Reality Check

[Dominic Jones]

<deadpan humour>
Ruairi, you're shit.
</deadpan humour>

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

In a cinematography class I took….

Tss… now… that's bad man, your not supposed to take classes but to give classes, it's a totaly different thing ya know, you should try it, if only for financial reasons, as would say W.A. oster_stupid:

 

[Dominic Jones]

Lol, read the first few words of your post and thought I'd been completely misunderstood!!

Btw (just in case - I'm paranoid now!), no offense intended of course, Ruairi - best of luck with everything...

 

[jbeale]

For those looking for general (not Red-specific) reading material about measuring measuring film and digital sensor response for resolution and dynamic range, here are some interesting pages:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

 

[Jay Taylor]

For those looking for general (not Red-specific) reading material about measuring measuring film and digital sensor response for resolution and dynamic range, here are some interesting pages:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

I just found those pages, too! Really fascinating.

His tests seem to show that digital still cameras have higher dynamic range then film. I've never heard anyone claim that before! Though I can't claim to really understand everything he's saying…


Jay

 

[Steve White]

I have no problem with the comparisons between film and Red images. However, these comparisons are being done incorrectly.

When discussing image quality concerns such as highlights, saturation and resolution, comparisons can only be faithfully made between the original 12-bit Redcode RAW file, and the original developed film negative. These comparisons are very difficult of course, since the film negative is a measly 35 mm, while the Redcode is a digital data file. They're entirely different media.

In order to even begin making comparisons, the Redcode has to be debayered, and converted from the 12-bit linear to some arbitrary gamma curve. At this point the image is being displayed on a monitor (6 bpcc? 8 bpcc, 10 or 12 bpcc? whoknows?). Depending on the choice of gamma, detail in the shadows and highlights may have already been obliterated. Currently, the only person I would really trust to do this properly is Graeme.

The film is no better. Unless directly enlarged by as an optical print (go generational losses), the film has to be scanned by no less than a digital scanner using a CCD or CMOS chip... and guess what folks? Inverted(?), debayered(?) and gamma curved*. So we go through the same thing all over again, do we not? After all - what's the dynamic range of the scanner? Did it faithfully interpret the film... The choices are all somewhat endless until true standards are referenced and quoted.

By manipulating these two gamma curves, and everything else about the colour channels, sharpening, etc. the images can then be arbitrarily tweaked to the taste of the colourist, whereby one man's 'taste' is another man's travesty. By no means should the images be compared at this point - unless the original images were shot under the SAME light at the SAME subject, and then carefully manipulated by the SAME colourist to achieve the SAME result. Otherwise it's always apples and oranges. It's like saying "my camera shooting at magic hour is better than your camera shooting at midnight". :blink:

Finally - to illustrate the utter ridiculousness of these post-colour processing comparisons, people are references "good looking film" images that are actually 8-bpcc JPEGs. Which are, of course, not film, but digital images so far removed from the initial negative that it would be difficult to even compare the source to the result.

That said, all the images I've seen so far from Red are technically brilliant.

-Spiff

*I'm not entirely sure how film scanners work.

 

[John V]

If film is so great why not just shoot and play it back? Film goes though the same process as red footage. Once scanned film looses the advantage it has over RED. That advantage film has is it records everything. After scanning it is digtal..it ceases to be film at that point. Just a observation from a non pro.

 

[Casey Green]

ok, so I say this thread is shot. How about we see what LART has to offer before another lengthy Film/Digital debate comes up?

anyone else agree?

 

[Keith Alan Morris]

South Bend in the HOUSE! wazzup hitman?
kemo

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!

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, 12bit linear, then out of the demosaic it's 16bit linear. That so that we don't loose precisions. You don't have to put a curve on the data unless you want to. Even after a curve there's no precision loss. Only when you go out to 10bit dpx does that happen, and only in the brightest 3 stops of highlights which have such an over-abundance of code values you'd be hard pressed (ie never) notice.

Graeme

 

[jbeale]

the film has to be scanned by no less than a digital scanner using a CCD or CMOS chip... and guess what folks? Inverted(?), debayered(?) and gamma curved*. (...)

All the scanners I know about use three-stripe linear CCD detectors (RGB) so there is no de-bayer step. The other steps are still needed, though.

