Reality Check

[Sean]

In a cinematography class I took, we shot 10 minutes of 35mm and a whole bunch of HD. At the end of the term, we got to see a screening of the 35mm footage and the HD footage together. The 35mm footage was really disappointing. And there was a very well known DP on hand for the shoot too. If it had been a "new technology," the whole class might have discounted 35mm film as entirely inadequate. Obviously something wasn't quite right in the processing or the transfer or the way we shot it. Just shows, however, that it's hard to judge much from a single test. The proof will come in the next months upon the release of a properly graded Red shoot, and it will either look astounding or it won't. I think right now we're still guessing.

 

[Michael Booth]

But it's not really going to change whether I want the camera or not, unless the HVX+Redrock adapter gives me just as good a result for less money.

Just checking the Red screen grabs at 720p vs HVX/M2 screen grabs at 1080p the Red appears to be in a different class.

Then checking 720p downrezzed Red clips on a 42 inch plasma, and checking 720p downrezzed HVX/M2 clips on the same plasma. Again the Red footage is far superior, even at this resolution and compressed.

 

[Jay Taylor]

Posting a badly exposed, badly graded, unusually grainy piece of film proves nothing guys.

Exactly! And even then, I prefer the film clip!


Jay

 

[albert rudnicki]

"We’re shooting RED side by side film. We scanned the film 4k and took both into the Baselight, compared them and then did a filmout of both. When we screened side by side, we literally could not tell the difference. In fact, most people picked the RED footage as film because of a greater dynamic range in the highlights than in the 5218. We are actually inter-cutting the digital images with film. It’s not enough to say it is the best digital image out there. The RED image looks remarkably better than the filmed images. I thought I would never be able to say that”

- Jon Farhat VFX Supervisor of Wanted"

For now I trust in what he says.

Albert

 

[Joel Kaye]

us a 4k scan from The Thin Red Line or The New World if you want to compare the best you got with the best 35mm film can do...

At this point I believe anyone talented will be able to get amazingly good stuff out of RED that will wow audiences and sell tickets just as well as film. And that's with a faster workflow and lower costs.

I think practical producers are going to look at this footage in the future and go - OK, that's easily good enough to sell and project... and we're going to take the money we're saving on film and put it into marketing. Or his kid's private school tuition.

I'd love to see a double blind best of the best shootout with a bunch of ASC members voting for their favorite images. Until that day happens we'll be having circular arguments...


BTW - your short kicks ass. Well done. You need a RED. ;-)

 

[G.A. Kokes]

I'd love to see a double blind best of the best shootout with a bunch of ASC members voting for their favorite images. Until that day happens we'll be having circular arguments...

An event like that would certainly make for some very interesting reading. But don't you think that "circular arguments" will continue regardless.

I do.

Cheers,
G

 

[Jeremy Teman]

I don't think Jim ever said anything about being a substitute. I believe he said it is not a replacement, it's an alternative.

The thing for me that gave away the digital vs. film with 35mm still cameras in side-by-side comparisons was always the way the green turns out with digital. It was always an artificial neon colour compared to the richer green with film. That is something that can be easily changed in photoshop and I'm not even sure if there is 'still' that problem with still cameras.

With Red the only thing that, for me, gives it away is the look of the noise compared to the grain of film. Personally, I think grain looks bad in most cases. I would go with a clean digital image at any time. Once the dynamic range gets a little better, and the frame rates get faster with Red I don't see a reason to use film.

 

[Joel Kaye]

An event like that would certainly make for some very interesting reading. But don't you think that "circular arguments" will continue regardless.

Yeah - kinda like people who swear their stereos sound better with exotic speaker wires... but every blind test indicates cheap wire is chosen just as much as expensive ones.

Anyway - I've already seen enough to know RED is good enough for me. Am I going to try to fool people into thinking it's film? Hell yeah.

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Well yes....but hitting the key of a synthesizer to produce a nice sound doesn't make you a musician that people flock to hear.....

How I wish you were right…
Most unfortunatly you are quite wrong:whistling:

 

[Gbabymogul]

The rush to declare film to be virtually out of the market because of RED was the reason for my first post. Yeah, people are excited (as am I) but it's not going to happen so quickly and IMO why should it ? I like options. Options are good.

