Predictions. When will Red "match" film?

[Ace]

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.

The genisis strong points are in its blacks and shadow depth. Even though seeing lowlight shots of the Genisis there is significant noise.. But the Genisis does produce beautiful depth. And I do attribute that to the way it captures blacks and shadows (as well as skin tones).

The M-X from what I've seen so far has achieved that level... So fingers crossed...

 

[Michael Totten]

The genisis strong points are in its blacks and shadow depth. Even though seeing lowlight shots of the Genisis there is significant noise.. But the Genisis does produce beautiful depth. And I do attribute that to the way it captures blacks and shadows (as well as skin tones).

The M-X from what I've seen so far has achieved that level... So fingers crossed...

I'm not sure what generation of the Genisis was used on Superman Returns but there were about a dozen or so nighttime exterior shots that looked absolutely horrible. It was so unbelievably noisy (egregiously blue channel noise) that I about fell out of my seat. I'm pretty sure I saw it at the CineramaDome and it could've been right when the got the new Sony 4K projector was installed. Also, I thought the blacks seemed just a bit milky... it seemed like there was an almost imperceptible opaque grayish haze over what should have been inky black. I don't know if this was the Genisis, the projector or some amalgamation of the two, but it was no good.
Not to say that there weren't other shots in the movie that looked really good... it's just you ( I ) have a tendency to remember the bad stuff unless the good stuff is unreal, which it wasn't .

 

[Fran Kuhn]

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?

Hi Roberto,

I'm actually fairly happy with the progress of digital capture on the stills side. I use the Canon 1Ds Mark III and think it produces a very nice file. Then I set up my old 4x5 Toyo and shoot some Kodak 160VC and realize just how far digital still has to go. It could simply be my own inability to get the most out of the RAW file, but I've never been able to get a good skin tone with digital. It is almost always a little flat and dead looking to my eye. People seem to look like wax figures.

Here's a side-by-side: Two examples of a Garage Magazine portrait shoot I did last month with Seattle artist Charles Krafft. (Same lighting, just different cameras.) Toggle back and forth quickly between the two photos looking directly at the faces. I think you'll see what I mean--the film simply has the appearance of greater depth and much more appealing skin tones. Hopefully you can see it in these small, low-res files. The difference on my Apple Cinema Display is astonishing. BTW notice how different film and digital render the color of the shirt. The film is closer to what I saw in real life, even though I did a white balance in post for both files.

Honestly, the digital always looks great to me until I get the film scans back (even a cheap 5MB Crystal "proof" scan like this one). So I keep shooting both (digital to replace Polaroid, which is no longer available), and almost always end up using the film scan files. But I'm still looking forward to the next generation of sensors, M-X and whatever Canon/Nikon and the rest come up with.

-Fran

 

[Martin Stevens]

I'm confused.............the photo on the left looks like film, but you labeled it as a digital camera file. Is this correct?

 

[M Most]

I'm not sure what generation of the Genisis was used on Superman Returns but there were about a dozen or so nighttime exterior shots that looked absolutely horrible. It was so unbelievably noisy (egregiously blue channel noise) that I about fell out of my seat. I'm pretty sure I saw it at the CineramaDome and it could've been right when the got the new Sony 4K projector was installed. Also, I thought the blacks seemed just a bit milky...

It was the very first cameras built, essentially still in the prototype stage. Additionally, the footage was very, very heavily treated in the DI to achieve a specific look that Tom Sigel and Bryan Singer wanted. Just as there are a number of Red projects that you wouldn't normally want to use to judge the capabilities of the camera system, there are such projects with other cameras as well. I prefer to concentrate on the more visually successful projects when judging the capabilities of equipment rather than the less successful, because in many cases there are reasons - either technical or, more often, human - why those projects look the way they do. In the case of Genesis, I would look at projects like Apocalypto, Flyboys, Superbad, Walk Hard, Get Smart, and Click as better examples of its capabilities.

 

[Fran Kuhn]

I'm confused.............the photo on the left looks like film, but you labeled it as a digital camera file. Is this correct?

Martin,

Yes, the photo on the left is digital (the one where he's not wearing the cap).

-Fran

 

[K Brown]

A simple question.

Why does digital have to look like film?

If you want your shoot to look like film, shoot film.

As I assume everyone here has or wants a RED, you're shooting digital, with all the advantages associated including POST options.

Everyone continues the search for the Holy Grail, a search that is useless. Shoot digital, make your "look" in POST. They didn't shoot on film, and leave it untouched and print the final cut as is did they?

The times, they are a-changin'.

 

[Alex Mack]

Martin,

Yes, the photo on the left is digital (the one where he's not wearing the cap).

-Fran

Hehe. And it looks better. Amazing.
Film is not accurate in coloration... it is redder. If you want that look, just grade for it.

 

[Fran Kuhn]

Hehe. And it looks better. Amazing.
Film is not accurate in coloration... it is redder. If you want that look, just grade for it.

Hi Alex,

My wife thinks the digital looks better, too. Unfortunately, the Art Director seems to like the film, LOL.

But to your point, "just grade for it", if it were that easy, I certainly would. I just attended a seminar by Lee Varis at The Icon photo lab in LA last night. Lee is one of the digital field's leading experts on getting good skin tones. He makes a good living selling his books to people who's paycheck depends on delivering what the Client wants. Some of us, for better or for worse, can't settle for good enough. FWIW read Lee's book and tell me how easy it is.:001_unsure: Film just works. Not saying it can't be done with dig or won't change, but for now. . .

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=Lee+Varis&x=16&y=20

-Fran

 

[Michael Totten]

It was the very first cameras built, essentially still in the prototype stage. Additionally, the footage was very, very heavily treated in the DI to achieve a specific look that Tom Sigel and Bryan Singer wanted. Just as there are a number of Red projects that you wouldn't normally want to use to judge the capabilities of the camera system, there are such projects with other cameras as well. I prefer to concentrate on the more visually successful projects when judging the capabilities of equipment rather than the less successful, because in many cases there are reasons - either technical or, more often, human - why those projects look the way they do. In the case of Genesis, I would look at projects like Apocalypto, Flyboys, Superbad, Walk Hard, Get Smart, and Click as better examples of its capabilities.

Yeah I figured it was an early model and I totally agree with what you're saying, it was probably user error during production. I didn't mean to come off as dismissing the Genisis all together, I was just remarking on those specific shots in that particular movie. Apocalypto looked good though.
Another example is the Viper. Miami Vice vs. Zodiac (and I realize Miami Vice was shot that way intentionally).

 

[Martin Stevens]

Fran,

Could you please post larger or more detailed photos of the 2 photos you just put up for AB comparison?

 

[Fran Kuhn]

Fran,

Could you please post larger or more detailed photos of the 2 photos you just put up for AB comparison?

Hi Martin,

I tried to originally, but they wouldn't upload. Sorry for the small files. PM me if you want me to email you something.

-Fran

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Film vs. Digital

Film vs. Digital

One reason it can be hard to tell if you are looking at something shot on film vs. digital is that film gets scanned on a digital sensor for the DI.

If you look at REAL optical answer prints made direct from the negative, vs. a DI then filmout to dupe negative and then to a print, you should be able to see quite a bit of difference if the projector is in focus.

A 65mm 2nd generation answer print shot on film has a quality that digital will not match because of the way Bayer filter images are processed. If you made a three chip camera you would be closer.

But that does not matter, the main question is can you get away with shooting Digital rather than ECN now, and that answer has to be yes, in fact I cannot see any reason why film would be used to shoot on for low budget films any longer. In a few years even low cost digital cinema cameras will produce over-all better results than 35mm camera film, and you will not have to deal with the dust mitigation that people from a video background have no idea of what a hassle working with film is. Seeing dust, scratches and muck are no longer acceptable, without heavy digital processing of film scans, I don't think anyone would shot film any longer. Since TCE is not an option any longer, getting a film negative clean enough to strike prints direct from the camera negative in a zero cut optical printer is just too much to deal with.

Thats why I have been working on the uncompressed DI software for high resolution film scans, and more so now for true RAW Digital frames. If you think about it, if you make a digital image of a film frame, or just point the digital camera at the subject, not having the film as a step between the subject and the sensor can only give a sharper result. The hold up was dynamic range, but you can make a two chip HDR camera so that is not so much of an issue as well. With new 14bit sensors I would think there will be less and less color negative shot, will production end 7 years from now, or 12?

 

[Steven Caesare]

When will movie audiences not be able to discern the difference between RED acquired footage and film acquired footage?

2007.

-sc

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I've been out with a few "non-industry" friends to local cinemas to see "Shot on RED" movies. They have no idea what they're shot on - they don't complain on the image quality, they don't notice it's not shot on film.

One thing that always amazes me is when I look at film scan DPXs on my computer....

Graeme

 

[David (dudi) Namir]

I've been out with a few "non-industry" friends to local cinemas to see "Shot on RED" movies. They have no idea what they're shot on - they don't complain on the image quality, they don't notice it's not shot on film.

One thing that always amazes me is when I look at film scan DPXs on my computer....

Graeme

You are most right Graeme, we are at the point of good enough image.
In a way I hear Red 1s owner saying: why do I need to upgrade the Red One image is good enough.
Just wander if this is not going to be "self goal" (am not sure about the expression in english).

 

[Graeme Nattress]

No, not a self goal because better is always better

Graeme

 

[David (dudi) Namir]

....and I am going to swim....

 

[David (dudi) Namir]

No, not a self goal because better is always better

Graeme

so Epic Birthday....

 

[Michael Totten]

Hi Roberto,

I'm actually fairly happy with the progress of digital capture on the stills side. I use the Canon 1Ds Mark III and think it produces a very nice file. Then I set up my old 4x5 Toyo and shoot some Kodak 160VC and realize just how far digital still has to go. It could simply be my own inability to get the most out of the RAW file, but I've never been able to get a good skin tone with digital. It is almost always a little flat and dead looking to my eye. People seem to look like wax figures.

Here's a side-by-side: Two examples of a Garage Magazine portrait shoot I did last month with Seattle artist Charles Krafft. (Same lighting, just different cameras.) Toggle back and forth quickly between the two photos looking directly at the faces. I think you'll see what I mean--the film simply has the appearance of greater depth and much more appealing skin tones. Hopefully you can see it in these small, low-res files. The difference on my Apple Cinema Display is astonishing. BTW notice how different film and digital render the color of the shirt. The film is closer to what I saw in real life, even though I did a white balance in post for both files.

Honestly, the digital always looks great to me until I get the film scans back (even a cheap 5MB Crystal "proof" scan like this one). So I keep shooting both (digital to replace Polaroid, which is no longer available), and almost always end up using the film scan files. But I'm still looking forward to the next generation of sensors, M-X and whatever Canon/Nikon and the rest come up with.

-Fran

I'm not sure if comparing a 4X5 large format camera loaded with portrait film AND a FF digital camera is fair ?? At least the sensor / film size should be the same or at least closer.