OK... Film vs. RED

[Kjetil Haugen]

If anybody has the King Kong production diaries on dvd you should watch the "follow a roll of film" segment. Then come back here...

 

[Bachman]

True, but lasering to film costs just as much from a DI or RED... so there's no difference between the formats here.

It's like saying "you have to light RED, so it costs more there" Well no kidding! You have to light film too.

Absolutely.. projection is the last frontier of course

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

It's like saying "you have to light RED, so it costs more there" Well no kidding! You have to light film too.

Brook, are you saying that RED won't have a night vision mode? There goes my Paris Hilton short film idea!

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

If Jim could do the same thing with projectors...that is: release a 4k projector for less than 10% of what anyone else is. Gee, that'd be a bigger revolution than even Red One! I would think you'd see entire chains of cinemas converting wholesale.

Brilliant, Shawn! I see it now . . . a chain of RED 4K cinemas. Showing all RED-acquired films, 24-hours a day! It would be a RED Perma-fest!

 

[goldyprog]

Jim,

I think your original list of advantages, costs/benefits, etc. is going to expand. Over time, I think Red users are going to find many, many more advantages, benefits etc., particularly useability in unique environments, along with performance. Specifically, I think environments and conditions outside of what one can do with 35 or Imax is going to be an incomparable benefit-- kind of along the lines of that 'Red in Space' topic. In feature production, even commercials, longer takes, best res on the market, bang for buck, etc. The list not only goes on and on, these benefits are incomparable.

So excited about this camera......

 

[casey warren]

Now, maybe there's room for my ancillary film vs. video argument. I think Ted said it best in the Apple demo video. To grossly paraphrase his statement, "it doesn't look like video, and it doesn't look like film--it's something different." I think "something different" is just great! Completely noiseless, high-resolution imagery will enable new styles of motion video and motion graphics design. I say, it's time for us to break some new ground, visually, with this new tool.

Jim,

I think your original list of advantages, costs/benefits, etc. is going to expand. Over time, I think Red users are going to find many, many more advantages, benefits etc., particularly useability in unique environments, along with performance. Specifically, I think environments and conditions outside of what one can do with 35 or Imax is going to be an incomparable benefit-- kind of along the lines of that 'Red in Space' topic. In feature production, even commercials, longer takes, best res on the market, bang for buck, etc. The list not only goes on and on, these benefits are incomparable.

So excited about this camera......

I agree. I think that RED and will push the entire visual industry to the next level. I mean, to be honest, the images coming from most HD tv's looks like pixelated mush thats way to over-sharpened. For example, today I turned on my old slide film projector and looked through some old slides.....the images looked so nice when compared to the whole HD tv look, and the images (minus the grain) looked like the footage from RED, just silky smooth.

I think we will see, in the following year(s), will be a whole new realm of "home theater" where companies want to break out of the limits of HD, and move into true cinematic quality. And the RED team is leading the way in doing this.

I think the quality of motion graphics and visual image presentation will be completely pushed beyond the next level. I am so glad that this forum has been created for people to share and be a part in this revolution.

And, pertaining to "film vs RED" ...its clear that RED is the winner. Who really cares if film might have a couple more stops when you can Shoot, View (in real time), Offload, Edit and Present....in one continuous workflow that is so tightly integrated that ONE single person can do it..... That right there to me is the magic of RED - Quality. Simplicity. Efficiency.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

If I had the $100 million budget, I'd still shoot with RED. Clean images going straight into a hard drive, ready to be copied indefinitely and edited on-set while we shoot.

Edit while you shoot. Color grade while you light the set. The DP and the colorist work together on set. HD-DVD or Blu-ray dailies burned on the spot. Have a rough cut ready a few days after production wraps. The revolution is the melding of production and post-production into one step, with no compromise in visual quality.

 

[laguun]

Hmm French...I have french grandparents. Remember the Rainbow Warrior?

yes, we even made a documentary about this "patriotic" murders.
luckily, >95% of the french meanwhile are ashamed of what happened to the "rainbow warrior" and even more important - france most probably will never dare to test its nuclear warheads in the pacific once more.

from a dop pov however, nuclear tests are qute challenging when it comes to dynmanic range and lattitude *duck*

 

[Keith Alan Morris]

If I had a 100 million, I'd shoot with the Red too. Especially after seeing the PJ clip. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Ken Corben]

2. Cost to use- advantage RED
The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film.

Number 2 on Jannard's list is HUGE! Will buyers notice your feature was not shot on 35mm (looks like video)? If lit and shot professionally HELL NO would be my opinion.

I ran into an established indie writer/director at a park in West Hollywood today - we were both there with our 3 year old sons. I asked when he's doing his next feature - loved the last one. He said talent was signed and partial financing was in place just waiting on the presales to start filming. After listetning to the story pitch I asked him, "Heard of REDONE digital cinema?" After a moment of silence I gave him the RED DP pitch in plain English. I was then offered the DP job - the point being there's $300K+ that is not required to make the movie. A green light where there may have been none. This is the revolution that is Redcinema in my book. RED VS 35mm really comes down to the DP for the look - and if the script sucks just say you shot it with Cinealta.

The $100 million question:
If Bruckheimer and Bay ask you to shoot Armageddon:Orbital Return would you fight for Redcinema? I would. Imagine completing a difficult expensive scene. You can A) check the gate, move on and wait for tomorrow's dailies or B) while A-list talent is in their trailer getting a shiatsu massage and the crew is relighting for the turn around you can load the footage, add your saved "look" and view the takes real time and then probably have time left over to view the rough cut of the feature to check for continuity, pacing and ??????

