OK... Film vs. RED

[TimothyD]

Hi Gibby

Hi Gibby

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.

I totally agree... That is one of the most appealing things about Red to me. The modularity also is a very strong part of the appeal. Not only can I grow with the camera, to some (as yet unimaginable) extent, the camera can grow with me.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about both too, I'm just joking around because I've been lugging a nice heavy BetaSP for a long time

 

[Leo Ticheli]

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.

Thanks, Andrew,

Another bubble burst! Are you quite sure about the variation from frame to frame in film? I'm quite prepared to believe it.

For whatever reasons, perhaps wholly or mostly because of registration issues, locked-down film shots do seem to have more "life" than HD images.

Certainly we're a long way from the bad old days of non-pin-registered 16mm that had titles floating all over the place! Still, I would think there's some variation in register from frame to frame.

I do love the "soft" look of film; don't think it's so much a focus issue, but lack of artificial detail enhancement circuits. Unless it's something that demands a harder edge, I shoot my VariCam with the detail cranked all the way down.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[TimothyD]

For some reason, Canada makes some really good children's programming... what's with that?

That's kinda my point, left to their own devices commercial media gives us garbage. And yeah, the public (kids) NEED Sesame Street, they don't need Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc.

I guess we are too far off-topic on this one anyway.

 

[Joe Carney]

I agree with most of what krd said, though it didn't belong in this thread...
but heck, it's not stopping me or anyone else ...
the only thing I disagreed with what he said was about the cost of the camera. That 50K can be spread across several projects, plus depreciation over several years.

As far as the mediocraty of American Independent films, maybe we shouldn't use Independent and use low budget instead, since most are just trying to emulate the 'hollywood' look on a shoe string. That's not independent, that's cheap wannabes.

And krd, I will take you to task for not mentioning Jost, Jarmusch,Casevettes and other truly great American Independents. There are others, but they are getting harder to find. I think RED will give them something to compete with in terms of post costs and distribution (plus the application of their talent)..

The cost of distributing on film has become a factor and finally removing that (even if the original is shot on film) will help talented movie makers with low budgets get a greater chance of financial success.

The next important thing will to help Theaters get equipment and energy costs way down, so they can afford to take chances on small films that rely on word of mouth to build an audience.

Someone with true talent needs RED the least, but will get the most out of it when they decide to use it.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Although now, Sesame Street is as crassly commericial as Pokemon.....

Graeme

 

[garageman]

For some reason, Canada makes some really good children's programming... what's with that?

They're educated.:devil:

 

[TimothyD]

lol

lol

Although now, Sesame Street is as crassly commericial as Pokemon.....

Graeme

Ok, I'll concede that it has become much more commercial than it originally was. However if you weigh the educational value Sesame Street wins without anything but a death scream from Pokemon.

Can you tell I have kids to worry about?

My son watches Pokemon and it makes him run around the house like a blithering idiot screaming "Charazod!!!", when he watched Sesame Street still it helped him learn to read, and many other things.

Cheers,

Tim

 

[M Most]

I think this sometimes gets lost in the debate. RED will be a killer TV commercial, infomercial and music video camera.

Only if you want the material to look good. Which is not always the case, particularly in commercials and music videos. Which brings up an equally interesting point. With film, it's not hard to create interesting "distressed" looks, in part because you can, during telecine, force the grain to be apparent, giving the result a "gritty" feel. With a pristine digital original, you need to artificially introduce that - which is do-able, but takes more time and effort, and will likely not quite match what you might have gotten shooting on either film or, for instance, lower resolution video.

This again illustrates the old British motto "horses for courses." That's why we have choices.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, was making a point on the commercialism, not the educational content. Although the only education I got from SS was the "aqua" for "water" in Spanish, and that kids running around leaving ghostly trails behind them are pretty scary.....

My daughter is 2.5yrs old, and like the rest of the family, doesn't watch any broadcast TV (unless we're travelling on holiday as we don't have any broadcast TV reception at home).

Graeme

 

[garageman]

Yup, was making a point on the commercialism, not the educational content. Although the only education I got from SS was the "aqua" for "water" in Spanish, and that kids running around leaving ghostly trails behind them are pretty scary.....

My daughter is 2.5yrs old, and like the rest of the family, doesn't watch any broadcast TV (unless we're travelling on holiday as we don't have any broadcast TV reception at home).