Also, the film scanner has an easier job than a camera sensor because the film negative has taken the large dynamic range of the real-world scene and through exposure and development, converted that down to a smaller dynamic range of negative density/transparency. So the limitations with film acquisition have more to do with the film stock, than with the film scanner- the scanners these days are able to get pretty much all the information there is on the negative.

 

[Florian Stadler]

Another paintbrush in the Toolbox

Another paintbrush in the Toolbox

I think the Film vs. Digital debate is moot with 4K cameras like the Dalsa and the Red. Film has its own character with grain and all and so does 4K. Choosing between the two can be an aesthetic choice - either way - if you have the choice economically. The big difference I have seen is in 2K+ digital projection. That's where 4K aquisition really shines imho it has a hyper real totally different feel than film. "Grainless film" is what came out of my mouth when I first saw it. And that's something to embrace.
Someone in this discussion said Film looks dull when not properly color corrected. You must be speaking of film transferred to video because a film print has its own inherent contrast built in that you can take advantage of by stamping 3 numbers on a camera report. Has the Red team thought about implementing the ASC's proposed "Digital Printer Light"?
At the end of the day a camera is but a tool to create an image and there is a whole lot more going into that than the camera alone. Motion pictures are about conveying emotion and capturing performances, if a particular tool allows you to convey that emotion in a way that fits the story best - that's what matters. Resolution, grain, sharpness are tools to express yourself with.

Respect to the Red team for what they have done, I'm impressed and welcome the new brush in my toolbox.

BTW Brooks I haven't seen such a grainy piece of 5218 in some time (and I routinely push 18 2 stops). Are you sure it wasn't 7218 or underexposed by at least 2 stops or something went wrong in the transfer?

 

[Brook Willard]

Certain. That's 5218 exposed at 500. Granted it looks like absolute crap, but it is what it is.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I see nothing in your film still that Red can't do. Your example is scaled very small, and had a pass by a very good colorist.

The "tones and the colors" are all created by the colorist in that example.

This is true for just about ANY professionally shot content. I don't think anything is ever left untouched by a colorist before it is released.


So does that mean his statements aren't valid?

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Just for another perspective: I think there's two different camps examining this camera. The folks who have been shooting film, and the folks who have been shooting digital. They're going to approach the Red results entirely differently. Obviously, many film folks are at the upper echelons of the industry, and they're used to very big budgets and can afford to demand the best that the world has available. They will probably expect the footage from Red to be almost as good or better than film before they'll adopt it widely. But for the digital filmmaker, the fact that Red might deliver something more filmic than any other digital camera to date, and at a price-point many independents can afford, well that is the kicker. For me, the film comparison isn't all that useful, although it should prove interesting, because I was probably never going to shoot film anyhow, and neither were a lot of Red buyers. It never factored into my plan. If Red ends up being indistinguishable from 35mm, well I've won the lottery. But if it falls some (probably imperceptibly) measure short of 35mm, well then as long as it's a damn sight better than an HVX, I'm still coming out ahead. Clearly, Spielberg's needs are not the same as mine, and as much as Red and the rest of us would love mainstream Hollywood to start toting Red Ones on every shoot, that won't change whether I'm getting the camera I've dreamed about. If I get a really beautiful digital image that's better than any other camera in that sub-50K price range, then I'm exceedingly happy. I do value the scrutiny you guys are giving these images. 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.

People have been looking to create cinematic images since the VX1000 first came out. Some succeeded, some haven't.

A camera doesn't create a beautiful image, it's the user of that camera. The camera only captures what it's pointed at. The quality of what is captured depends on the camera of course.

We need to differenciate between the quality of the image captured and what a beautiful image is.

We all know Red will capture a quality image. It's designed to create a high quality image. Add on some great glass and the quality gets even higher.

But it's up to the user to compose a shot so it's beautiful.

You can put the Red on a tripod or table and point it in a particular direction and it'll be a nice high quality image, but will it be beautiful? There are chances that there will be instances of beauty, but that's random and coincidental.

The beautiful image is created with purpose. It conveys something, not just random image capturing and hope for the best.

We may get lucky and randomly capture a beautiful image, but we can't always rely on those happy accidents.

I expect to see a lot of high quality images here, but I hope for more beautiful ones.