 

[Tom Lowe]

Okay, Jim, I'm with you. But if you are so confident, then shoot something beautiful and amazing with the camera already. Prove it can hang with 35mm.

You guys have already said the PJ shoot was not under ideal conditions, with a camera barely functioning, stopped down to f/22, etc. As much of a marketing genius as you are, I am surprised you haven't turned this camera loose and gotten some breathtaking footage to silence the haters and inspire your followers.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

...and if the script sucks just say you shot it with Cinealta.

:clown2:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

A dose of reality here for a moment:

I get to the set... and I'm on my feet for the next 12 to 14 hours on average, with barely enough time to go to the craft services table or take a piss -- and I'm supposed to color-correct and edit on the set as well??? Ask the DP who shot Peter Jackson's short film how much spare time he had to do anything other than shoot, shoot, shoot. He barely had time to visit the tent where the main monitor was, from what I've heard. A quick meter reading and then he shot. He said that if he took the time to walk over to the main monitor, Peter Jackson would have already been rolling anyway.

Most films shoots are simply not that leisurely. Besides, these "advantages" (being able to cut and color-correct on the set) are not unique to the RED camera -- you could do that with any digital format. And even with a film camera, you can edit the videotap output to see how some shots cut together.

Editing and color-correcting on a feature are best saved for a more hospitable climate where you can concentrate on those aspects.

And I suspect that most people shooting with the RED are going to monitor on the set with HD monitors, so even there, you don't have a particularly unique advantage over a typical HD shoot. You aren't going to set-up a cinema-sized screen and project 4K between takes to double-check stuff.

The main advantages of the RED camera are COST and QUALITY. Other advantages are more in line with typical HD advantages over film in terms of not needing to wait for dailies before you strike a set, eliminating the middle-man in terms of the telecine transfer colorist, the instant gratification of seeing the shot to judge lighting, etc. You had those advantages before with something like the F900, but what you now have that's unique is the higher picture quality at a lower cost.

If I had 100 million dollars to shoot a feature with, I'd pick the format that best-suited the needs of the production and the look I was trying to achieve. If that meant dragging a heavy 65mm camera around the Grand Canyon, I'd consider that. If it meant doing a skip-bleach process to high-speed Super-16 stock, I'd do that. Whatever was the most direct path to the results I wanted to achieve. With that much money to spend, you have some options.

And as for logistical reasons, look at "300" -- shot against bluescreens in 35mm, mainly because half the time, the camera had to run at 150 fps, which ruled out most digital cameras.

 

[AshG]

When Jim presents it like this... there is not much to argue about. We are down to Ford versus Chevy. The ire we have seen has mainly been a counter reaction to the "film is dead, it was killed by RED" attitude many people who have never shot a frame of film were touting.

Film wont ever really die, it will begin to fade away but prolly not as fast as many think. What RED does, is gives us a real alternative with few compromises and just as many advantages.

We can argue all day about film cameras and such but one thing seemed crystal clear to me at NAB... the VIDEO camera makers are scared sh!tless by RED. I had some off the record conversations with several reps from all the major manufacturers and they all acknowledged RED had the potential to hurt them. One guy said that they will spend a record amount of money on R&D next year "playing catch up" to RED and the other 4K and highspeed cams out there.




ash =o)

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

I ran into an established indie writer/director at a park in West Hollywood today - we were both there with our 3 year old sons. I asked when he's doing his next feature - loved the last one. He said talent was signed and partial financing was in place just waiting on the presales to start filming. After listetning to the story pitch I asked him, "Heard of REDONE digital cinema?" After a moment of silence I gave him the RED DP pitch in plain English. I was then offered the DP job - the point being there's $300K+ that is not required to make the movie. A green light where there may have been none.

Holy shit! That's awesome! So, Ken ole buddy . . . uhhh, that second unit DP spot . . . ummm? Any ideas on who you may want?????

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

One guy said that they will spend a record amount of money on R&D next year "playing catch up" to RED and the other 4K and highspeed cams out there.

I would just LOVE to know who that was! Yeah, I was talking to some of the Viper guys at NAB. Sony's response to my F23 questions were almost comical! Everyone seemed to have the same, expressionless, deadpan look on their face when I brought up RED. Kinda like, "Shit, you know about RED too?"

 

[Jason Francois]

As others have said, with RED I now have an amazing tool to do projects, but more importantly just one more tool to use in telling stories. It may end up being my favorite tool, however.

90% of the projects I've been involved with have been on film, but after seeing RED I like the unique look that it brings to the table. Very much it's own.

I never thought that I would surrender to digital (I used to get very aggressive about it), but with RED it's going to be a bit hard to be too closed-minded about it.

 

[Desert Rune]

Great comparison Jim! I am in total agreement with you.

And there's little argument over most of those points. Of course, there's always gonna be that one die hard, off-topic poster who'll post, "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!"

Yeah, that statement annoys the hell out of me. The off-topic poster might as well shoot with a Fisher Price PXL-2000. "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!" LOL. :blink:

 

[Don Woods]

Wow jim thanks allot of good points. Allot I already knew or figured but It was good to hear it from you. I think you hit it right on the head. It is the first film alternitive. And I will chose to shoot with that Alternitive personally.

 

[Mardi_Gras]

Knowing Jim on these boards for his "message behind the posts" postings, I'm dead sure champaigne was popped a few hours ago... Red has finally cracked the code, latitude and dynamic stop-wise over film. I say, we hold our breath for a major announcement in a few more hours, maybe days.

Jim has thrown down the gauntlet, the can of worms has been re-opened. Those of us that dream of glory and having a worthwhile career in this industry might have just been handed the T (tool) part of the equation (borrowing Gibby's 3 Ts rule).

I say, spill the beans, Jim. You know you want to!