I believe that RED (using the right paradigm) if going through the right post process could be great using the right film stock, or with 3D, and 4K digital projectors, we may see another type of movie going experience. What I'm trying to get at is
to get the depth and beauty of the best movie will take knowing the ballpark that RED best plays in. And , IMO, that means taking a realistic look and analyzing what areas of the digital paradigm we have to avoid and choosing tools and methods (in both budget ranges - indie and Hollywood) to be the most efficacious in getting there. Maybe, with RED we need to avoid some of digitals shortcomings by reducing the range on set and manipulating it in post then that's something that should be looked at. If we need to stop down the lenses to avoid how the digital sensor reads then that needs to be known.

Film has a wide breadth and ability to hold alot of information, paired with the way it is designed to handle color inconsistencies and work with existing lenses perfectly; it's obvious why until now there has never been a real contender. RED is a real contender, and if shot with the paradigm involved should make some gorgeous images.

I am chuffed at that those who have reservations and are showing footage. And I think we all owe them a big hug. But, it's fairly clear to me that some of the shots done with film (same gear, lens) wouldn't show some of the digital shooting - green lines, highlights (could be smoother). For me, i'm more interested in saying " how do we avoid this?, and what gear/filters should we be looking for?, and maybe what stories would best suit this medium"?

I know it's only been a wee bit that the camera has been released, but i'm asking for some variety (not Hollywood) to see what gear we'll need, what questions need to be asked, and for the footage shot (some of which is great)- where it doesn't compete with film - how do we get it to be the best it can be ?

I don't expect RED to be like film - it is what it is. If you ask can it be as magical as film? I think so. That's why I'm here (although great 1080p is all I wanted). I'll let other dudes post on this, though.

They can ban me now. hehe ...

:beer:

Horses for courses.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

How I wish you were right…
Most unfortunatly you are quite wrong:whistling:

Everybody now:

The Vengabus is coming!
And everybody's jumping!

 

[Jim Hoffman]

It is worth noting that like it or not - "Video" has entered mainstream "film"making and audiences as a whole embrace it. There are certain qualities you may or may not care for but there is no denying on every level of this industry cameras like the RED (even though there aren't any - ha) have taken hold and are accepted and desired. Just from that standpoint what an excellent tool to have - the more choices one has the less one has to worry about the tools getting in the way of the art. There is still debate, although muted, about the analog vs. digital in audio - Yes there are some measureable differences - most people can't tell... but for those who can, or claim they can... great - chose either... but both are great choices and acceptable on most every level. What an exciting time!!!!!!!

 

[Tim H.]

This really has more to do with history than it does X is better than Y.

Film exists because it was available when movies began. There was no digital, there was no analog "video" there was "Film". Does the term "Filmmaker" mean anything?

Just because movies have been shot and projected on film since the start of cinema doesn't mean its superior. We are so set in our ways that we think we have to continue to compare Digital to Film.

There may be limitations to Digital but considering how young it really is the limitations are far less then film experienced when it was first born. Remember movies started out in b&w, no sound, odd frame rates, poor projection, etc.

While digital images (photography/HD, etc) might be limited in lattitude and not as smooth in its linear form it has many beneifts over film. Film is organic and more forgiving in some ways but it also has its own limitations. Have many of you ever looked at 35mm film before any "magic" has been done to it? Ever noticed how bad dailys can look? Ever noticed a crap print when watching a movie at the theater?

Recently the local theater has been playing more and more movies via Digital Projection. It is amazing how much better they looked. Clean, no waving, no scratches, no missing frames. While many of these films were shot on film, it was clear that they went straight from the negative to digital form and spent the rest of their life as 1's and 0's.

So this brings us to aquistition - Shooting on film or digital does not give you instant sucess and both will need some tender loving care to make them look as good as some of the more pleasing images we have seen over the years. So to assume because one shoots with one medium over the other they will obtain a better result is plain silly. Then to try and compare the two and pick a winner is even more foolish.

Red would not be nearly as exciting if it was just another Viper or Sony 900. What truly makes it exciting is that not only are they pushing the quality limits they are giving it to us at a resonable non-monopoly price.

Lets not forget that Hollywood hates change. There are many unions who need to look out for their "bellow the line" crew members and the last thing they want is to make it easier to shoot outside of the system.

If movies were invented today would they have chosen film or something like Red? Would they go out and rent Panavision packages or buy Red?

 

[Albertdup]

Hi all

For a first post here I go.

I am amazed with all the talk about film and Digital and Indie and big budged "films". Is it still a film if it was shot on digital ? (No answers on that one please) Living in South Africa we are lucky if we see five locally produced films a year, We don't have big studios so I guess all our film makers would be classified as indies. We don't even get new prints all the time of new international released movies, old prints from the USA is no stranger to us, and then all the beauty of film comes out , lots of streaks and noise from all the playing it went through.

As a film maker my main objective is to tell a story, to take the viewer into a world that was only in my imagination, through the combined effort of a team of people we can to the best of our ability portray that dream and share it with others.

Considering that a feature can be made locally for the price of a RED , lenses and other essentials, it becomes clear that film is out of range to many a film maker. Video and HD has become the norm, enabling stories to be told that would otherwise never been able to be made.

I believe that RED as a company is opening new opportunities with the complete package, work flow and projection. This will allow us in future to make better looking movies at a price that we can afford, enabling us to grow an industry constrained by high cost.

Stories will no longer stay ideas or locked up due to insufficient funds, we will be able to release our imaginations and take the world on a journey of stories that was never told.

Thank you RED for giving us hope and making it a reality.

 

[david farland]

Posted by david farland
Well yes....but hitting the key of a synthesizer to produce a nice sound doesn't make you a musician that people flock to hear.....

How I wish you were right…
Most unfortunatly you are quite wrong:whistling:

....people confuse simple with talent in every way!

 

[Hitman Jr]

The rush to declare film to be virtually out of the market because of RED was the reason for my first post. Yeah, people are excited (as am I) but it's not going to happen so quickly and IMO why should it ? I like options. Options are good.

I'm a wedding videographer, so take my opinion for what it is, a layman.

This whole thread reminds me of 10 years ago when the digital SLRs were just hitting. I'm reading the exact same comments of film stills vs digital stills I read back then. The reality is today, in the event market, film has the same status as vinyl, a few demand it, most don't. Most don't care.

The other debate that this reminds me of is PC vs Mac... :wacko:

Film will probably never die, people like Spielberg will always be able to get their preferred format. What will kill it in the main stream is the accountants. With ever escalating budgets something has to give and if RED can come anywhere near, and from what my untrained eye is telling me, it's damn close, then that will be enough to push the accountants over as long as it's a cost saving format.

I must say I find some amusement in all the critiquing going on. Does anyone here realize just how bad films are in theaters? Projectors bulbs that are under powered to extend their life. Underexposed reels of film, scratches on the reels for the first showing, let alone the 2000th showing... On TV, broadcast compression from hell, especially on satellite and cable, bad signals, interrupted signals...

Honestly by the time a "film" reaches the general public it's already been beaten to an inch of it's visibility. And when it comes right down to it, the public doesn't know any better and doesn't care. Those of us who may know better may care, but we're far and few between. Being shot on film isn't going to put one more dime in a movie's take than being shot on video. If you produce a movie people want to see and are entertained by they are going to pay to see it, no matter what format it's shot on. When the studio heads comes to this realization, that's it for film in most movies. Red is a very good answer from what I see and know to film, but it could just as likely be a viper or a genesis. I sat in Superman Returns and occasionally could see where the video capture was less superior to film. The friends I was with couldn't have pointed one of those scenes out to you, and they exited not ranting about the negatives of video imaging, but if Superman could lift a giant ball of kryptonite and fly it into space.inch:

Really this debate of film vs digital, it's headed digital people because it's a cost savings. Your debate in the future will be if the pencil pushers will approve a film budget when digital will save them money!

 

[Dominic Jones]

smartass\ 5201, would be the gold standard but whatever. /smartass

_mike

<supersmartass>Yes, but 5299 would be a more reasonable match given the effective ASA of Red One</supersmartass>!!

Dom "Just being a pedantic bugger for the hell of it" Jones... :biggrin:

EDIT: I'm gonna out-smartass myself here, but thinking about it 5205 is probably the closest, given that there's no particular white-balance preference with the Red. Bugger - I hate it when that happens!...

 

[Karl H]

Everybody now:

The Vengabus is coming!
And everybody's jumping!

Are you the same Ruairi that was nominated for an oscar? I've heard you have a huge ego problem!

:sarcasm: I like your site.

 

[Álex Montoya]

Yeah, nice site, Ruairi. I have downloaded the three quicktimes of your next work. Very nice.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Are you the same Ruairi that was nominated for an oscar? I've heard you have a huge ego problem!

:sarcasm: I like your site.

Stop feeding it! My head! It's starting to swell again! The Pain!