OK... Film vs. RED

[Ace]

/Guys, sorry to go off topic, but a handy forum tip... (brought to you by ace)

Go to UserCP > Edit Options > Show 40 Posts per page.

It really does make it easy to go through lengthy threads all in one or 2 pages. I make it a point to always have this setting on!

/Ok continue..

 

[Steve Gibby]

Periodic shakeouts precipitated by micro-economic and macro-economic factors are a fact of life in every industry - and the convergent motion media industry is not immune. As artists we generally deal with right-brained aesthetic values, but as business people we also need to perform periodic left-brained assessments of the fiscal realities of the marketplace.

Sage advice would be to balance our creative dreams with the economic realities of our specific marketplace. In tandem with that, alliances, networking, and enabling technology complete the survival business plan paradigm.

Thoughts for producers:

If its fruit you're after, a slice of watermelon is more fruit than a whole grape...

Aesthetics & economics never seem to perfectly coincide...

If you fall face first on a pin and simultaneously put out both of your eyes, then your mind was probably too narrow...

 

[Ace]

Periodic shakeouts precipitated by micro-economic and macro-economic factors are a fact of life in every industry - and the convergent motion media industry is not immune. As artists we generally deal with right-brained aesthetic values, but as business people we also need to perform periodic left-brained assessments of the fiscal realities of the marketplace.

Sage advice would be to balance our creative dreams with the economic realities of our specific marketplace. In tandem with that, alliances, networking, and enabling technology complete the survival business plan paradigm.

Thoughts for producers:

If its fruit you're after, a slice of watermelon is more fruit than a whole grape...

Aesthetics & economics never seem to perfectly coincide...

If you fall face first on a pin and simultaneously put out both of your eyes, then your mind was probably too narrow...

Gibby, Ive always held your philosophies of diversity to high esteem. I truly believe that as an artist (or whatever you want to call it), one should be employing a "state of mind" first and particular skill set second. Skills are easy peasy to aquire. Thinking is valuable. And it is this broadminded application that will enable artists to apply themselves to be true problem solvers in any field or genre they choose. Its professionally healthy.

Indeed, Frank Lloyd Wright or Mies Van Der Rohe did not limit oneself to the grandiose city masterpieces; often finding most success and pleasure in designing furniture, small homes and cutlery.

 

[Fix]

Let's take a step back here and look at the back end of the film vs digital debate. The manufacturing and developing of film involves a a few less than desirable chemicals that are disposed of by way of drain or incineration. The impact on the environmental isn't huge and there have been steps to make it less so with closing the loop for some chemicals and recovery processes for others- but the impact would be even less if there weren't several million kilograms of the stuff used every year.

Ok this, whats best for the environment talk, is kinda ridicules IMO. If you find out how much energy and pollution it takes to make only one hard drive that you are going to use, I think you will be in for a surprise. Take computers for instance. You will use one for grading (chemicals?) right. How long life time do that pc have.. 2-3 maybe 4 years, and than you get a new one. How is that for our environment? I think we safely can conclude that we are still going to harm our environment as long as we keep consuming, and we have got pretty good at that! So don't fool yourself thinking we are green when using digital medium. I wouldn't be surprised when sum up its even worse to our little blue Tellus. In the end we are simply talking about changing energy from one to another, and that will cost our environment.

Ok one last think thats really good about Red One.. its upgradable, meaning we dont need to throw the body and get a whole smack new one in a couple of years. Now thats environment!

Remember do shut off your pc when going to bed

 

[Andrew M.]

Very good article about film resolving power when test charts are actually displayed on the projection screen in the cinema.
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Looks like good 80 lpp/mm Kodac film negative ends up as a 40lpp/mm on most cinema screens. (960 lines per screen width)
Test done in France US and in Montreal. Also they still counted lines at contrast ratio of black to white of 10% where for most digital tests we do not go below 40%

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but what does that really mean practically? You can still see the difference between 2K and 4K on a cinema screen, you can still see the difference between Super-16 and 35mm on NTSC, despite the fact that NTSC has less resolution than either. Cinema projection is not some sort of levelling process -- lower-resolution formats start out lower and end up lower after the resolution hit of the release printing process. It doesn't end up making 35mm anamorphic look similar to DV material, resolution-wise.

 

[Ace]

Ok this, whats best for the environment talk, is kinda ridicules IMO. If you find out how much energy and pollution it takes to make only one hard drive that you are going to use, I think you will be in for a surprise. Take computers for instance. You will use one for grading (chemicals?) right. How long life time do that pc have.. 2-3 maybe 4 years, and than you get a new one. How is that for our environment? I think we safely can conclude that we are still going to harm our environment as long as we keep consuming, and we have got pretty good at that! So don't fool yourself thinking we are green when using digital medium. I wouldn't be surprised when sum up its even worse to our little blue Tellus. In the end we are simply talking about changing energy from one to another, and that will cost our environment.

Ok one last think thats really good about Red One.. its upgradable, meaning we dont need to throw the body and get a whole smack new one in a couple of years. Now thats environment!

Remember do shut off your pc when going to bed

Digital is definately the greener medium. You cannot possibly sit there and tell me that 4 aluminium platters and a magnet are worse than the hundreds of thousands of possible film/tape feet that would be diplaced over the course of the drives life..

Not to mention the thousands of theatrical prints that have to be made and their own waste by product.

Either way, we will be using computers so there is no escaping that. But luckily, computer recycling programs have ramped up rather well, particularly in asian countries were environmental impacts are seen. I would love to see manufacturers incorporate the cost of waste disposal and environmental displacement into the product, and transferring this levy to an appropriate organisation.

 

[Fix]

Periodic shakeouts precipitated by micro-economic and macro-economic factors are a fact of life in every industry - and the convergent motion media industry is not immune. As artists we generally deal with right-brained aesthetic values, but as business people we also need to perform periodic left-brained assessments of the fiscal realities of the marketplace.

Sage advice would be to balance our creative dreams with the economic realities of our specific marketplace. In tandem with that, alliances, networking, and enabling technology complete the survival business plan paradigm.

Thoughts for producers:

If its fruit you're after, a slice of watermelon is more fruit than a whole grape...

Aesthetics & economics never seem to perfectly coincide...

If you fall face first on a pin and simultaneously put out both of your eyes, then your mind was probably too narrow...

Ah philosophy! I think you should drag in Plato into this, use hes allegory of the cave.

If you know the allegory than I'll say we may be in the light when Red One arrives. Maybe some of us even lucky enough to see some shades after using it. Ether way, thats a big leap ahead! I haven't even turned around in my little cave so am pretty hyped.

 

[Andrew M.]

Yes, but what does that really mean practically? You can still see the difference between 2K and 4K on a cinema screen, you can still see the difference between Super-16 and 35mm on NTSC, despite the fact that NTSC has less resolution than either. Cinema projection is not some sort of levelling process -- lower-resolution formats start out lower and end up lower after the resolution hit of the release printing process. It doesn't end up making 35mm anamorphic look similar to DV material, resolution-wise.

Yes I agree, over sampling or extra lpp/mm on the film is good.
However, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that film process from negative to the projection screen is very loosely process, so film have to have minimum 50% more resolving power to equal digital sensor and its post production and projection method that is 100% efficient.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not really fair to compare film going out as a release print to digital cinematography going out with digital projection -- film would benefit from good digital projection and digital origination will have the same resolution hit from being released on film prints, especially made through an IP/IN. You should be comparing film negative to digital origination, with both going through the same post and release process after that.

 

[Fix]

Digital is definately the greener medium. You cannot possibly sit there and tell me that 4 aluminium platters and a magnet are worse than the hundreds of thousands of possible film/tape feet that would be diplaced over the course of the drives life..

Im definitely saying that digital is not as green as some may think. We are now using many times energy level than we did for say .... 10 years ago. Digital era is consuming electricity like nothing else. We cant be as narrow minded and believe that everything is going to be fine only because we don't have a lot of film/tape around our feet's. Energy got to get from something.

Either way, we will be using computers so there is no escaping that. But luckily, computer recycling programs have ramped up rather well, particularly in asian countries were environmental impacts are seen. I would love to see manufacturers incorporate the cost of waste disposal and environmental displacement into the product, and transferring this levy to an appropriate organisation.

I wote for that! But still, we are going to use them, and we will use more in the next decade.

 

[Ace]

Im definitely saying that digital is not as green as some may think. We are now using many times energy level than we did for say .... 10 years ago. Digital era is consuming electricity like nothing else. We cant be as narrow minded and believe that everything is going to be fine only because we don't have a lot of film/tape around our feet's. Energy got to get from something.

Actually, we are probably using less electricity per household than we did 10 years ago. CRT's are being replaced by LCD's, 100 watt globes are being replaced by energy saver bulbs and we are recycling a hell of a lot more. Computers do use up a bit of energy, but compared to electronics of the yester year, no they do not. I do agree with you that its barely scratching the surface in terms of 'saving' the environment. But its a good start in the right direction. How many trees has the internet saved? I cant remember the last time i requested a paper brochure. How much transport emissions has email saved? I cant remember the last time I posted a letter.

