression to combat digital artifacts as much as possible. A cool thing about Wavelet compression is that the artifacts tend to make an image slightly softer and reduce noise instead of blocking etc.

- offers an uncompressed output option if you feel that our compression still introduces more artifacts than you're happy with

Obviously when you were to output to film you will get a bit softer image automatically than when you were to project digital. However, for digital projection you can slightly soften the image if that's preferred. It's way harder to undo sharpening (which a lot of camera's do before recording the data).

In the end we're here to give you choice. To give the film maker another tool to work with. If you choose to use it, great. If you stick with film that's cool too.