Predictions. When will Red "match" film?

[Roberto Lequeux]

:leaving:

What combination of specs would you say will take for 95% or more of audience members to be unable to pick them apart even when asked to under close and ideal inspection circumstances?

What will it take for "us"?

A good grader can "solve" the lack of grain and give it texture, which helps tie in all the different surfaces, give it a cohesive feel, help empty areas... whatever you guys think it does. A good grader can also massage the linear RAW negative with curves lessening to some extent how the information was allocated and do other trickery to emulate the color reproduction if what Red shoots out isn't perfect enough for your eyes.

Personally I don't care about what "we" think really, I am all about being able to elicit the visceral response from the audience they would otherwise have had the project been shot on film because they have their childhood filmed on 8mm.

But whatever you read into this general question: What will be required?

It can't just be the extra stops of dynamic range coming on Misterium-X. And doesn't film still have a bit more dynamic range than what we see on the M-X chart?

We will also need the added bit depth for a larger color count, and luma resolution or whatever you call it. How many bits? Perhaps all it takes is a logarithmic RedCode? Something else like that? (I wonder why the bit depth was taken off the brochure on Red.com)

Then there is also resolution, not sensor resolution but resolution after debayer.

What about sensitivity? Being able to match sensitivity has it's value under many circumstances.

Ok, I am listening, and hoping to learn me some stuff into mah brain. Hope I don't get banned for being annoying and bringing this up again. : )

 

[Eren Ozkural]

If we're talking about the layman then I think it's already reached that point.
As long as there is control on set (eg. enough light in a scene for 180 deg or less shutter angle) the RED fools audiences. Then again the Genesis does a fantastic job as well.

If it were according to us folk, im sure we could debate 4 micro second sensor read/reset times, 13+ stops of DR etc. etc.

 

[Matthew Verkler]

I often do informal polls of people I know, from professional to semi-pro to regular viewers. Right now, I find that

-Regular viewers cannot tell whether something was shot by film or digital when digital is shot well with cameras such as Red or Genesis. This statement does not include films like Public Enemy or Miami Vice, which were intentionally shot to look like "video".

-Semi-pros cannot tell with movies like District 9 or Knowing. I've had semi-pros express great surprise that District 9 was Red. Of course they spotted the EX1 footage and figured it was supposed to look like a corporate video. And the particular grading of District 9 was noted, but not identified as digital.

-Pros can still spot digital if they really look. For me, it's faces that show the most, and it's more of my subconscious that accurately detects digital. Of course I love Red and feel I can create any look I want to; a lot of Genesis films have film-like coloring, though I think Superman Returns and Benjamin Button looked off. Having said that, I liked the overall look of Benjamin Button. Less controlled daytime exteriors, especially wide shots, are also revealing due to less dynamic range for digital.

I think Red One's resolution compares very favorably to film right now, I think its colorimetry is pretty good, and I think the dynamic range disparity can be made up with lighting most of the time. For sensitivity, film is still ahead, but again, lighting can make up for that. I am really stoked about Epic X with it's presumed increased useful dynamic range and usable "sensitivity". The increased resolution is good too, but IMO less critical. And choice of lenses can add subtle looks that are more "filmic" if that's required. I am keeping all my old lenses for that purpose, as tools in the toolbox.

This is just my two cents of course.

Matthew Verkler

 

[M Most]

...a lot of Genesis films have film-like coloring, though I think Superman Returns and Benjamin Button looked off.

Superman Returns was heavily treated in DI to achieve a specific, unique "semi period" look that Tom Sigel and Bryan Singer wanted.

Benjamin Button was not shot on Genesis. It was shot primarily on Thomson Viper, with Sony F23 used for the hospital scenes and a bit of 35mm, 3 perf film thrown in as well.

 

[Eren Ozkural]

It's the boatload of comedy films like Superbad and Adventureland and Click from the Apatow/Mottola/Sandler camp that surprised me. I never noticed that SUperbad was Genesis.

I'm assuming that Zombieland was Genesis with Phantom HD shots sprinkled in (still havent seen the movie)

I have to stop myself and realise how spoilt I am when trying to decide between buying 2/3" fixed and S35 Scarlet and debating the pros and cons of each model.

There is a lot more than a camera that goes into making beautiful cinema. People coped just fine a few years ago when HD Cam recording 1080p was seen as luxury. Now we're arguing over bayer pattern sensor's effective resolution loss? please...

