OK... Film vs. RED

[Clint Johnson]

As things are right now for me, the film vs Red is an easy debate... I can't afford film while I can afford Red.

Now if it was a $100 million production then it is just as easy... if I had to, I would pay more to work with the Red One. The ability to know what you got on camera then and there, damn near making it through the entire shooting day with only one “reload”, working with a camera kitted out to weigh 25lbs not 45lbs, light using a 30” monitor (how soon for the Red 4k?) and seeing what it looks like as you change the shutter angle and gain... uh, change the exposure time and ISO? Hell, if we have that kind of a budget then we'll get a really good DoP running the A Red camera and I'll throw #351 up on my shoulder as the B camera and do serendipitous coverage!

David is right in that most of this is applicable to HD as well... but we get it with an image that is oh so sweet and clean! And no editing or colour correcting on set though... no time for that. But if there was some of that magical “down time” then it might be nice to drop it into REDCINE and push it around to see if your settings are optimal for where you want the image to go in post.

But I will learn to use it better and quicker than I ever could with a film camera. I'll be able to learn by shooting as much material as I want. If I am just shooting it to learn the camera then I don't need to save very much of the stuff I shoot. Once I have my camera I will be able to shoot ten hours a day for as long as I want just by formatting the drive. Not only will this allow me to learn my camera inside and out, it will make me a better cinematographer as well. It is the same thing that happened when I switched from a 35mm still camera to a digital SLR, I've probably taken well over twenty as many pictures as I would have in the last five years and I am a much better photographer because of it. If I want, I can spend more time shooting with the Red camera in the first two months – than all but a handful of film cinematographers have in the last ten.

The only reason I see to stick to film is if you are an old dog who is brilliant with celluloid and who doesn't want to set film aside to learn the new digital tricks. Hey, if you're getting all the work you want and are creatively happy I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong.

Even if you are. <g>

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

And no editing or colour correcting on set though... no time for that.

That's what LUT's are for. :biggrin:

 

[dalemccready]

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???

I'm with you David, I can barely hold a conversation with the rest of the crew on some days, when so much info is flying around my head regarding the current set-up, the next set-up, the schedule, the weather, the grumpy hung-over grip, the lighting assists that move so slowly sometimes I swear they are moving backward in time, the fact that the director is showing manic/depressive tendencies yet hired a child actor with attention deficit disorder, and the fact that my lunch break (when I really need to take a piss) is going to be taken up entirely by meetings that don't really concern me but require my moral support...:biggrin:

Let's not add grading to that mix, and besides, I like sitting in a comfortable room away from the crowd, preferrably with a cute receptionist asking if I need a coffee and what I'd like for lunch while the colourist and I sit and do nothing but look at the shots, and get to make them better.

But that aside, I think that being able to get these shots in the can at less expense might just mean that there might be a little more time in that schedule, and that to me would be Red's revolution over 35mm film.

 

[Jason Ing]

Just my two cents...

For me, Film vs REd is not about technology nor is it about quality (it's evident both look great); but rather it is about a moment in the not too distant future when I will be walking out of a theatre with a smile on my face or tears in my eyes because I just watched a great "movie".

It could have been shot on film... but it was shot on Red.

It could have been made by the rich or elite (studios or A-list director)... but it was made by a "poor" unknown artist... maybe me... maybe one of you.

And it could have been shot in the artist's lifetime despite the prohibitive costs of film... but perhaps not.

Perhaps it would have never existed if not for one man's vision... Jim.

So saying "Film Vs Red" is like saying, "Fantasy vs Dream".

A fantasy is something you wish for but it will never happen.

But a dream is something you can work hard to make a reality by...

..saving every god-damn penny you earn before your Red reservation comes up in December!!!

 

[Gunleik Groven]

AS others have posted, this triggers the speculation game on:

What happened with that new board of yours? -

13 stops?
150 fps@4k to xxx (fill in here)?
What else have been requested?

Coming from a country where 2 mill$ is a fairly well funded film, Red has always been a no-brainer in the price/value department.

One of last years best gossing movies, was shot on a Sony FX1.
Interlaced HDV! - It' s maybe not the "story wins" example, but is a good example nevertheless, as it was produced by one of Norways most higly profiled producers/directors. Has his own studios. Could shoot 65mm if he so chose.

What did this leave him with?
A nice stash of $$$ to produce more for.

So looking from a purely $$ perspective and putting the finger a bit in the ground asto the market potential department, Red is, was and will be a no-brainer.

