OK... Film vs. RED

[Craig Bowman]

Credit Cards are gone? Wicked! Mine was maxed

LOL! If it were only that simple.

 

[Fix]

What's amazing about "Munich" was the Spielberg shot "War of the Worlds" the previous winter, had it out in theaters by the summer, shot "Munich" in Sept.-Oct. locked a picture cut by two weeks after wrap of photography -- cutting on film using workprint and a flatbed -- and did an optical printer blow-up from Super-35 to anamorphic, and had it in the theaters for December.

ahh yes it was remarkable. But we got to keep in mind this is from some of the best in the industry. Now time wise i think RED have the advantage, But the looks... I really dont know.

One could cite "Zodiak" and "Planet Terror" from "Grindhouse" as two digital movies with 70's visual stylistic elements.

No that i dident know.. Grindhouse (both..?) was shot digital? Now I havent seen the movie yet.. only a trailer. But from the looks of it that is a bit amazing, I get almost a "Bad taste" feel from it. (the movie I mean, and no not double meaning). What cam did they use?

There's no right or wrong method, just like the arguments for shooting a b&w movie on b&w negative versus color negative. Some people like the organic look from using old tools to create old look, while others are more comfortable doing it all in post.

Agree, but. Untill now DV/HDV havent been that convincing simulating those old organic looks. Many at this forum I suspect have been dealing more with these formates than HDXCAM/genesis/viper etc. And we all know that heavy colour correction with those 8bit mutants is a big chalange.

While simply using an old camera like a Mitchell isn't going to impart a look (those cameras have rock-solid registration), using an old Cooke Speed-Panchro or B&L Baltar would, and the little optical accidents would be very subtle and perhaps time-consuming to recreate digitally.

This is a big chalange if you go 100% digital. But I belive everything is posible if you get enough color space. Time consuming... maybe

 

[PaulClements]

I don't reckon this thread will ever leave the front page, curse you Jim

 

[Joel Kaye]

Lol, I wish. But I am down to join you and sharkguy for the 4K bimbo shoot in Cabo.

I'm in. Let's do it in Palau though. That place is gorgeous... a lot of little islands. 2 or 3 RED's and a good story and I think you've got a very sellable product.

 

[Craig Meadows]

This is I believe my first post on this forum and thought what a splendid topic to jump in on. My name is Craig Meadows. I own and operate Florida Production Group, Inc. in Pensacola, FL. We are a red reservation holder (I believe #27Xish). In any case we have been in business 22 years as a small, gulf coast boutique production company specializing mostly in 30-second broadcast as well as some long form corporate work.

We've owned and operated many video cameras and some film cameras over the years. Our market being small is predominately video based. Comments such as "man this would look great on film" or "I wish we had the budget for film" are typical. Unfortunately small market budgets often prevail which is why our Arri 16SR was rarely used and eventually sold.

We currently shoot a JVC HD-100, it's a good little camera and for the most part our client base is happy with it. Being 24p it gives us a decent HDV image. Our camera budgets for purchase are typically $10k-$25k (SDX900 at the high-end). And over the years we've replaced cameras about every 2 - 3years.

Now Red comes along: S35mm sensor, 35ish depth of field (very important to us) 4:4:4 processing (another biggee), possible sensor upgrades in the future, plus all the other neat things associated with this camera.

While we are not film makers we are still story tellers, even if that story is compacted in to 30-seconds or a 5-minute corporate piece. And if we can tell that story better visually with a camera that mimicks many film qualities we can do a better job, certainly in regards to client perception and approval.

For once I really believe I will have a camera that will last beyond 2-3 years. A camera that can be dialed in to shoot our local spots, dialed in a bit more for our regional work, and finally dialed in to shoot with lens/storage rental national level work if called upon to do so...all without any quality comprimise. This camera will enable us to market ourselves to a potentially much bigger client base. I can't do that with any other camera unless I want to spend over $100k.

As a full-service shoot & post facility we have to own at least one camera, rental just doesn't work with short deadlines. Do I have to spend $25k on Red?...perhaps not. But I do want to provide my clients the best possible image we all can afford. And if it's the equal of film, different than film, or better than film it's still a win-win-win for my particular business and clients.

 

[Clint Johnson]

I'm gonna do my part to get this thread past 500 posts... by continuing to go all off-topic on its ass.

Dude,

You have issues, apparently with government... I have never asked you for money and never will. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Intellectual masterbation? Force? What have you been forced to watch, by me for that matter? Clearly you seem bitter. Did your funding get rejected?

Celine needed no state help. She had/married just about the biggest producers in the biz. As for quality. Import television is cheap and our televisons are awash with foreign serials like zena and its spinoffs. They compete with our Anne of green/avonlea/pitpony drivel. Programmers care less about "Good Stories" and more about selling advertising and dont give a damn how they do it. Bottom line rules.

