OK... Film vs. RED

[Thomas Mathai]

Not sure what your point is. But it's a little like telling a fine art photographer that he should shoot with a point-and-shoot, instead of a 4x5 view camera, since photography is really only about composition anyway. Or telling a painter, he should really use Sharpies instead of acrylics, since it's really only about color and form. In art, the medium does matter. Your arguments may be more appropriately directed toward first-time director/writers/producers, looking to make a financial decision. But many of us are image-makers, and to us, image is important.

Actually you were be telling the painter to use Painter X or Photoshop if you want to make the proper comparison. You can say that medium emulation is great, and you can do far more manipulation than using real paint.

People have used ink printers on canvas and non paper media, so it's not farfetched to have a digital painting on canvas.

If point and shoot cameras are going to reach the 10 to 20 megapixel range in the next several years, why not say good by to that view camera.

With Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperature, you can be the next Ansel Adams, or good enough.

 

[Poi Boy]

back to Jim's original post; for me red is superior to film in just about every way regardless of budget. I've been using high end digital backs for many years with better than film results. I expect the same from red with a clean image that I can manilulate into any look I want.
Viva la revolusion !
Aloha
-A

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

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.

David, having viewed Red footage, what would you say is a fitting genre or movie you've seen that would prompt you to use a Red for that particular project?

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I was just digging around in my my documents folder through older film scans seeing if there was anything that I would miss moving to RED. But I have a hard time coming up with anything. I really like the look of film but I also like the look of RED so between the two it's kind of a wash in my opinion. The thing that *did* stand out to me was how rediculously bad DV is. I just kept looking at graded and ungraded shots thinking to myself... that wouldn't have survived in DV. Oh no chance that shot would have been presentable. Yep... discard.

I decided to simulate on a random picture what would have happend if I clamped either side of the histogram down to 8 stops and tried to regrade. Now mind you of course if I was shooting this with a DV camera I possibly could have gotten a grad filter on there brought the sky under control and exposed better for the highlights (at the cost of super noisy darks). But I know when I took this photo it was a run out on your porch and take a snap before it's gone kind of moment. You lose those if you have to load up a matte box with 4 filters to get your exposure under control. Even with 13 stops I'm looking at the negative and that sky was precarious as it was. With a perfect exposure I could have easily fit the whole range into 11, but 8 and something would have died.

Just forget story for a second. If you don't care about image quality close your eyes during a movie and see how long it holds your attention. Give it a try. It's the picture that keeps us entertained while people are just sitting in a chair doing absolutely nothing. And with 11.3+ stops of latitude we can finally leave our apartments/Dorm Rooms/Sewers/Warehouses/[insert cliche indie location] without the sky being a big white mess.

I like the 8 stops shot, it has more grit. But then that's personal choice.

If I wanted, I can key out the sky and put in the one I want.

David Fincher said when he was doing Miami Vice, he had the skies replaced. Lucas had different takes of different actors comped together and rearranged.

These guys understand how manipulating images can enhance what is shot. If it can't be fixed on set, then maybe it can be fixed in post.

 

[Mike the beginner]

Digital is the future.....Most likely, But once the digital v film debate goes flat what next.

The big question is....what is the digital ALTERNATIVE to red.

If the red image is really so damn good and many think it is! What will Sony do to counteract this rude intrusion to their kingdom.

The new 70mm format with 70mm lenses. Sony and Panavisions answer to Red

Is there a sound reason why they would not do so? Just curious.

Mike the beginner

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Speak for yourself, dude.

The reason many of us are drawn to cinema is because we believe it to be the highest and most fulfilling form of art.

Or is it the lure of money, power and women?

I don't think anyone disagrees that cinema can be art, but that's usually the exception not the rule.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

A friend in LA who does DIT type work told me a major post house and a supplier of the digital recording technology to Viper/D20 type films are looking at retooling for 4.5K uncompressed, which they seem to feel may be a new standard. And where does one get this 4.5K??? I can imagine a lot of reasons that real movies with real budgets may use the RED. Unlike a JVC with an optical box in front....

4.5k uncompressed on set isn't easy or cheap, hope he's got a truck for the SAN system.

 

[Poi Boy]

Sony is a seriously challenged corporation right now; I would be surprised if they are able to mount any sort of inteligent response. F23 ???
Aloha
-A

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sure, you can bet that even better cameras are on the way, from RED as well. Probably the next logical step would be a 6K camera, so you could downsample to 4K with unbelievable quality. Hasselbad already makes 36.7x49.0mm 7K sensors on their high-end cameras.

 

[Álex Montoya]

But at what price point? If Sony manages to make a superior camera than the RED, they will already have the excuse for not lowering prices, which is fine for me, 'cause RED will continue to be the best posssible option for my budget.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm not entirely sure anybody is going to be able to outcompete RED because I"m not entirely certain they're doing this with any hope of making a profit.

If I dumped a billion dollars into R&D and competed with Jim I'm sure I could make an even better camera and give it away for nothing. I'm not sure people will catch up with RED any time soon because it's just not profitable to win.

Better to lose half your market and continue to operate in the black than to outcompete a madman. hehe.

 

[Yuval Shrem]

Going back to the original topic...

Going back to the original topic...

