OK... Film vs. RED

[Brook Willard]

Shooting charts might impress camera nerds, but if you want to inspire directors and producers, shoot something more interesting!

It'll be very exciting to see what sort of footage starts appearing after the first cameras make it out there. This is actually the very reason why the NAB footage was so exciting to me. I'm sure there were one or two people who wanted to see a chart instead of Crossing the Line... but I sure wasn't one of them!

 

[Joe Carney]

Ok, been waiting. Film can be shot > 24p at full resolution. Red still can't do those incredible slomo shots in '300'. (The Oracle was shot with a model in a water tank in front of a blue screen at > 240fps).

No 2 frames of film are ever quite the same. It's one of those things that can't be done effectively in post, at least with todays tech. I remember people talking about when Kodak released high quality fine grain film in the 90s, and most thought it was too realistic. I'm sure attitudes have changed, espcially since the elite no longer have a monopoly on quality.

Neither of the above is going to save film though. But it will continue to have it's advocates and uses for a long time. But I am firmly in the RED camp, just not anti anything.

Once I get the OK from the director, I'll talk about my experience the past 2 weekends being a pa on a film being shot with 2 panavised F900s. Be a long time before I don't wince when the term 'video village' is mentioned, as in having to move it several times. I finally volunteered my pickup truck to save our backs.
(But I did have a blast, it is a great crew and fun actors, no divas to be found).
Have 2 more weekends to go on it too.


I can't think of anything else, but JJ asked.

 

[Fix]

Ok, been waiting. Film can be shot > 24p at full resolution. Red still can't do those incredible slomo shots in '300'. (The Oracle was shot with a model in a water tank in front of a blue screen at > 240fps).

hehe you made me laugh.. you got to be kidding right? Im very disepointed that Red cant shoot 1000fps... Think im going to wait for RED TEN.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

No... I think we are better.

Jim

Oh boy...he hee...., The art of putting self pressure...since the beginning of the project by the way...

Or... you found something new...??? improvements ?

In any case, after viewing the footage twice at NAB, i am more than happy to have my reservation.

Again, thanks Graeme, you convinced me to make a reservation last year! What a great advice!

Cheers to all the team for your attitude !!!!! ATTITUDE

 

[Clint Johnson]

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.

(Rant Mode On)As an English-speaking Canadian I'd like to say that I don't care if any more "Canadian cultural stories" ever get made. I want great stories that speak to me and I don't care if they come from Africa, China, Russia, the UK, America or Canada. I don't want stories that speak to a self appointed elite at Telefilm Canada.

I don't think that the French-Canadian film industry is healthy, I think it is a stunted industry that uses legislation and cultural pressure to artificially limit competition. The films are tiny fish in a minuscule, netted in section of a small pond.
(Rant Mode Off)

What I'd like to see is the Red team setup and light some shots. Setup a 35mm camera and a RED one. Shoot the shots from the same positions with the same lenses. Put both kinds of footage through an established and very scientific set of steps for processing, scanning, film out etc. Make these steps absolutely public down to the nines. Then put it up on a screen and let people try and pick out the film footage vs. the Red footage (with a film look added).
You might even do this with an online quicktime.
IB

What I'd like to see is Red get hold of the beam splitter rig that Zack Snyder used in 300 to get the same shot with three cameras... put the Red in one beam, an Arri 435 on a second and the Sony F23 on the third (if the thing isn't too big). Of course you want fans of each system setting them up as best they can be set up.

Grade them to match, split screen the three and then project the results on a 4k projector as well as a film out. There are theatres with both digital and film projectors so there would be an amazing opportunity to compare and contrast the cameras and the delivery media very quickly... not THAT'S a test.

-) I have more fun shooting film than I do shooting video. Perhaps it's the heightened attention that comes from burning money and not knowing exactly what you're getting! ;-) Seriously, though, I think that having more fun translates into doing better work.

Time and the other costs of production conspire against great, the cost of film is one more thing to make me settle for that frustrating "good enough".

 

[Tom Lowe]

It'll be very exciting to see what sort of footage starts appearing after the first cameras make it out there. This is actually the very reason why the NAB footage was so exciting to me. I'm sure there were one or two people who wanted to see a chart instead of Crossing the Line... but I sure wasn't one of them!

True.

Once the those cameras hit the streets I bet stuff starts popping up here pretty quick in 1080p.

 

[Fix]

True.

Once the those cameras hit the streets I bet stuff starts popping up here pretty quick in 1080p.

Its going to be amazing! and thats from a camera we compare with film.

 

[I Bloom]

Pepsi Challenge - I agree.

I think they should bring in a top ASC guy and shoot something impressive with RED and 35mm under ideal, controlled circumstances.

I realize that most of the guys who post here are DPs and camera guys, but keep in mind that producers, directors and studio people will also have a major hand in deciding which format they will shoot their next feature -- RED, Genesis, 35mm, etc.

Shooting charts might impress camera nerds, but if you want to inspire directors and producers, shoot something more interesting!

Hmmm... I wasn't thinking of charts, I was thinking more beauty shots, say a nice closeup, a sunlit landscape. Push the limits a bit with the dynamic range, but otherwise make it easy and just show the ability to match a film look and thus a film feeling. More about the end result than the technical details.

But make it like and experiment, so we know the exact stock, processing and post pipeline on both sides. I guess the point would be if you can't tell the difference its very hard to argue for film.

IB

 

[krd]

A few simple observations, in response to the rampant intoxication on this board:

1) aesthetic qualities are not a function of format. Poorly shot 35mm (or Red) will look better than poorly shot VHS, but the difference, in most cases, won't represent the difference between success or failure. All else being equal, both will fail.

2) probably the best American independent feature of all time is Charles Burnett's "Killer of Sheep", a student thesis shot in 1977, on 16mm B&W for less than $10,000. In the succeeding 30 years, and despite (or because of?) the loving attention of industry "professionals" (from Robert Redford to Christine Vachon or James Schamus), there are no world-class American independent films to point to, on ANY format -- from Pixelvision to Hi8 to 35mm, all of which have been in full play, for years. How will a high quality sensor alter this crisis of mediocrity?

Indeed, if a cheap acquisition format were all that were required to make a high quality dramatic film (with or without a sustained visual aesthetic), there would be thousands of masterpieces in the marketplace, dating from 8mm film cameras.

Similarly, the most profitable non-pornographic independent film of all time -- "Blair Witch" -- was shot, for the most part, with a $600 Hi8 camera (cruelly returned to the store for a refund when the shoot was over).

So when somebody here writes:

"What's exciting 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)"

you have to wonder. The fate of a dramatic film has ALWAYS been determined by the success with which it makes its case to mass audiences. For outsiders, the odds may be marginally better if the project is shot on Red rather than (say) DVX100 (all else being equal), but the difference is slight, perhaps even insignificant, short of nature photographyl.

Every year, the Sundance Dramatic Competition represents tens of millions of dollars, utterly down the drain, in unreleaseable movies. Most of these films have relatively high production values. A fair number have Hollywood or TV stars in the cast. In the end, it doesn't matter. The films lack the aesthetics and intelligence of the foreign arthouse circuit, and don't have a hook for the mass-market. They claim to satisfy the demands of both art and commerce, and fail at both. Shooting them on Red, instead of on film or tape, wouldn't make the slightest difference.

Wanna try a highly instructive experiment? Show an intelligent non-movie professional Godard's "Breathless". Then ask your guinea pig if he/she noticed anything peculiar about the way the shots were put together, the use of sound or the overall look of the thing. In most cases, you'll draw a blank. In other words, a film which violates every established movie convention, one which flagrantly ignores 50 years of film grammar, doesn't disturb viewers in the least (to the extent they even notice), for the simple reason that they can can still follow the story, and the actors are interesting to watch.

So yes: an apparently high quality and relatively cheap camera like Red could lead, in the right hands, to films with aesthetic qualities which would have been difficult or impossible to achieve in prior video formats. But the main difference will be large number of high resolution but fundamentally lousy independent films, instead of large numbers of poorly resolved, fundamentally lousy independent films. There are structural reasons why non-Hollywood filmmaking is so mediocre in the U.S. An improved sensor does not address these deficiencies.

In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

 

[JustinGD]

8 - Long Term Archiving - advantage....???

Film is not just an acquisition format. Often forgotten.

But RED is not an archiving format, you can easliy archive RED footage on Film, so neither has an advantage here in my oppinion.

Film can also be used to hold up your pants, RED can't.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

(...)

Film can also be used to hold up your pants, RED can't.

Thanks.
I'll keep that in mind -

G

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Film can also be used to hold up your pants, RED can't.

that's a good point.

...speaking about lattitude.

 

[Tom Lowe]

There are structural reasons why non-Hollywood filmmaking is so mediocre in the U.S. An improved sensor does not address these deficiencies.

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.

In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

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.

 

[Ralph Wong]

Red versus 35mm film?

If I had a budget of $10 million dollars, at this point I would still go with film. From the stills and footage I have seen, film looks better than RED. In fact, I have spent many hours taking RED images and adjusting them in photoshop to get that film look I like so much. So why not shoot film?

BECAUSE IT'S FREAKIN' EXPENSIVE!!!

This is the whole point of the RED revolution. The idea of bringing the cost down so an independent can shoot movies with a great image quality without breaking the bank. I don't have $10 million dollars. I don't even have $100,000 dollars. But RED is making it possible so that I can still shoot a movie without having to compromise the image. The RED footage is very close to 35mm. Yes there are also things like cinematography, set design... etc. But if you write a story that doesn't require big sets and take special care with lighting, you can make a movie look as good as some of the big boys. I saw a movie shot with a Varicam on a limited budget, and it looked like a professional film.

So right now, I don't even consider shooting 35mm because of the cost. The only thing I care about is can RED deliver the pleasing image quality I am looking for. So far so good.

 

[jbeale]

In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

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?

 

[krd]

"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."

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences. 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. Some were downright painful to watch ("Clerks?" "Chuck and Buck"?). The few others were made by corporations with 7 figure budgets (e.g., sex lies and videotape).

As for my "strawman" argument, that an improved sensor won't make for good films ("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."), I specifically quoted a member here, who made just that claim -- the notion that a high qualty format will somehow be a democractizing factor in dramatic filmmaking. IThe trouble is, people have been saying the same thing for years (16mm, Hi8, DV, DVPRO, etc.).

Besides, whether the claim is made explicitly or not, the enthusiasm for technology says much the same thing, over and over again. For how many people will this camera really make the difference between success and failure?

Anyway, if the argument has been made before, you'll have to forgive me: I'm new to the board, and started with this thread.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

A few simple observations, in response to the rampant intoxication on this board:

1) aesthetic qualities are not a function of format.

Sorta agree, and then not -
Some qualities are dependent on format - if you want to shoot high-detail shots in bright daylight - like in Kurosawas RAN, you need something to resolve that information.

Agreed, you'll need a couple of 1000 extras and 10.000 dolls, but that's beside the point, as I understand this to be a technical and not aestethic debate - I might be wrong, though...

In the end, resolution and stops don't matter a damn, beyond the extent to which they give the filmmaker pleasure. Red may have lowered one bar, but a thousand others remain....

Well, sorta again.
Because Red has addressed some of the main technical headaches (or riddles, maybe if you ask Graeme - those being:
cost vs technical quality with a survivealble workflow without throwing all current knowledge about optics etc off the boat

One is left with less riddles. A film still won't make itself or be good at itself. Agreed.

I won't go into a debate about how the current Sundace movies fare. Haven't been there. Don't care if I ever will.

And the Goddard example is ... good, but kinda besides the point again, as it has no relevance to Red vs The Rest.

What has some relevance to me, though - being mostly a hired hand for totally meanlingless productions - mostly working for ad-agencies, is to be able to offer a better technical product (than f. ex the varicam) at a better pricepoint.

I truly look foreward to comp'ing Red footage and tweak it in Shake! - But then again, I'm partly geek.

I totally agree. You won't insult me!
This does not make me a worthy filmmaker - but my job is mostly to offer a "production" which can be used in the "cinema to web" category of delivery. And I currently live pretty well.

Being able to offer extra technical production value, is a great win for both me and my customers.

The point of this rant?

Let's remember which hat we wear when we discuss and whitch thread we're in.

The discussion about crappy porn or indie or even big league films in 4k is a relevant one, and I'll be happy to preview all the mentioned categories and then come out disgusted -

The discussion about technical feasability and cost vs technical potential is a totally different one - and as far as I have understood - the current.

The answers from one of these discussion does totally NOT exclude the answers from the other. They are parallell and not interleaved.

Edit after reading your last post:
Welcome to the board! We're here to discuss! -

Just my 2c.

happy shooting!

Gunleik

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

"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."

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences. 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. Some were downright painful to watch ("Clerks?" "Chuck and Buck"?). The few others were made by corporations with 7 figure budgets (e.g., sex lies and videotape).

As for my "strawman" argument, that an improved sensor won't make for good films ("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."), I specifically quoted a member here, who made just that claim -- the notion that a high qualty format will somehow be a democractizing factor in dramatic filmmaking. IThe trouble is, people have been saying the same thing for years (16mm, Hi8, DV, DVPRO, etc.).

Besides, whether the claim is made explicitly or not, the enthusiasm for technology says much the same thing, over and over again. For how many people will this camera really make the difference between success and failure?

Anyway, if the argument has been made before, you'll have to forgive me: I'm new to the board, and started with this thread.

You write well. Your points are well thought out.. While some may not agree, Jim STARTED this mess with the intention of a healthy debate.. Glad to see you have stepped up to the plate, as long as we're all respectful, I say "HAVE AT IT!!"

Jay

 

[JD Holloway]

(Rant Mode On)As an English-speaking Canadian I'd like to say that I don't care if any more "Canadian cultural stories" ever get made. I want great stories that speak to me and I don't care if they come from Africa, China, Russia, the UK, America or Canada. I don't want stories that speak to a self appointed elite at Telefilm Canada.

I don't think that the French-Canadian film industry is healthy, I think it is a stunted industry that uses legislation and cultural pressure to artificially limit competition. The films are tiny fish in a minuscule, netted in section of a small pond.
(Rant Mode Off)

1) Fine. I do and I care. So do the Inuit and every other underrepresented segment of society who don't have access to capital and want to tell a story.

2) A agree on Telefilm. I will add the Toronto international film fest Inc. for that matter.

3) I disagree, while Franco cinema limits competition it does so to restrain mega media marketing departments. It worked very well for the canadian music industry. Sad to say the little guy needs help.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hey Jim any chance we could see a 4k scan of that film-out? Just to show it is possible to create a filmic output from red if that is the desired look.