Look I hear what you are saying about canadian film....but I have nothing to do with it.

Yes, I do have issues with government and I knew as I was writing that it was coming across as knicker twisted ranting.

I apologize for assuming you were asking for my money, it is just that I have never met anyone who calls for artistic nationalism but doesn't want the government to fund or protect it.

Yes, "intellectual masturbation", what else do you call a film that the creator thinks is brilliant and interesting, but it is only brilliant and interesting to himself and a half dozen bureaucrats in Ottawa while it is completely devoid of interest to the other 99.99999% of the population that is actually paying for it?

I haven't been forced to watch anything... but I have been forced to pay for it and that is my beef. It takes over a billion tax dollars a year to run the CBC and the various funding agencies. Once again I apologize if you don't support those agencies.

I am a little bitter but not because my funding was rejected, I think that it is morally wrong so I won't apply for funding. My bitterness is because it has crippled the Canadian film business and made it a weak and sheltered industry that doesn't chase quality material that will engage the audience - but CanCon material that will engage the various funding agencies. Almost every time I talk to Canadian producers, the funding specter raises its ugly head and interferes with making a good show. I wouldn't back out of a project over it but it hurts.

Celine and Angelil used government money and protectionism to build both of their careers. Angelil came by his money in his own Quebec pop singer career and then managing Rene Simard and Ginette Reno... using every government funding angle he could. He then used every funding angle to manage and produce Celine. Unless he has a moral reason against it, he is still using government money whenever and wherever he can.

We aren't awash in Zena and its spinoffs, we are awash in House, Heroes, 24, Battlestar Gallactica, Rome, Sopranos, Entourage, Bones, Lost, My Name is Earl, Smallville, Supernatural... and there are a lot more good shows that I don't watch. You probably lump a couple of them in there with Zena and some may fall into the guilty pleasure category but I think that they all have at least a reasonable level of quality. It is cheaper for Canadian networks to buy these programs than it is for them to produce original content... and this is a factor of government protecting them against foreign networks. This hurts the producers of original Canadian content so they go to the state for funding in a vicious little circle.

The only way that programmers should care about "good stories" is as bait to draw in advertisers or subscribers. That is there job. I don't like American/Canadian Idol but a lot of people do so it gets on the air. I can accept that and I don't expect everyone to enjoy the same content as I do- and this sometimes gets show I like canceled (still miss Firefly).

I say cut the purse strings and let the Canadian networks and producers sink or swim. Make Canadian networks compete with the content of the American networks rather than competing with other Canadian networks to buy the American content. This would be is as disruptive as hell and everyone is scared to do it but if they did maybe the next David Shore or Hart Hanson wouldn't leave to make their TV shows?

Look, I know this is coming across as more of a personal attack and for that I do apologize. I am railing against the system and you just got kind of got caught in the cross hairs.

 

[Joel Kaye]

As a full-service shoot & post facility we have to own at least one camera, rental just doesn't work with short deadlines. Do I have to spend $25k on Red?...perhaps not. But I do want to provide my clients the best possible image we all can afford. And if it's the equal of film, different than film, or better than film it's still a win-win-win for my particular business and clients.

I think this sometimes gets lost in the debate. RED will be a killer TV commercial, infomercial and music video camera. And a helluvalot more of that stuff gets shot than feature films. And those jobs all can easily have budgets much larger than indie features.

 

[Michael Struthers]

Finally, a useful thread ;-)

200 million budget - I shoot 65mm :devil:

100 million budget - I shoot 35mm

Anything else - I probably shoot Red

Did I mention no one has offered me 100 million?

 

[Andrew M.]

When shooting a locked-off table top shot, film has more "life" because each individual frame is slightly different because the molecules are never in exactly the same place from frame to frame.

Leo

Leo, this is the most common misconception that is mentioned time and time again during the discussions about film versus digital.

The fact that film molecules are in different places on each frame is only contributing to the soft look, lack of details, kind of out of focus impression.
Remember that these molecules are again in different places during the copy and then during the projection in the cinema.
Good film has equivalent of 4K resolution if we take a microscope and check the particle there.

But then once we take under account that we have to copy the negative to final print and then we loose resolution because frame moves and it is impossible to place it always in the same place with 5 micron accuracy and that film has curvature that effects the focus when filming and the same curvature on the final print does the same plus the fact that image have to go through lenses 3 times!! to get to the viewer (digital only once), even the best film ends up as a equivalent of 1K good digital material.

The statement would be true if this different places we could repeat in the exactly the same order and place/offset while copying and then during the projection and only if we use 120fps to do it.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I think this sometimes gets lost in the debate. RED will be a killer TV commercial, infomercial and music video camera. And a helluvalot more of that stuff gets shot than feature films. And those jobs all can easily have budgets much larger than indie features.