When Red nailed down the post part, like they did with Apple, I almost started flying -

As to film-outs.

You'll need a post-grading master of a 35mm, even without the DI.

The price argument isn't really there in any perspective.

I'm really anxious about the specs, pricepoint and market-thinking around the projector. My guess is that Sonys behaviour @ IBC triggered that development, but the idea of a new chain from aquisition to projection is fantastic for countries like Norway.

So if Red has an internet3 idea up their sleeve for distribution of features between their 4k cinemas with multiplexed streaming to the theatres, there's gonna be a big shakeup... again.... and again...

To me, the finer technical parts about film vs digital, are already non-issues, as long as digital holds reasonably well up.

Red does that, and then some, and then some, and then some.

The only thing I'm worried about right now, is my general dislike for monopolies. -

Gunleik

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

SNIP - long list of pros and cons of film vs. RED

You know - for me it's never been a question of film vs. digital (in this case RED). For me it's more a matter of natural evolution. Still photographers have gone digital a long time a go and it's only a matter of time before most of the movie industry moves to digital instead of film - and it's also a matter of time before we get the same dynamic range as film has. A lot of movies are already done on digital cameras and graded afterwards. Sure - the trained eye will still be able to see the difference between the two even if you grade it like film and add grain and sure - a few will propably still be doing film in 20 years from now.

I've said it before, but I see film vs. digital just as CDs vs. vinyl. Some people still want the analogue sound of vinyl (scratches and all) and some want it clean. Some artists even add the sound of scratches and dust on a record because they like the analogue "feel".

You can do the same with RED - add all the grain you want.

Artistic preference, guys.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I suspect when people start shooting feature films with the RED one - they are also going to really respond to "efficiency" and "reduced man power".

If you have ever supervised the production of an action film with two 35mm cameras, believe me, you know what I am talking about.

IMHO - Whatever the budget, $500K or $100 million - as a producer, I want my director to keep his or her focus = less downtime between takes and set-ups = less distraction = "better film" - yeah, I know, very subjective stuff, but when you see a director who has a vision, who can get the camera moved to where he wants efficiently, and keep rolling ... without three guys swarmed around his camera ... it's a beautiful thing. I suspect there are many folks on this website that understand what I am talking about.

 

[ChristopherKenworthy]

The last time I used film we lost more than reel, due to lab problems, camera problems, stock problems. And this isn't just a low-budget issue,of course. I don't know that Red will be foolproof in this regard, but I'll feel safer than with film. And at least I'll be able to check the 'negative' on set. Bliss.

I don't care whether film is dead, but Red is alive and well, and that's all that matters to me. The audience will love what we can give them with Red, I'm sure.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

This is BTW a rather common sentiment from my film-friends

"Lab screwed up, had to re-shoot 2 weeks later"

Or

"Camera - fill inn f-up here - had to re-shoot 2 weeks later"

But I think we're gonna hear much more of:
Harddisk f'ed up - have to re-shoot in 2 weeks,
the next couple of years.

Gunleik
Already HD-based, with a backup -

 

[Paul Hazlett]

to throw this OT for a sec, sorta, there is another advantage.

If Red One can shoot on mirrored drives or dual capture like red ram and hard drive the problem gunleik describes goes away.

I know Red cannot do this now....or can it? heheh

 

[Petr Dvorak]

I saw a filmout of Peter's movie (a short clip) in Prague yesterday. I was disappointed. It felt more film-like and everyone there thought it was very cool. But I missed the crystal clear feeling that I watched 100 times at NAB. I never thought it would happen, but it did. For those that wanted to see a "film", they got it. I was surprised that I wanted to go back and see it on a 4K projector. ...

Jim

Jim, just wonder was that filmout burned in 4K or 2K?

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Zero

Zero

1.7 stops... for now.

Jim

Tomorrow maybe is 1 stop, or 0,5 or even 0 [ZERO].

Then RED is not an alternative to film.
It is the same to shoot as a film.
But much CHEAPER and FASTER.
Then RED would be digital cinema 4K acquisition with the same Dynamic Range like a film.
Or Dynamic Range would be equel for both.

Then the FINAL RACE between Film and RED can start and we have to watch in a near future who is the winner.
I will bet for the RED.

 

[Tonaci Tran]

Jim,

You have made it very clear that Red One is an alternative (not replacemnet) to film..but one cool quote that still sticks in my mind that you posted awhile back (if I remember correctly) on dvxuser was "The future of film exists without film."