Lately I've seen a huge amount of films where they were intended to be viewed - at the cinema theaters, and guess what? I was terribly bothered by the grain. Before seeing RED footage it never bothered me, but now I just can't stand it! Moreover, working the look of some of my upcoming projects (even before RED was first announced) I was striving to a grain-free super-clean and high-resolution image, as I felt it will help me tell the story better.
That special look I had in mind was not achievable until RED.
After attending both the first LA screening and NAB 2007, I can say with no doubt that I prefer RED over film, and even more strange, I prefer RED-Code RAW over RED-4k-uncompressed. While that might sound a bit strange, I will say this: The uncompressed 4k image from RED is irritatingly clean. While the RED-Code RAW is almost visibly identical, it has some aesthetic characterizations that make the image more compelling for storytelling purposes, and makes it drew you into the story better than the uncompressed.

My bottom line is, on the question of which will I choose if money wasn't an issue... well, if you haven't already guessed, I can't think of any reason to want to shoot film when I can shoot RED.

I agree with you Jim. RED is simply better. No doubt about it.
Thanks for developing this wonderful tool! I truly need it as an artist!

Yuval

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Buying a bunch of cheap drives is just a workaround, not a real solution.

Frightening, isn't it? That's my current archive strategy. Put everything on a brand new HDD every two years. I talked to the people doing a large archive project for Sony as a beta test (the largest post house in L.A.--the one that bought 4M). Anyway, I asked the guy how they were archiving . . . he said, "IMX at 50 Mbps." I said, "Why only 50 Mbps?" He said that's what Sony spec'd. Now, perhaps these were only television assets. Meaning, only SD Betacam field tapes from tape-originated shows (like talk shows, news magazines, etc.)--I don't know and forgot to ask. Sorry for the off-topic post, but this is a huge issue which affects all of us who work with digital media. Perhaps film-based "protection masters" aren't a bad idea?

 

[ericyoung]

Red = I can shoot, edit, grade and finish my independent low-budget feature myself.

Film = I can't.

100% agree on this! :biggrin:

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

But at what price point? If Sony manages to make a superior camera than the RED, they will already have the excuse for not lowering prices, which is fine for me, 'cause RED will continue to be the best posssible option for my budget.

There's a lot of flogging of sony going on here I mean don't get me wrong I want a Red camera as much as the next guy but I'm about as indie as they come and for the price of a Red camera I could get a Sony's little XDCAM EX a Macbook pro, sound gear and some storage.

On the real topic here though I don't really think I would ever shoot film over the red camera unless someone gave me enough to shoot 65 mm film and I would only do that cause it would be fun.

Does a red raid disk smell better than film?

Crazy question but apparently steven spielberg likes the smell of film in the cutting room.

Apparently he also likes accidently cutting his hand on film when sliding it through his hands.

I wonder if you could cut yourself with a red camera hmmmm

 

[ericyoung]

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.

I wonder if the Red 4K projectors are intended for home, business, or cinema projection.

What special requirements do cinema projectors have? Huge light output, synchronising with soundtrack playout? What about size - did you see the sheer physical size of that Sony 4K projector? If Red's was much smaller, cinema chains could buy and install them without having to bin their film projectors just to make enough room!

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I wonder if the Red 4K projectors are intended for home, business, or cinema projection.

What special requirements do cinema projectors have? Huge light output, synchronising with soundtrack playout? What about size - did you see the sheer physical size of that Sony 4K projector? If Red's was much smaller, cinema chains could buy and install them without having to bin their film projectors just to make enough room!

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say business, And by business I mean like post production houses or quentin terintinos. I doubt we'll see Red cinemas unless this is the new age of grindhouse cinema all of a sudden.

If they do do a 4k red projector they should have a cinemascope option on it.

 

[Samscad]

My two cents to this record breaking thread:

Technicolor was one of the most beautiful technologies ever created by man. As art, nothing in modern film compares to technicolor IMO.

David Mullen is right to make that comparison because this is an exact analogy. It's a major MAJOR shift in the industry. The Technicolor cameras were big and horrendously difficult to work with. The price was too high in every respect, so when something more convenient came along, even though it was not nearly as beautiful, Technicolor died.

Here we have a technological shift that is better in every way. If anything this is a move back to the possibilities that Technicolor offered because we're getting more resolution and way more opportunities for post processing. (I see a "Gone With the Wind" cc plug in on the horizon.)

Conclusion: Film is dead. Sorry folks. There just isn't a future for film.

But then, Jim already knew that when he started this thread.

 

[Bachman]

Hey Ralph. This probably too off topic and we should start another thread…but I dont know that a film based master system is the answer. Apart from being very expensive, it would be very cumbersome and time consuming. I these days of cheap storage (less than $2 per Gb) it only needs average IT person to setup a fail safe system. Video data is no different than any other data, except there’s more of it. My last position with a large production house in Perth we were running 2 xserve raids with 400MB/s Fibre Channel shared with 2 FCP systems. If one drive fails it is rebuild using redundant or parity information. All masters can be output in uncompressed 10bit and stored in a searchable database. It’s a great system as saves a lot of time. If you had the budget you could also do a off site mirror as well. You do need to migrate data every 2 years or so.

 

[Andrew M.]

Dave mentioned here that Kodak should drop the price on the wide dynamic range negative film stock to make it more enticing to use film instead of going to the digital.
I presume that this film is 13 or 14 stops? Do we have matching final print stock of 13 stops as well?

I thought that we need 13 stops only because we nee some safety margin, say 2 stops, to work with. At the end it goes to 11 stops final print anyway?
Do we need this 2 stops safety margin on the RED?
RED has real time histogram monitoring so you see right away that you are bit left or right on the graph, so the need for the safety margin is not as crucial as on the film?
As you see a lot of questions here and not many observations.