I bet you many readers reading our environmental discussion here couldnt care less about this green BS. But the situation really is more dire than it seems at the present. As film-makers, documentary makers, news gatherers, video producers, it is incumbent upon the messengers of the modern world to contribute a positive environmental message in all aspects of work; the only way to really fix this problem is through conversion of the masses.

The environmental stuff really does strike a nerve with me.Sorry I tried to keep it short..Perhaps this is a topic of discussion for another thread.

 

[Kenn Christenson]

only way to really fix this problem is through conversion of the masses.

"You, too, will be assimilated."

 

[Ace]

"You, too, will be assimilated."

Hah, well I havent had much sleep, so I probably went too far with the Borg type language. Red- Resistance is futile!

 

[Andrew M.]

It's not really fair to compare film going out as a release print to digital cinematography going out with digital projection -- film would benefit from good digital projection and digital origination will have the same resolution hit from being released on film prints, especially made through an IP/IN. You should be comparing film negative to digital origination, with both going through the same post and release process after that.

Yes, I agree this is for time being. But once the cinemas will have some non projection screens to show all digital movies on it and also I expect they will keep some standard projectors as well to keep backward compatibility, then the difference will be the most visible.
I presume that some films will be scanned and shown on the digital only screens but this will not last long. Once the move to digital will start the film will be just too expensive and unable to compete.

BTW Arri scanner for DI process is just 6MP, I don’t know why they call it 4K though.
The sensor has a basic resolution of 3k x 2k pixels. An additional technique called micro-scanning is applied to generate images in 6k x 4k resolution.

The pixel shifting is rarely used since it increases the scan time that is already very long 2.2 sec per frame.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Hi Fix,

I did note that digital has its own detrimental impact. I also noted that the impact that film has isn't huge. My point was that even if it is only a million kilograms per year difference in favour of digital, and even though it shouldn't be the deciding factor, it is still a difference worth noting.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Thanks for the kind words Ace...

One of my favorite features was "Field of Dreams" - not for it's production values, cast, or script, but rather for it's message about "If you build it, they will come!"

I balance that with being a realist. In analyzing someone's dreams, including my own, I'll be the first one to describe the obstacles along the road, and the last to tell someone, or myself, that they can't be achieved.

If you can dream it...you can become it. If you can imagine it...you can achieve it. Keeping that in mind, nothing of true value is ever achieved easily...

How does this relate to this thread topic of "Film vs. RED"? IMO the entire story of RED, from the company’s beginning to the present, dovetails nicely with a philosophy of "If you build it, they will come". A byproduct of RED getting to their collective dream, is that RED’s dream realization just become someone else’s nightmare…

So, how can we individually apply that energy in our professional lives? No matter what your dream is, an attitude of "If you build it, they will come" creates the positive energy that enables you a decent chance of getting to your dream.

This isn't just rhetoric. I've practiced this philosophy for decades...and it has worked for me. Once I achieve a dream I simply start out the journey to the next one. I'll never retire - because I love my work, and I plan to keep setting dreams to achieve...

So, no matter if someone’s dream is to keep using film until it’s gone, use part film and part digital, or transition to a fully-digital scenario, with the correct mindset, talent, hard work, and access to the right tools for their chosen path, they will stand a good chance of reaching their dreams. But a realistic, periodic re-assessment and re-alignment of one’s goals is a good thing. To achieve my dreams, I’ll be using increasingly more digital and increasingly less film.

 

[GlennChan]

Actually, we are probably using less electricity per household than we did 10 years ago. CRT's are being replaced by LCD's, 100 watt globes are being replaced by energy saver bulbs and we are recycling a hell of a lot more.

IMO if you want to go green, you need a good strategy in place and can't simply rely on newer technology being greener. For example, fluorescent lights do save energy but you also need to dispose of them properly! Right now in Toronto, it is extremely inconvenient to do this and most people just throw them out with the normal garbage. Unfortunately, this means all the mercury in the lamp goes to the landfill where it can seep out.

And sometimes new technology is less energy efficient... the trend with processors is that they're using up more and more power.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

My entire house uses low-Wattage, daylight-balanced flourecents. There isn't a single incandescent bulb on the property. But I just got a 50" plasma--that thing uses about 400 friggin' Watts! And I'm about to buy two more. Another 50" and the Philips 63." My other big sin is my V8 stealth-black "cop" car that I just love. It gets 10 mpg.

 

[Ace]

My other big sin is my V8 stealth-black "cop" car that I just love. It gets 10 mpg.

heheh. The second car I owned had a 351 engine, I think I produced enough emmissions for 3 lifetimes with that thing. Got me into so much trouble. Ive sinced changed my ways though, a 1.8litre for my daily driver now (with the cat converters still in).