We've made it. All that need a REDUSER needs to match film is a little care.

 

[rod bradley]

Assuming a professional skilled use of the tools (there's been plenty of bad film shot, although it is more forgiving) -- most people can't tell -- and if it's any good, it doesn't matter to 99 per cent because they will be engaged in what it's about in its totality (not a particular element of the esthetics).

And probably in the not too distant future, electronic sensors will surpass film even in dynamic range (in a decade or so, maybe less is my guess) -- and in the not very very distant future, the "romance" of the film "look" (of course there are many different looks and hundreds of different stocks over the years) will be just that -- a kind of nostalgia shared by a few, just as we can hold a special fondness for letterpress books and illuminated manuscripts and hand-drawn animation cells.

 

[Matthew Verkler]

Benjamin Button was not shot on Genesis. It was shot primarily on Thomson Viper, with Sony F23 used for the hospital scenes and a bit of 35mm, 3 perf film thrown in as well.

Oh yeah, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to mention Zodiac as well in that category. Loved the film though, but wasn't overjoyed about the look.

Notice I didn't say "bad", it just seemed a little off to me. I think your point is that there are also artistic choices involved.

If I try real hard, I can get Red footage to look quite video-like, but the same can actually be said about film too. Lots of bad denoise/degrain mixed with over-sharpening. Sometimes it's called for to support the story, like the corporate video in District 9.

Best Regards,

Matthew Verkler

 

[M Most]

It's the boatload of comedy films like Superbad and Adventureland and Click from the Apatow/Mottola/Sandler camp that surprised me. I never noticed that SUperbad was Genesis.

"Walk Hard" (which actually fooled me, and I know what to look for) and "Get Smart" were Genesis as well.

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Genesis seems to have quite a stranglehold on the $20-$40 million movies

 

[Michael Totten]

1. How digital handles highlights (even as they clip)... right now digital just drops off to pure nuclear white whereas film somehow does it so gracefully and organically. To me when film is blown it just looks better.

2. Digital being able to mimic film texture.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

For me, it's faces that show the most, and it's more of my subconscious that accurately detects digital.

Good point. Since we spend countless hours looking at different human faces we become very keen at detecting minor differences, and skin tone is included. This would change favorably with added bit depth right? A higher number of possible color values will give us better color gradation, at the pore level, blemishes, imperfections, aside from accuracy of the overall skin tome itself. Sort of like with microcontrast on lenses, right?

1. How digital handles highlights (even as they clip)... right now digital just drops off to pure nuclear white whereas film somehow does it so gracefully and organically. To me when film is blown it just looks better.

Yes. This is the other big one, maybe even more of an "issue" for me. Bit depth should also help highlights, right? Not just more colors but also more "luma" values.

Film is SO much better in with highlights if you are not careful. And if you are shooting daytime and you expose to the right without filling in the shadows with bounce or powerful HMIs then you may get shadows that could be considered a bit too harsh, or noisy if you push them too much.

So I understand that added dynamic range will help. But to get equal highlights is it a matter of just matching film's dynamic range an presto?

I suppose log RAW would help highlights too, but then comes in the whole discussion about whether you can un-do the math accurately. Is there any chance that Red might be going log on us? Perhaps giving us the option?!

I wonder because of the bit depth being taken down from red.com...

 

[mikeburton]

I really love the look of the older Lomo anamorphics paired with RED (I guess that's why I own a set). There is something about the softness of those lenses that I feel pair really nicely with the RED and give it an overall 'film like look' when shot appropriately as well of course. I guess it's one of those things that can be copied pretty well but never perfected. Honestly, that's how I actually like it. Film is another tool for the filmmaker as is digital and so will the next form of breakthrough technology 25 years from now. We are already beginning to hear about HDR cameras capable of more dynamic range than film in the works. Will it be film? No, but it will be another alternative. Film is still the standard in which all other acquisition formats will attempt to reach and surpass but I think it's about choices and a realization and acceptance of each format to use at your liking.

 

[Michael Totten]

I really love the look of the older Lomo anamorphics paired with RED (I guess that's why I own a set). There is something about the softness of those lenses that I feel pair really nicely with the RED and give it an overall 'film like look' when shot appropriately as well of course.

I agree. "sharp" sensor and soft lens. I think cookes look good on the Red as well. This is one thing that worries me about the RPP's.... I am seriously considering buying a set and I've heard very good reviews from people I trust.... I understand though that they're very sharp (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)... I just prefer a softer lens.

