OK... Film vs. RED

[Tom Lowe]

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences.

If this was true everyone would be shooting their features on $150 VHS-C handycams. The fact is that -- with all other factors being equal -- shooting on a superior format will result in a superior looking film, both to the filmmakers and the audience.

The way in which RED "democratizes" features films is by allowing a director with a $500k budget to shoot a feature that looks just as good (in terms of DOF, lenses, resolution) as an established guy who is shooting his $1 million feature on 35mm.

And yeah, it gets a little old for people to show up here and lecture us about how a better chip is "not going to make your actors or script better." Yeah we know that. Anyway, like you said, you're new here, so I'm sure you will have a chance to see hundreds of people showing up here over the coming months making sure we all know that that 12-megapixel camera is not going to improve our set design. :wink:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Funny how everyone who shoots daily on film thinks it's fine for everybody else to shoot on DV but the moment anything digital gets compared to film the quality difference is unacceptable.... hmmm intriguing.

Having shot on filim I can say: Film will make your cinematography look better. It's soooo much harder to shoot really ugly film. Shooting really ugly digital is as easy as turning it on and pointing it at...just about anything. Red seems to be remedying that.

 

[Storyline]

Sundance Documentary Side

Sundance Documentary Side

Speaking as a Sundance documentary veteran, many small budget movies have gone on to very successful theatrical release and beyond - especially in the past 5 years. To put squarely into the realm of indy documentaries the aesthetic qualities of 35mm at an affordable (and logistically feasible) price should give our movies the look we wished we had all along to accompany the stories and settings we've labored to render for our audiences - without asking forgiveness for dicey technical issues.

--Dan
(Ballets Russes was the last movie we had at Sundance, in 2005 - DSR500 to HDCam for Sundance - and to anamorphic DigiBeta to 35mm filmout theatrical release - didn't look bad, but it sure could have looked better. And then there's the matter of 35mm prints once they've been beaten up for a while......)

 

[Gunleik Groven]

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?

Good point.

My guess?
What you'll see is more boys with big toys -
So what?

Let us have fun with our new toys! -

But as with all the other technologies you mention (16mm, hi8, DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO HD and even vhs or 8mm) the accesability for new groups to "superiour" technology - have gived some gifted the shot they didn't have at an earlier stage.

As you suggest, current technology is only superior for so long, then it moves on. That's exactly what makes some of us technology geeks (Hey - I'm soon to be 40 and I still think it's fun! -
Even though I must admit that my geekness is in a pretty layman way -

To unleash the potential of let's say a Dalsa to the masses, is of course "hit and miss". But so is unleashing the potential of wordprocessing. You don't neccessarily get more good books. But you might get other good books.

I like that.

Cheers!
Gunleik

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Exactly!!

About three years ago I was shooting a scene wherein someone comes to the door and has a conversation with someone inside, without being let inside...because that's what my story needed. Well good luck trying to resolve that kind of contrast with an XL1s! We tried everything we could but it wouldn't look any better than this side of dog sh!t. So, I had to cut the scene, and thus compromise my story, because my camera could not perform the scene.

Using Red won't stop the compromises.

Shooting a film is all about compromising with what you see in your head with what you can do realistically.

Even with a blank check budget you can't get everything you want.

 

[Shawn Bannon]

There's more than enough recovery software out there. None of it is very useful when a real crash happens.

actually thats not true. if you do it properly you can repair almost all crashes. my company has some of the software you speak of, but some jobs over the years are just too difficult so we send them off, and we have always been able to recover the info.

I trust solid state, but will not trust striped hard-drives. thats where all of our problems happen with those Lacie striped hard-drives. I'll definitely shoot with the red hard-drives, i'll just back it up on set.

 

[vovin]

No... I think we are better.

Jim

I love you, and I want to have your children o_@

 

[Thomas Mathai]

i probably could write 7 books on film/digital.

however, when i (as a twen and buzzed&hyped filmmaker/producer) changed in 2002 to digital, there was -nothing- like red.

my opinion (someone who owned several arri 35 and sony hdcam, zeiss and angenieux lenses (and worked -years for that-) is...

... that red indeed made the promise of digital cinema a reality.

however - most of our industry is slowmoving (as any niche-market with expensive tools), conservative, and, sorry to say so, underinformed. so don´t expect red to change all this within a year.

Slow moving in certain aspects, but look how fast digital post production has taken over.

For most of the industry, it's about delivering a product consistantly without too many unknown variables.

Zodiac being the FIRST studio data driven digital film from start to post is considered a milestone, especially since it just happened.

Film workflow is something the exhibitors, bond and insurance companies know works. When you present to them something that is too new and experiemental, they will hesitate.

Indies have more flexibility as you guys know, to push the boundaries.

Don't expect the studios to be at the forefront of everything, just because the risk/reward ratio may not be in their favor.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Ditto, but youll have to go out to film if you want it shown in town. And you cant do that yourself

Why?

Do you have a theatrical distribution deal in place?

I say just make an HDCAM SR master of the final version.

Make festival dubs to whatever format is needed.

If a distribution deal comes along for theatrical, just use the original high rez for a filmout.

Otherwise use the HDCAM SR master for video distribution.

It's all coming from the same source.

 

[Fix]

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).

And blair witch 2 floped, made with 35mm if i dont remember correct. I agree that you cant 100% depend on the camera if the movie is going to be a success or not. But you cant eliminate the fact that looks do have a certain meaning to the common viewer.

Blair Witch (dogme like) did something rarely seen in big screen movies. A documentary with a scary but real feel to it, perfect for horror. But there is other movies with hugh sucsess made by dv also. Like Breaking the wavesand The Celebration. So those people who want to make Dogme like movies can by all means do that if they want to.

My point is. Most people do realise that Red One is only a tool (repeating my self). But its a chain-saw not a wooden axe. And I think alot of us want to taste that sweet cake of 4k/12bit/raw with interchangeable sugarloaf on top. So lets see what we havent seen yet. thousands of people dealing with a camera that was unthinkable for a year ago.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

True. However, at least personally, I never plan to print to film. It's damned expensive for one thing. If I ever do get any sort of theatrical distribution, I would hope to project 100% digitally.

Unless your film is getting a major release, it's possible to have a 100% digital release now.

 

[krd]

If this was true everyone would be shooting their features on $150 VHS-C handycams. The fact is that -- with all other factors being equal -- shooting on a superior format will result in a superior looking film, both to the filmmakers and the audience.

If you intend to market films based in large part on production value, and/or if there is a market which demands high production values, which we'll understand here to mean "resolution" since we're discussing RED vs. SD , then you are right. Red will grant access to a realm previously forbidden. No argument.

However, production value has often proven to be irrelevant in the marketing of "festival" type films and non-Hollywood films in general. Most people *could* shoot on VHS-C, and the outcome would be exactly the same. You may remember the early Dogme films -- they made a point of using 1-chip consumer cameras. Some made real money, and Lars von Triers' best film is easily Medea, shot (I believe) on what was then consumer video (and quite poor by current standards of consumer video). What these guys didn't advertise was that these films had budgets of $1-2 million. Some fat kid in Ohio with the same camera couldn't do it.

As for the "lecture" I'm alleged to have delivered to the benighted equipment community -- well, as I say, I'm new to the board and didn't have the leisure to read through 30,000 previous posts. There was no sign of skepticism in what I *did* read, so from my POV my comments were new, original, startling (maybe I exaggerate a little).

Finally, I agree with the poster who claimed the camera could be a revolution for reasonably well funded documentary filmmakers. There, you do get significantly improved production values, for a relatively small premium. I don't know that it would make any marketing difference, but (given adequate funding), why not?.

But, frankly, I think I've had about enough. I won't persuade you that improving the look of films won't alter their fortunes in the marketplace, and you won't persuade me that buying or using this camera will change anything, in a country whose non-Hollywood film financing model is based on the same principles which motivate real estate or pork belly investing, despite the endless and expensive evidence that this mercantile model doesn't work.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

With the new 4k projectors coming out and their low (compared to the past) prices it will be a film projector anihilation in the next 2-4 years.

This will make the RED to FILM transfer step a non issue.

One more point for RED...

Exhibitors are the homes dragging their feet, not the studios. They don't want to spend the $$$. Their equipment is paid off.

The big chains will change over faster, the small ones will consolidate or die off.

I heard anywhere from 10 to 12 years.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

Yes, they matter -- to the filmmaker. They DON'T matter to mass-audiences.

Of course it does... the mass-audience just doesn't have the technical vocabulary to desribe *why* what they are seeing looks better. Talent is always the final arbiter. If someone doesn't know what they're doing, it will look like crap no matter what the tool is.

But with all else being equal, the mass-audience knows it looks better and that does matter to them - they just don't know how to describe it.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Exactly that happened on UK TV, where Dallas used to be sent to the UK as film prints, which would then be telecined at 25p for broadcast. Then they started sending standards converted tapes, and there was a flood of protests to the BBC. Now, if I remember, nobody said why they didn't like what they saw, but they knew they didn't like it.

Similarly, when BBC drama Casualty tried on a rather crappy de-interlaced film effect, there was a lot of complaints. I was one of them! I still have the letter from the producer apologising. I guess that's one of the things that drove me to write a nice de-interlacer

Nevertheless, the general public can tell the difference, even if they don't have the words to describe it.

Graeme

 

[Phil Becque]

Well back to Jim's original statement for moment and speaking as a self funding production company on a severly limited budget:

1) I can't afford film - I can afford RED

2) I wouldn't know where to start with a film camera - I think I can learn how to get a good image with RED given either natural light - or some ancilliary lighting (I'm the proud owner of $2000 lighting kit - I'll have you know)

3) With RED - if I'm careful and all the planets line up I 'could' make a Buddhist film worthy of cinematic release in terms of content and image quality. I can't honestly see that happening in Hollywood in the next Kalpa (that's Buddhist jargon for very long period of time) or two.

4) I like reality (as opposed to reality TV which sucks) and I think the RED camera has a more realistic quality than film (which I can't afford anyway). I want to experiment with higher frame rates as I can see flutter at 24-30 fps on any system which a right royal pain in the arse.

5) I don't like film quality as it appears in any theatre I've ever been too - in fact I hate it: the noise, the grain, the judder, the cigarette burns, the streaks - it's all horrible! RED actually (potentially) offers something much better IMO.

6) I agree that just having more resolution or better image quality doesn't make better film - but then if you have all the problems people have alluded to before - then it would just cost more money to shoot the same thing in film. The point being that one has more freedom to make 'mistakes' and learn more rapidly from them with RED. Plus I get to see my mistake in a matter of minutes. That's worth a lot to someone like me who only learns by doing.

7) The PJ footage wasn't perfect - but it was pretty good and we know Jim knows that; and that he is, by nature a perfectionist. He wants this camera to be good enough for his own purposes and he sets a high bar. I'm willing to bet that when I get my RED one I'm going to very happy with it.

I realise there are a lot of extremely talented and probably much 'better' film makers than me on this forum and I do repect all of the opinions expressed. But I also have to say that there is an awful lot of 'twaddle' mixed in with some of the most strident posts - the "I am right, you are wrong" mentality - it really doesn't help move the discussion forward.

An independant film maker - and this board is riddled with them - is - determined, tenacious, creative, single minded, stubborn, self opinionated, well organised, resourceful, technically literate, able to influence people, financially astute, numerate, artistic, energetic, devoted, truculent, self confident, and generally finish what they start. So it may be worth bearing those qualities in mind when we address each other.

Warm regards, Phil

 

[Thomas Mathai]

There are many reasons why Red is greater than Film, cost is the primary one, but this account of a disastrous screening here in Melbourne recently factors into it as well:


http://www.elroyonline.net/?p=99845703

"Attempting to see Sunshine"
Posted on the March 13th, 2007

Tonight started out to be quite a cool evening. Not only were we going to be seeing the new Danny Boyle directed, sci-fi flick, SUNSHINE, a month before it hits the cinemas in wide release, but following the movie Danny Boyle and one of the film’s stars, Rose Byrne, would be sitting down for a Q&A session with the audience.

Sadly though, about 40 minutes (maybe less) into the screening of Sunshine something happened that I can only describe as a right royal cluster-fuck. For a moment nobody was sure what they were seeing: A dream sequence maybe? After a few more moments the thought started to creep into the back of my mind that there was a very good chance that Danny Boyle and whoever the hell let him release this piss-poor attempt at emulating Stanley Kubrick needed to be lined up and shot.

So, what was really going on? Well, we were seeing what appeared to be the second last reel of the film… right after the first… and it was upside down… and, I kid you not, it was playing in reverse! Then, right before we got to the bit where the monkeys start whacking the monolith with their bones, the projection room finally woke up to the error and hit the lights.

After about 40 minutes we were told that they’d just discovered that the same problem was identified in the other reel, and so we would have to wait even longer before the film could commence again. At this point we were also informed that should we wish to leave that our tickets would be refunded. Having been extremely impressed with Sunshine right up until the point at which it had started playing backwards, we decided to stick it out.

We didn’t have to wait too long before the film started playing again. And then we didn’t have to wait long before a large portion of the audience erupted with shouts of “WRONG REEL!”. Yeap, somewhere in the mix up they’d skipped a reel or two and no-one had a clue what was happening. However, it has to be said that by the time that plug was again pulled on the failed screening (for the final time) we’d again been gripped by the action taking place on the screen.

By this stage the screening was written off as a total loss and the Q&A was started.

I wish I had more to say about the Q&A and the film itself, but there was very little in the way of quotable bites from either Boyle or Byrne. What we did get to see of the film was extremely gripping and dripping with the intensity that I’d hoped for.

Of the Q&A the one thing that is worth stating is that even though the two of them were probably extremely pissed off and probably even a little embarrassed by the debacle that the evening had become, they both handled themselves extremely well, taking the whole affair in their stride.

_____________________________________________________________

This would never happen with Red and digital projection.

Are you sure it would never happen??

I don't know what you're experience with Murphy's Law is, but anything can happen.

I was going to a Pirates 2 digital presentation last year and was turned away because the server crashed. Technical problems happen, technology can't stop human error.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

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

What do you use to build LUTs?

 

[Tom Lowe]

I still think this whole strawman-style, so-called "reality check" that a better camera won't make your actors and script and sound better is a total red herring. No one here makes that claim, or if they do, they will be quickly set straight.

What we are excited about is the ability to shoot 35mm-quality features (in terms of lenses, resolution, DOF, look, etc) for smaller budgets. As most people here like David Mullen have pointed out over and over again, at this point, RED really benefits the low-budget features from around $200k to $500k the most, where film stock, lab costs, etc, really add up for an indie production. A $200 million dollar blockbuster will not benefit much from saving $100k on film stock, but a $1 million indie would.

It's also very silly to claim that with all other factors being equal, viewers don't prefer a film shot on 35mm compared to VHS-C. Ridiculous.

 

[krd]

Nevertheless, the general public can tell the difference, even if they don't have the words to describe it.

Graeme

Okay, one last time. Given the choice between a great look and a poor one, any producer who preferred (or permitted) the latter would be out of his mind (and, we hope, out of a job).

But posters to this board are asserting that RED will deliver to them production values that they couldn't otherwise afford . In other words, they're not funded by HBO or the BBC or Dreamworks. They're struggling to pay for basics, and don't have the money for film.

For these unofficial productions, with small production budgets, and no stars, audiences do not look for (or demand) high production values, even assuming we agree that audiences notice (or care about) the difference (which I would dispute!). Rather, production value is the element *least* likely to predict the success of these films, because it's a given that the projects cannot compete with Hollywood on Hollywood terms, including production value. They have to offer something else.

So, yes. Some audiences may note some differences, some of the time, and some may note differences all the time. And if you can deliver great looking productions values with little money, by all means do so. The question is , what difference does it make in the real world? In my view, very little, unless the visual aesthetic realization of the project is inseparable from its success as drama -- something which is quite rare, since most movies, independent or otherwise, are photographed stories, carried ultimately by the performances and the serviceability of the script. Anyone ever seen a Pixelvision short or feature? It can be quite effective, and is more than capable of carrying a story forward.

Even material wholly dependent on visual realization may not require much in the way of resolution.

Where does that leaves us? One way or another, I fear we'll end up where we started. Some people have money to make movies, and some don't.