Graeme

If I remember correctly, from Sesame Street, it is "AGUA" that is Spanish for water. My favourite things in SS were the animations and the backing songs like "lower case n", "little boy lost" and "racing cars". Everything else was a bit dull.

 

[Andrew M.]

Thanks, Andrew,

Another bubble burst! Are you quite sure about the variation from frame to frame in film? I'm quite prepared to believe it.

For whatever reasons, perhaps wholly or mostly because of registration issues, locked-down film shots do seem to have more "life" than HD images.

Certainly we're a long way from the bad old days of non-pin-registered 16mm that had titles floating all over the place! Still, I would think there's some variation in register from frame to frame.

I do love the "soft" look of film; don't think it's so much a focus issue, but lack of artificial detail enhancement circuits. Unless it's something that demands a harder edge, I shoot my VariCam with the detail cranked all the way down.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Leo, I spent some time researching these subjects and I always say:
“the information is as good as its source”
To keep the film running at 5 microns accuracy as compared with the original negative and as you said the molecules of film in the same place with the same precision it is impossible. And 5.5 micron is the size of one pixel on Misterium.
Just take microscope and look on the final projection copy film perforation, after it is run a few times.
I agree, the particles in different places each time is like lateral movement on the digital sensor, one can use it to get more details out of the picture but only if the frame rate is two to 3 times higher then eye latency. Eye will combine the multiple information bits if you manage to put two or three of these bits in the window of latency. (about 1/25 sec)
Most highly reputable voices of film versus digital, comes from watching film on the projection large screens and digital on the HD monitor.
Hmmm….kind of comparing apples to oranges.
As someone mentioned here, let’s transfer RED footage to the film and watch it side by side or transfer the movie to the digital and watch it on the reference screen.

Next time someone will be comparing film to digital, ask him:
What screen did you watch the material that you are trying to compare on?

I would love to shoot short movie on the best ARRI camera using best Kodak film and simultaneously shoot the same on RED. Give the material to the best post people of both technologies and then watch it side by side on the film or Sony projector but both on the same.
I presume that film will go via DI process as most films do these days.

 

[M Most]

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...

I'm gonna argue that learning how to light will make you a better shooter. As will knowing the limitations of the camera you use. As will learning to have a storytelling sense and a good sense of composition. But you won't learn how to light working in a vacuum. If you're going to shoot and shoot in an effort to be "better," it won't matter unless you're getting feedback - both on set and after viewing the results - from someone who knows what they're doing. It is very, very difficult to improve one's skills in this area without such feedback. And without improving one's lighting skills - along with one's sense of storytelling and composition - one cannot really get "better." Regardless of how many hours they "practice."

 

[Joe Carney]

Yup, was making a point on the commercialism, not the educational content. Although the only education I got from SS was the "aqua" for "water" in Spanish, and that kids running around leaving ghostly trails behind them are pretty scary.....

My daughter is 2.5yrs old, and like the rest of the family, doesn't watch any broadcast TV (unless we're travelling on holiday as we don't have any broadcast TV reception at home).

Graeme

As a young boy, I spent 2 years in Turkey with no broadcast TV, but we did have movies and radio. When I came back to the 'world' my reading skills were 2 years ahead of my peers. Way before computers too.

My favorite form of entertainment was old radio serials broadcast from the local Armed Forces Radio station, they used to show the old weekly movie serials at the local american community center too. I know who Dr Guilespie is. hehehe

 

[TimothyD]

Gotcha Graeme,

I grew up with Sesame Street and got a lot out of it. I was born in '71 so it was the prime era for it.

I think Mr. Rogers was more creepy though But I loved his show too and got a lot out of it as well.

Good job keeping your Daughter away from broadcast TV. It is not easy, I try hard with my kids. My daughter is four, and whenever possible we have her watch older movies and cartoons on DVD. Luckily the programs for her age group are not allowed to have any commercials.

Fat Albert has been the big favorite lately (was for me as a kid too

Tim

 

[M Most]

As someone mentioned here, let’s transfer RED footage to the film and watch it side by side or transfer the movie to the digital and watch it on the reference screen.

A Guess:

If you project both Red original and film original from a film print, and do not reveal which is which, most viewers won't be able to tell. They'll claim they can, but if you actually do a survey, it's likely that most of them will get it wrong. This guess is based on tests done by Panavision with the Genesis - whose images, at least based on what we've seen so far, are not nearly as detailed and as clean as those of the Red. Color correction plays a rather large part in perception, so if you color correct the film and the Red originals to basically look the same, at least in terms of color, my further guess is that many viewers would incorrectly pick the Red material as being film originated, simply because the images will likely appear sharper - something they expect from film, rightly or wrongly. This would likely be the case even if you did the color correction for the film as a 4K DI process. In fact, in the Panavision test, shots were intercut in random order - film, digital, film, digital, etc. - and most of the audience still got it wrong.

The more interesting test, to me, is to present both using digital projection. In that case, I still believe a good part of the audience would get it wrong. But I also think that if you asked them which one looked better, they would pick the Red original almost every time, mostly because of the lack of visible grain.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Gbabymogul]

I'd love to see a shootout between Genesis, D20, 535, Viper, F950 and RED. A comprehensive one that includes both all the geek chart tests and some practical real world tests - pushing the limits, then maybe toss in one beauty shot or two... Print to film all of them, and make a digital master, trying to keep within certain parameters.

That's probably a lot of readies to pony up , though. And i don't expect it to be done - getting the manufacturers to agree. But , it would give a great idea of where all the options are i relation to one t'other.

RED would have to be ready to take the pitch. Are they Real Madrid or West Brom ? That'd tell the punters the objective proof. (my bet is on the former :wink

:beer:

 

[Clint Johnson]

I'm gonna argue that learning how to light will make you a better shooter. As will knowing the limitations of the camera you use. As will learning to have a storytelling sense and a good sense of composition. But you won't learn how to light working in a vacuum. If you're going to shoot and shoot in an effort to be "better," it won't matter unless you're getting feedback - both on set and after viewing the results - from someone who knows what they're doing. It is very, very difficult to improve one's skills in this area without such feedback. And without improving one's lighting skills - along with one's sense of storytelling and composition - one cannot really get "better." Regardless of how many hours they "practice."

Lighting is a prerequisite for shooting, there is no shooting without it and I can't separate the lighting from the shooting - so I have a little trouble parsing your point. The lighting may be as simple as waiting for the sun to get "right there", adjusting the practicals or bouncing in some gold fill, but it is always about the lighting since the Mysterium can't do a thing without photons.

I would like a bigger lighting package since it is all 2k and under... but even with that I can get a lot of practice in meticulous lighting of smaller volumes.

Lighting and composition is the practice of which I speak. While most of the feedback will be from my harshest critic - myself, I'm planning some short films that will be thrust out into the blinding light of the cruel world for both constructive and destructive criticism.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

I would love to shoot short movie on the best ARRI camera using best Kodak film and simultaneously shoot the same on RED. Give the material to the best post people of both technologies and then watch it side by side on the film or Sony projector but both on the same.

I agree that such a test would be interesting, but I'll share the results of my "test."

We encountered a great deal of skepticism from clients and some downright hostility in forums when we became HD "evangelists" several years ago. The best "test" for me was when very savvy producer clients viewed our HD material and pronounced it to be "film." Not, "just like film," or, "as good as film," but simply, "film."

I'm not saying that an one could not discern, and correctly identify, our film from our HD in a controlled side by side test; I'm saying the HD gave us everything we needed to make "filmic" television commercials. People viewed the footage and thought it was very beautiful film. I really don't need more than that.

Of course I firmly believe that as much credit goes to the skills of my crew as to the magic of 24p/180° shutter and the cinegamma settings.

I just think the whole "film vs. HD" thing has been largely irrelevant for some time. The Red, and similar cameras promise to render the issue moot.

I once predicted that one day we'll all go to the art theater to watch some new big-budget feature that is very special because it was actually shot on chemical film, just like in the "old days!"

Never bet against technology.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Tom Lowe]

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.

Haha, I get the same feeling in regard to Jim's motivations. Sony is already losing their shirts trying to compete with moneybags Bill Gates in the console market. They lose something like $300 USD per PS3 console. I doubt they can afford to match Jannard's single-minded quest to make 4K available to us lowly peasants.

 

[Jim McKinney]

You're right on the money there, Rocketeer

You're right on the money there, Rocketeer

I look at it this way.

Can I buy a Genesis? No
Can I buy an Arri D-20? No
Can I buy the Dalsa Origin? No

Viper and F23? at the end of the day 2/3" HD cameras.
Want 35mm DOF on a 2/3" HD Camera? P+S Pro 35 US$27K
Little late in the game to start adding film cameras to our inventory.

What was the question again?

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's the chip and the cost as the two most compelling reasons for me - as well as several others.

Jim McKinney