I definitely agree...and I mentioned those genres/applications, and wider applications for RED One in my Post #145, on Page 15 of ths thread.

 

[TimothyD]

How about the fact that the Red will allow those of us who work in video to make the transition to cine style work.

I'm of course not arguing that the camera will make me a better shooter, I'm arguing that I'll have room to grow with the camera.

That is enough for me by itself. You add all of the other benefits, and it is just too good to be true. Or at least it seemed that way until they proved they could do it.

I myself have no pipe-dreams about shooting an award winning movie anytime soon, but I do plan to develop my skills with this camera. And once I have them mastered at a level I feel good about, I'll take the plunge and buy one for my own personal use. (The first one will belong to my employer)

To me, the only thing more exciting than the Red, is the "pocket" Red. Not because I don't want the flexibility of a larger camera that uses a wide variety of lenses, but because I really dislike back aches, and would love to just be able to pull out the camera and start shooting the second something interesting happens.

Tim

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, Government funding of media is neither the route to quality nor profitability.....

 

[TimothyD]

No offense Graeme

No offense Graeme

Yup, Government funding of media is neither the route to quality nor profitability.....

Can I just say, Sesame Street versus Pokemon?

NOW versus Inside Edition?

The list goes on and on. While not all state funded programs are that great, there are many important programs that the public NEEDS to see that are just not profitable.

Would Ford Motor Company provide commercial sponsorsip for an expose on the incredible exploding Pinto...

 

[Clint Johnson]

I'm gonna argue that the Red will make us better shooters. Skill is best built through practicing with good tools. You can become a better shooter by running a million feet of film through a 35mm camera or by recording a couple hundred hours on the Red camera... now guess which one of those we can afford?

Okay, Jim can afford both but I'll hazard a guess that he just might go with the Red camera anyway.

 

[Desert Rune]

no offense graeme

I think you're debating on something entirely different from what Graeme intended. He doesn't need to explain himself.

 

[TimothyD]

Right, I mean that it is not a magic bullet that will turn us into better shooters. It will allow us to grow with the camera to become more talented. It won't do anything for people who choose to ignore the opportunity to advance their skills sets.

 

[TimothyD]

Ok

Ok

I think you're debating on something entirely different from what Graeme intended. He doesn't need to explain himself.

Then I must have missed something.

 

[TimothyD]

I'm glad you were here to let me know that he doesn't need to explain himself though I might have been waiting a while for that explanation, even though I didn't expect him to, and was just voicing my concern.

 

[Steve Gibby]

How about the fact that the Red will allow those of us who work in video to make the transition to cine style work.

I'm of course not arguing that the camera will make me a better shooter, I'm arguing that I'll have room to grow with the camera.

If you were picking a hand tool to learn a wide variety of manual handwork, would you pick a single screwdriver or a Swiss Army Knife? If the price is right, then utility, scalability, and flexibility will enable you to practice and then master a wider range of skill sets. Why should those considerations be any different when choosing a camera system? Not to mention the additional revenue generating potential inherent in a camera system that is flexible, scalable, and has broad utility - once you have it mastered. The challenge for you, and nearly everyone, will be to broaden and deepen your skill sets to match the potential of RED One.

To me, the only thing more exciting than the Red, is the "pocket" Red. Not because I don't want the flexibility of a larger camera that uses a wide variety of lenses, but because I really dislike back aches, and would love to just be able to pull out the camera and start shooting the second something interesting happens.

I’m very interested in both RED One and the Professional Pocket Camera for their potential as complimentary fieldwork tools to pull out of my tool chest as the need arises. We don’t know what the feature set of the PPC will be yet, but IMO it will be a complimentary and peripheral tool to RED One, rather than be competitive with it.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Can I just say, Sesame Street versus Pokemon?

NOW versus Inside Edition?

The list goes on and on. While not all state funded programs are that great, there are many important programs that the public NEEDS to see that are just not profitable.

Would Ford Motor Company provide commercial sponsorsip for an expose on the incredible exploding Pinto...

The public "needs to see" Sesame Street?

OK OK, you probably meant the Pinto thing... I just think that those are legal issue that the sharks could probably handle better without the sensationalism of media coverage chumming the water. That just leads to feeding frenzy cases on unintended acceleration, exploding side-saddle gas tanks, Chromium (VI) in drinking water, gene modified tomatoes and silicone breast implants... all of which didn't have enough factual backing to stand on their own merits. That isn't to say that some won't turn out to have merit, it is just that they were argued in the media with rhetoric rather than in the courtroom with objective evidence or science.

But yes, government subsidies don't automatically make a production bad. For some reason, Canada makes some really good children's programming... what's with that?