Quentin Tarantino on Leaving the Film Business Because of Digital Projection (Video)

[Bruce Allen]

Stuart from RED is quoted saying that the Rec 709 color gamut outputting from the RedRay is "stated 12-bit 4:2:2 or 8 bit 4:4:4 output spec is actually the technical spec of the HDMI 1.4 standard at 4K and Ultra HD resolution...

... the actual .RED codec performance exceeds that."

RedRay isn't limited to Rec 709. It's a technical aspect based from current consumer technology. They are prepared to go further, especially with the Crimson Projector.

"However in our CRIMSON projector, where we have an internal REDRAY player and full control over the signal path, the HDMI 1.4 specs for bit rate and frame rate and color gamut are not limitations, so we can use the full capabilities of the .RED file specifcation." -Stuart English

Awesome - thanks Justin!

It only said 709 on RED's page. I had asked about anything being allowed beyond 709 early on in the Q&A thread and read through several pages, not getting an answer. Glad this has been answered now.

I guess I have to wait and see what the full .RED file specification is. Which, as usual for RED, is not specified yet. I've been asking on the forum for color primaries and gamut info for years now and have also personally asked RE this at multiple RED events.

Hope they settle on something. Bonus points if it matches an industry standard.

It would really suck if we had to master for:
- 709
- DCI P3
- UHDTV (there is already a wide gamut space defined for 8K)
- Sony xvYCC
- REDSPACE

I really hope that REDSPACE just turns out to be the same as the already defined, standardized wide gamut space for UHDTV / 8K.

And with the REDCODE raw codec, anyone can make skintones look any way they want. That's one of the reasons I've embraced RED so much. I've been editing, coloring and conforming R3D footage since 2006 and must say that the ability and knowledge I've gained over the last few years regarding color science and skintones has been remarkable.

Justin, sure, you can push overall skin tones to any color you want, using RAW. Or without using RAW, just use a color corrector and push a secondary anywhere you want.

But skin tone is not just one overall color. Skin tone is subtle variation in color across a face. Which I don't think RED picks up well.

I hope that one day RED will be able to pick up those variations in color as beautifully as film currently can. Or just as well as the best DSLR still cameras...

At the moment, acquiring in RED is somewhat like acquiring under lighting conditions with a really low CRI. You can pick up an overall tone but some info is irretrievably lost, IMHO.

I have the ability to make the histogram, luminance, and color values push any way I want, with no hesitation and very little comprises. I'm still confused when people claim that RED footage doesn't have great skin tones. Where are they seeing these images? I've certainly haven't produced any images like those in awhile, unless I purposely desaturated the images.

What RED feature film has great, natural skin tones, in your opinion? To me they all lack variation in subtle skin colorations across the face. Sometimes this works (District 9, Social Network, GWTDT), other times not so much (compare the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie to the ones shot on film!).

So yes, for an actor-centric drama involving some naturalistic skin tones, RED would not be my first choice. Film would be. Then Alexa (although it is overrated in terms of skin tones, it is still better than RED).

So yeah, I guess I am a Tarantino-style old fogey But I am willing to change the moment digital kicks film's ass.

Anyway, cheers!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Arnold F.]

I knew a discussion starting with Tarantino would end up coming around to Sony xvYCC.

 

[Steve G]

FILM is no longer, meaning that no one is producing it, so the little that is left will be gone soon, and when that happens there will no longer be not even the Nostalgia ones to make, and as far as Digital it is here to stay, and moving faster then ever in to every movie tetaher around the world.

.

Why do you feel the need to post things which are clearly untrue ? Kodak is still making film.
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294969168/index.htm

 

[BRANDON JAMESON]

Mr. T. has been threatening to quit film making for years.

#yawn

 

[Peter Strietmann]

I suspect Mr Tarantino has had some form of bad interaction with the digital world as his perception of anything digital is kind of bizarre. Methinks thou dost protest too much...

BTW, I love his work. In particular his earlier work.

 

[Will Keir]

I'm wondering... Do you leave the film business or does it leave you?

As a filmmaker, do you leave your desire to make films or does the desire leave you?

Well, he won't be missed. Gosh, is he able to make a movie for adults ?

Kristin

PS : if all these famous directors who claimed to leave the business did it for real, it would be great, it would leave the place for others

 

[Matthew Scott]

Nice skin tones and black balance in that pic (first thread post).

 

[mikeburton]

I'm wondering... Do you leave the film business or does it leave you?

As a filmmaker, do you leave your desire to make films or does the desire leave you?

That's a pretty loaded question but I doubt it ever really leaves you completely. Most of the time (especially in the case of directors) your offers just cease and you don't have any other options but to leave the business. Tarantino obviously never had that problem. But, if he has lost something in the capture or distribution that he feels takes some of the authenticity out of the work than maybe it has in a small way left him enough to want to pursue other passions indefinitely. That and he is greatly concerned with how people are going to view his library of work and doesn't want to make films that slowly become out of touch. I think there is a point of honesty and elegance in that decision and even though he comes off as a bit of a wildcard and shock value to his tone, I think he would rather walk away on top than fade out.

 

[AndrewThomas]

I don't think there is a less interesting discussion to me than the "skin tones" discussion.

 

[Matthew Scott]

I don't think there is a less interesting discussion to me than the "skin tones" discussion.

How about a discussion about how much you don't want to discuss it? Cos you've started that one already, and I'm bored.

 

[AndrewThomas]

How about a discussion about how much you don't want to discuss it? Cos you've started that one already, and I'm bored.

Meta!

 

[Matthew Scott]

Meta!

hehe

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Please... But thanks for the movies.

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Thank you, Bruce. I better understand what you mean by the skintones not looking right. I do think with an aggressive color grade it is possible to achieve the results you have mentioned. The color science is always improving!

Awesome - thanks Justin!

It only said 709 on RED's page. I had asked about anything being allowed beyond 709 early on in the Q&A thread and read through several pages, not getting an answer. Glad this has been answered now.

I guess I have to wait and see what the full .RED file specification is. Which, as usual for RED, is not specified yet. I've been asking on the forum for color primaries and gamut info for years now and have also personally asked RE this at multiple RED events.

Hope they settle on something. Bonus points if it matches an industry standard.

It would really suck if we had to master for:
- 709
- DCI P3
- UHDTV (there is already a wide gamut space defined for 8K)
- Sony xvYCC
- REDSPACE

I really hope that REDSPACE just turns out to be the same as the already defined, standardized wide gamut space for UHDTV / 8K.



Justin, sure, you can push overall skin tones to any color you want, using RAW. Or without using RAW, just use a color corrector and push a secondary anywhere you want.

But skin tone is not just one overall color. Skin tone is subtle variation in color across a face. Which I don't think RED picks up well.

I hope that one day RED will be able to pick up those variations in color as beautifully as film currently can. Or just as well as the best DSLR still cameras...

At the moment, acquiring in RED is somewhat like acquiring under lighting conditions with a really low CRI. You can pick up an overall tone but some info is irretrievably lost, IMHO.



What RED feature film has great, natural skin tones, in your opinion? To me they all lack variation in subtle skin colorations across the face. Sometimes this works (District 9, Social Network, GWTDT), other times not so much (compare the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie to the ones shot on film!).

So yes, for an actor-centric drama involving some naturalistic skin tones, RED would not be my first choice. Film would be. Then Alexa (although it is overrated in terms of skin tones, it is still better than RED).

So yeah, I guess I am a Tarantino-style old fogey But I am willing to change the moment digital kicks film's ass.

Anyway, cheers!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Guess he will not buy a redray I wonder what he thinks about the 48fps....

 

[Adam Johnson]

WHAT?! You are the star of one of the worst teenager hormone ridden films involving shirtless vampires and werewolves!!!

I'm sorry I couldn't resist! It's not every day someone named Kristin Stewart makes a remark like this

Well, he won't be missed. Gosh, is he able to make a movie for adults ?

Kristin

PS : if all these famous directors who claimed to leave the business did it for real, it would be great, it would leave the place for others

 

[Peter Moretti]

Maybe some directors are fighting for film because they acutally care for the look of film. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So, yeah film's near death. But do you tell a mom whose son got hit by a car, "He's dead... Get over it... Adapt, adopt, move on."? She knows that's what she'll have to do, but do you actually need to hear her say it?

 

[Marc Wielage]

I am very good friends with David Worth, He is the Director of "Kickboxer" with Jean Claude Van Damme and was the DP on "BLOODSPORT" and 2 films for Clint Eastwood and is now 70 something years old.

Kickboxer was a really intense film; I was the colorist on the home video release for that one in the late 1980s. Mr. Worth does great work.

Many of them are out of work because they refuse to except the way the industry has taken new strides in technology.

I don't agree. All currently-working DPs that I know have no problem moving back and forth between film and digital. The images are more about the lighting than they are about the pickup medium.

If Mr. Tarantino wants to stop making films, thats his choice but I think that just opens up the door for NEW "film" makers to fill the void. Funny thing is, He couldn't even go back to his OLD job at BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO.....

Small correction: Tarantino worked at Video Archives in Manhattan Beach, and was a very friendly, outgoing guy on the staff in the early 1980s. He had (and still has) an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge and love for movies, the more obscure, the better. Fascinating man. I do think he has to get over his disdain for digital and accept that there are a lot of different ways to make movies. And film is probably still viable for another 5 years or so. After that... the crystal ball is cloudy.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

LOL he grew up on watching an awfull tons of crap video stuff not celuloid on screens ...
But I understand him, watching flat 8bit color stuff is disgusting. We need way more colors!

 

[T.A. Franks]

I hear he is not a fan of the digital area, but it almost sounds like he doesn't agree with the digital distribution... Cinema is his house.
After seeing his newer work I don't think I will miss him.