 

[Reinhold R.]

I suppose log RAW would help highlights too, but then comes in the whole discussion about whether you can un-do the math accurately. Is there any chance that Red might be going log on us? Perhaps giving us the option?!

I wonder because of the bit depth being taken down from red.com...

Actually, logarithmic data formats aren't a quality decision but rather a storage decision. Our eyes perform better under bright lighting conditions and rather poorly with little light around. Logarithmic storage makes use of this by attributing fewer bits to the darker parts of an image and more to the brighter parts. The result is visually indistinguishable from the original but takes up less space on your harddrive. This doesn't change the fact though, that the sensor works in a linear fashion and is thus prone to clip eventually. What would help would be some kind of "soft-clip" filter (either as an optical element or as a part in the AD conversion stage) that attenuates the light if it gets too bright (there are sun glasses and welding helmets which can do that).

I don't think that much more is required from current digital sensors. I was impressed by the quality of Zodiac and BB when I first saw them. But then not everyone has the budget to have their work polished by Digital Domain and John Lowry.
I don't think that the problem of current sensors is the lack of dynamic range. The problem is rather, that you have to choose between clipping your highlights (very bad) or going for the low end and introducing a lot of noise (not any better). Now if there was a way (as described above) to "soft-clip" the highlights that would allow for an increase in perceptible dynamic range without having to design a sensor with 16 or 20 stops of latitude.

On a side note I find it disrespectful to start a thread like this only weeks before the announcement of possible shipping dates and an updated time-line in the Mysterium-X/Monstro process. Once the sensor has shipped and everyone is disappointed because it sucks (which I highly doubt) you can fire a discussion like this up again.

-Reinhold

 

[Michael Totten]

On a side note I find it disrespectful to start a thread like this only weeks before the announcement of possible shipping dates and an updated time-line in the Mysterium-X/Monstro process. Once the sensor has shipped and everyone is disappointed because it sucks (which I highly doubt) you can fire a discussion like this up again.

-Reinhold

Reinhold.

IMO - I don't think the OP's intention was to be disrespectful to Red or stir things up. I think it was more a general comment/query on digital vs. film (digital being ANY digital camera).

 

[Reinhold R.]

Reinhold.

IMO - I don't think the OP's intention was to be disrespectful to Red or stir things up. I think it was more a general comment/query on digital vs. film (digital being ANY digital camera).

I guess you're right. So please excuse my little rant from before. And I think it's only natural that people start discussing these things when they are reminded once more that there is something new out there (which, frankly enough, happens quite frequntly on these forums).

I hope I could still contribute a little bit to the discussion.

-Reinhold

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I suppose film's chemical reactions are the same whether there is a heap of light hitting the film or just one photon.

So is the clipping much more abrupt because silicone sensors are unable to register extremely low values because of the internal noise of the hardware?

I guess you're right. So please excuse my little rant from before. And I think it's only natural that people start discussing these things when they are reminded once more that there is something new out there (which, frankly enough, happens quite frequntly on these forums).

I hope I could still contribute a little bit to the discussion.

-Reinhold

No offense taken. And thanks for posting.

You are exactly right. My intention was simply to start a conversation hoping to find people willing to share knowledge which I could absorb, regarding a subject of my current personal interest. I am sure, as you point out, many others were also reminded of this ultimate threshold for digital filmmaking.

 

[Alex Mack]

I thought this was an interesting thread, didn't get a chance to comment earlier.
Red has suggested that the Monstro will finally outdo film, with equivalent dynamic range.
After that, it can only get better.
But on the other hand, in every other aspect, Red really already has outdone celluloid. Its smaller, its lighter, its safer, its faster, more reliable, and its cheaper. So there no reason to fret a stop of DR, when there is so much more that is preferable IMO. If it comes to the question of aesthetically matching film, it will completely very shortly, but do so much more that film could never do aesthetically. (no grain, higher rez {for 35}, accurate color, lowlight {noiseless iso 3200, anyone?}) Simulating film perfectly: now; Trumping film: the future

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Ill most likely Use Genesis on my Feature.
It has the most FILM like qualitys of any Digital Cinema Camera.
I dont know what tech specs they use to achieve it.. but it looks the best to me.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Red is Great.. dont get me wrong.. but it has a look to it that, at least I can pin point. Show me a bunch of footage and ill tell you what was shot on RED.

Show me genesis and Film clips.. and ill be confused