OK... Film vs. RED

[Michael Ragen]

I don't really care if Red is better than film. I will just be extremely happy if it can match or exceed the image quality of my Canon 30d. Of course if it could match the resolution of my Mamiya 7ii... But of course I just sold that camera because I got sick of paying for medium format development costs.

People can say that a better camera won't make you a better shooter, but...
I did a photo shoot with my 30d and the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 mf lens yesterday that I'll be damned if my HVX can pull off anything close to the quality of. So yes, I do feel EXTREMELY LIMITED by the technology I'm currently using for video work, and I'm hoping Red is gonna change this.

 

[Tom Lowe]

deadmike, you make a really good point.

I think it is a fair analogy to compare the digital cinema camera revolution to the digital SLR revolution.

You might say the HVX is to the RED as a point-and-click digicam is to a Canon 5D. There are things you can do with a 5D you just simply cannot do with a $200 digisnap camera. And there are things you can do with RED you simply cannot do with an HVX (especially without a 35mm adapter).

 

[Júlio Taubkin]

I don't really care if Red is better than film. I will just be extremely happy if it can match or exceed the image quality of my Canon 30d. Of course if it could match the resolution of my Mamiya 7ii... But of course I just sold that camera because I got sick of paying for medium format development costs.

People can say that a better camera won't make you a better shooter, but...
I did a photo shoot with my 30d and the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 mf lens yesterday that I'll be damned if my HVX can pull off anything close to the quality of. So yes, I do feel EXTREMELY LIMITED by the technology I'm currently using for video work, and I'm hoping Red is gonna change this.

Nice one. Deadmike is right on the money, IMHO.

 

[der4]

I agree that the Red camera has the potential to shift the industry. Marketing and time could eventually do the job. But I think we should define "Film is Dead."

If the definition is that most feature films, television shows etc., will choose to shoot digital over 35mm then yes film will eventually die. But this does not mean that filmmakers will not continue to shoot on 35mm. And if 35mm goes down in price to be more competitive then more will shoot on it.

 

[Poi Boy]

Film will only get more expensive as the move to digital takes over. Eventually the film infrastructure will collapse from too small a demand. I think it will be a rarity for Hollywood in seven years and all but gone in ten. As far as television goes it will happen much faster.
Aloha
-A

 

[Poi Boy]

Deadmike I feel your pain with respect to digital backs, I have owned four and they have all cost more than red one !
Aloha
-A

 

[der4]

I believe the key to the digital movement over 35mm is to have digital projectors in Theaters. This topic has been going on at "showest" for years. The theater chains don't want to pay extra money for new projectors. So if RED can develop a theatrical projector at a unbeatable price then this would move things along a lot faster. I have spoken to many theater chain bookers about this. Until this happens film will be around. Even if you shoot on RED your final output will be 35mm for theatrical distribution. Because the big studios contract with Technicolor, Deluxe etc. for film deliveries to theaters shooting on 35mm makes sense to them (They make the money). But once the delivery is digital things will get very interesting. Even in downtown Burbank, CA at the AMC they do not have a digital projector (High Resolution) theater.

As for television the impact is obvious. Many narrative shows are using HD over 35mm. Red will just make the most sense for this market.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

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

Do you think maybe we're getting a little too obsessed with 35mm dof?
I don't hear people shooting 65 complaining why should it matter shooting on a 2/3 inch sensor?

It's a nice look and it's a strong point of the red camera but I have no problems with a 2/3 inch camera

 

[Michael Ragen]

Hey Poi Boy, I wasn't referring to a digital back for my Mamiya, just the resolution of the 120 film I shot with it and the cost of developing it. Also it took 30 minutes to scan one negative on my scanner at super high rez. It was a cheapo canon flatbed though.

 

[der4]

No. The 35mm Feature Film market will not justify changing to the digital medium if the quality is less then their current format. The best quality is what we should all strive for in every aspect of our films.

 

[Samscad]

I'll second that!


And added to that, hardly any of the training institutions here are teaching it. Its all digital

Yeah, I run a film school in Canada and for a while I was stressing about how to get 35mm into the students hands because that's what I learned with and I knew it was important to work with focus pulling etc etc. Now we only let the junior students use film. Senior students wouldn't touch the stuff, and that's before we get a RED!

 

[Samscad]

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.

Red's definitely going to make better shooters because you're going to have to be awesome to rise above the next generation of film makers who get 4K cameras for their tenth birthday.

 

[Samscad]

Saying that film is dead because in the future it will be superceded is the same as saying you are dead because in the future you won't exist or the earth is dead or the universe is dead....

All of these are either dead right now or they're not. Even though in the future all of those predictions will be a certainty, they haven't happened yet. Our ability to abstract into the future as a generality is fairly useful, but I can imagine your consternation if they used your argument and declared you dead right now. Credit cards are gone, lights and water are ceased, bank accounts frozen, mortgage if not paid up foreclosed, etc. etc.

Beleive me, if I had the bankability of film right now, they would be taking my house away!

 

[Craig Bowman]

Yeah, I run a film school in Canada and for a while I was stressing about how to get 35mm into the students hands because that's what I learned with and I knew it was important to work with focus pulling etc etc. Now we only let the junior students use film. Senior students wouldn't touch the stuff, and that's before we get a RED!

So why didn't you get a RED?