I know the market will decide the outcome..but you can't help but think that with RED being a great alternative (if not better for some folks) to film, RED could likely be what the Canon Mark I/II was to still photography.

 

[Jason Murphy]

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

6. Convenience- advantage RED
Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours.

I still see these two as the major advantages of RED. Not to mention that #6 will also open new doors, artistically speaking. For example: 'Russian Ark' It was a film shot in the Hermitage in one single 95 minute steadicam take. Absolutely breathtaking. It was, as far as I know, shot on a CineAlta recording HDCam. And they required a major setup to even pull that off: the DP/Operator had a pretty bulky recording system attached to him; his rig weighed about 80 pounds, and by the end of the 90-odd minute take, he had developed a hernia.

So, while technically the doors were already open here, I'm pretty sure getting a stripped down RED system onto a steadicam rig is going to weigh significantly less than 80 pounds, not to mention that you can make a 2 hour shot on the Red Drive without a ridiculous recording setup tethered to you. Which means less abuse for your steadicam operator (though I suppose any 90 minute shot would constitute abuse on some level).

Also, I think it's safe to assume that 4K Redcode RAW looks significantly better than HDCam.

Obviously, I'm not saying that everyone should go out and do ridiculous sequence shots now, and of course, most won't. It's grueling work no matter what technology you're shooting with (though the payoff is usually well worth it). But for some directors (like Bela Tarr, the great Hungarian filmmaker known for his incredibly long tracking shots, who once joked that Kodak's decision to package 35mm in spools that would only run for 11 minutes amounted to censorship) this could be a real boon, and I'd be interested to see what, if anything, comes of it.

Ralph... it absolutely is all about the story. But it is also nice not to have to shoot "around" the limitations of your equipment.

All equipment has limitations, even the RED. We may not know all of the limitations at the onset, but everything does; we'll have to shoot around these limits no matter what we use. Film's limitations are very obvious and well known, because people have been shooting it for over 100 years. Limitations aren't necessarily a bad thing, just a fact of life. The way RED gets around some of the limitations of film is great. But trust me, once people get shooting on a RED in real-world situations, they WILL come up with a laundry list of limitations. Many of these may just be the limits of what is physically feasible with today's digital imaging technology in general, but limits they still are.

In my opinion, RED has the advantage there. Film can be kept in great condition over the years, but it requires a lot of work and protection. All RED will need is a long-term storage device. While the options available today are ok... they're not perfect. The beauty is that old RED data can bounce from drive to drive and storage system to storage system until the end of time without losing one bit of data.

Under ideal circumstances, you may be right, Brook. However, ideal circumstances just don't happen. There are no reliable 'long-term storage devices.' Things are going obsolete at a ridiculous rate (technologies, codecs and file formats, operating systems, etc), and unless people put huge amounts of capital into digital archiving solutions that can future-proof this stuff, digital imaging may have to go back out to film for the time being. Also, it's all well and good if you want to archive something for 10 years. But 25? 50? 200 years? When Rob Hummel of Dalsa says that film is still the best archival medium hands down (as he did a few months ago at a 4K test screening I went to), I would imagine he's probably right. Archiving to 3-strip Technicolor is still the way to go if you can do it.

Not to mention that wars happen, earthquakes happen, etc. And here is where film has the advantage: it's physical. You can pick it up, look it over and know what it is. This has always been film's real ontological advantage over digital (unsung by most except maybe avant-garde filmmakers and archivists). Some archaeologist from the future can find a reel of film, not knowing anything about the technology, and if they do even a small amount of problem solving, they'd be able to figure out what it was for, and probably how to use it. They would probably even be able to build a projector to project it. All that is inherent to film. It's not inherent to digital. Someone finds an old hard drive buried in a recently excavated city, and even if it DID work, the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec (or can bypass digital encryption issues, etc.)

One of the greatest silent films, "Passion of Joan of Arc" was thought lost in WWII, and rebuilt from outtakes (which would also likely be lost in digital archiving) until a pristine print of the film was found almost 40 years later, in 1981, in a closet in a Norwegian mental institution. Nobody knows quite how it got there, though there is conjecture, but the point is, this sort of situation is completely unthinkable with digital storage at this point in time.

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:

You may laugh, but some really stunning short films/videos have been made with a Pixelvision camera. It's got quite a unique look, which if used right is really beautiful. Obviously, you're not going to use one (if you can even find one now) to shoot a major blockbuster, or even an indie feature, but it's nothing to scoff at. Any tool, when used well, can make for great art. The best tools used badly, or used in service of a screenplay or a production that sucks still make for a sucky final product. Recent case in point: Norbit had some of the most cutting-edge, technically impressive make-up work ever. Anyone here care? I thought not.

Trust me, we will be seeing a lot of crap shot on the RED over the next couple of decades. But hopefully, we will also be seeing some incredibly beautiful cinema shot on the RED as well.

One of the best movies to come out this past year, Pedro Costa's 'Colossal Youth,' was shot on consumer-level DV cameras. It was clearly DV-originated, was not trying to be film, and showed up many of the limitations of DV. However, it was beautifully composed and lit, and the (admittedly highly elliptical) story of immigrants in Lisbon, Portugal was haunting. People who see it will remember it long after they forget which major blockbuster led the box office this weekend.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

to throw this OT for a sec, sorta, there is another advantage.

If Red One can shoot on mirrored drives or dual capture like red ram and hard drive the problem gunleik describes goes away.

I know Red cannot do this now....or can it? heheh

It can - sorta, if you can live with HD-SDI to RAID or SR deck -

Gunleik

 

[Tonaci Tran]

However, ideal circumstances just don't happen. There are no reliable 'long-term storage devices.' Things are going obsolete at a ridiculous rate (technologies, codecs and file formats, operating systems, etc), and unless people put huge amounts of capital into digital archiving solutions that can future-proof this stuff, digital imaging may have to go back out to film for the time being. Also, it's all well and good if you want to archive something for 10 years. But 25? 50? 200 years? When Rob Hummel of Dalsa says that film is still the best archival medium hands down (as he did a few months ago at a 4K test screening I went to), I would imagine he's probably right. Archiving to 3-strip Technicolor is still the way to go if you can do it.

Not to mention that wars happen, earthquakes happen, etc. And here is where film has the advantage: it's physical. You can pick it up, look it over and know what it is. This has always been film's real ontological advantage over digital (unsung by most except maybe avant-garde filmmakers and archivists). Some archaeologist from the future can find a reel of film, not knowing anything about the technology, and if they do even a small amount of problem solving, they'd be able to figure out what it was for, and probably how to use it. They would probably even be able to build a projector to project it. All that is inherent to film. It's not inherent to digital. Someone finds an old hard drive buried in a recently excavated city, and even if it DID work, the data on it would be useless unless you're running the right OS or have the right proprietary codec (or can bypass digital encryption issues, etc.)

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.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Have to agree on the archival side of things, analogue beats digital hands down for the "reconstructability" of analogue. It's far easier to understand the pattern of moving images on a roll, than the zeros and ones on a HD.

Did anyone mention dead-sea rolls?

And I think that's the way it's gonna have to be...

Some art survive because it's being copied and transferred to new formats and in hinsight only a few will be remembered anyway.

Palestrina, Bach, Mozart & Haydn and Beethoven were not the only great composers at their time - arguably not even the most popular ones, but their work have been archived and systematized and despite changes in tonality, change of instruments and chambre tones - their work have been adapted to the times that came.

What I mean?

Probably someone will feel the need to take care of great art and let it live through the centuries

Time is the most brutal cencor/judge for the rest. - Fairly or unfairly.

Gunleik

 

[Fix]

Trust me, we will be seeing a lot of crap shot on the RED over the next couple of decades. But hopefully, we will also be seeing some incredibly beautiful cinema shot on the RED as well.

I think anyone that buy a camera for more than 17k total realize you can make crap with even a 35mm. Maybe some in the consumer marked will be shocked by a comment like that... But of course I agree with you. It would be madness not to.

I do hope we will see alot of good footage from the camera in a early stage. I can imagen people want to rush out footage clayming "Im first in this, that" and so on. That could abviously mean that we will see alot of "so so" footage. Than again that do not justify the camera IMHO. Keep in mind that PJ shoot/cliped/graded in a couple of weeks. I do not underestimate the rest of us not able to do the same...

 

[JD Holloway]

I'm hoping RED can help re-kindle english-speaking Canadian films.
We are swamped by American and British films, and produce large numbers of films for those markets, but canadian cultural stories are depressed.
Amazingly, French-Canadian film is healthy.

I consider this an first prioriy, call it artistic nationalism if you will, but our culture is under a-kind-of attack.

As for 35mm resolution...an independant reviewer tested theaters across north america and found an average of 550-800 lines of resolution was the maximum you could expect in the "average theatre". I will try and find the link.

 

[TimothyD]

Just beam it into space with the codec and OS embedded between each "reel"