 

[McDiver]

I think there's another way of looking at this topic.
Take the old mechanical typewriters.
Now those were instruments for writing!
Manual control. I mean, you could use real tools to adjust the speed and feel of each keystroke! You could literally watch each letter make its stamp on the world, with the impact of words dying to be spoken.
And the advancements made by IBM were breathtaking. Anyone remember Stroke Storage, Typamatic, and the eventual introduction of correction tape? Those were the days. That's when typing was serious. Spelling was serious. Writing was serious.
It required a certain amount of preparation to write back then. Especially in developing the little-finger muscles. People hardly punctuate any more, and the excessive use of colons and semicolons (passing off as some sort of emotional symbol) is available to the weakest and untrained "writer" (try doing smiley faces ad nauseum with an elegant Underwood, and your fingers will feel the burn they deserve!) Nowadays it's all about blah, blah, blah. Why do you think they call them "blahgs."
Yes, writing practically died with the introduction of the personal computer. No critical, wallet-draining typeface and font choices to make, no need to keep track of all the little golf ball type-heads -- a discipline of its own. No paper to handle as you thought about what to write next. No smell of ink on your fingers to remind you of the extra-sensory nature of story telling. The little bell ringing to celebrate every completed line, the carriage return, with it's Rah-Rah Kachunk cheering you forward, is missed.
Writing was serious back then. It took effort. It was rewarded with texture and feeling (and the occasional cursing when the ribbon got stuck). And when you were done, you had something palpable, tangible, throwable. People could read it without having to turn on some device. They could mark it, fold it, smell it, throw it back.
Now it's just text spilling across the screen with all the importance and weight of ketchup running down the side of a burger. It's so clean, so predictable, so easy, so . . . available.
Very sad, really.

(This text was typed, scanned and OCR'd for purposes of being posted on RedUser.Net)

 

[Júlio Taubkin]

LOL, McDiver!

But I do resent the fact writing today is more about LOL's, ROFLOL's, IMHO's, 2C's, and whatever other silly acronyms we can invent...

 

[Clint Johnson]

Red's definitely going to make better shooters because you're going to have to be awesome to rise above the next generation of film makers who get 4K cameras for their tenth birthday.

Forget the ten year olds, check out the stop motion short "One Little Egg and His Plane" that my nephew Sam created last month. At 19 seconds it ain't long but it is a pretty decent start for a 5 year old.

He is already asking if he can borrow my Red when it comes in... that I am a little leery of.

 

[Craig Schober]

typing is both blessing and curse

typing is both blessing and curse

I think there's another way of looking at this topic.
Take the old mechanical typewriters.
Now those were instruments for writing!
Manual control. I mean, you could use real tools to adjust the speed and feel of each keystroke! You could literally watch each letter make its stamp on the world, with the impact of words dying to be spoken.
And the advancements made by IBM were breathtaking. Anyone remember Stroke Storage, Typamatic, and the eventual introduction of correction tape? Those were the days. That's when typing was serious. Spelling was serious. Writing was serious.
It required a certain amount of preparation to write back then. Especially in developing the little-finger muscles. People hardly punctuate any more, and the excessive use of colons and semicolons (passing off as some sort of emotional symbol) is available to the weakest and untrained "writer" (try doing smiley faces ad nauseum with an elegant Underwood, and your fingers will feel the burn they deserve!) Nowadays it's all about blah, blah, blah. Why do you think they call them "blahgs."
Yes, writing practically died with the introduction of the personal computer. No critical, wallet-draining typeface and font choices to make, no need to keep track of all the little golf ball type-heads -- a discipline of its own. No paper to handle as you thought about what to write next. No smell of ink on your fingers to remind you of the extra-sensory nature of story telling. The little bell ringing to celebrate every completed line, the carriage return, with it's Rah-Rah Kachunk cheering you forward, is missed.
Writing was serious back then. It took effort. It was rewarded with texture and feeling (and the occasional cursing when the ribbon got stuck). And when you were done, you had something palpable, tangible, throwable. People could read it without having to turn on some device. They could mark it, fold it, smell it, throw it back.
Now it's just text spilling across the screen with all the importance and weight of ketchup running down the side of a burger. It's so clean, so predictable, so easy, so . . . available.
Very sad, really.

(This text was typed, scanned and OCR'd for purposes of being posted on RedUser.Net)

typewriters were just another tool to make writers feel important about their career choices. without typewriters, a writer would look like they sit around all day thinking and not working. just think of all those writers and potential writers that were turned off by typewriters. the mechanical indifference to the elegance of human writing. the errors from rusted out keys and gears. ugly whiteout and correction tapes. and then the stilted hybrid nature of the electronic typewriters. half digital, half mechanical. annoying time lapses between the time you strike the keys and time they appear on the page.

in the end, typewriters won out against handwritten work because they were faster and more efficient, not because they required more thought or work. and typewriters led to the writing style that you criticize and ultimately to pure digital writing which is an even more extreme form of concise writing. anyway, the analogy does relate to red in that the more easier and cheaper you can allow people to participate in a profession (4k for $17.5K) or discipline, the more people will do so and that gives you a larger pool to draw from.

therefore, redone 4k use in this century will amount to nothing better or worse, just more.

 

[redhead]

Forget the ten year olds, check out the stop motion short "One Little Egg and His Plane" that my nephew Sam created last month. At 19 seconds it ain't long but it is a pretty decent start for a 5 year old.

Oh, I just went to YouTube and gave him 5 stars. :biggrin: You should post it on LiveVideo, too, they have a slightly higher resolution.

 

[McDiver]

typewriters were just another tool to make writers feel important about their career choices.

I knew I should have slapped a big ol' smiley face at the end of my typewriter treatise. Dry humor is harder to convey in print. Guess I better stick to pictures . . .:bleh: