RED Dragon vs. 65mm film...

[Michel Hafner]

The Chief said: "The Dragon has more resolution than 65mm film when scanned at 4K".

A little confusing. If you scan at 4K, then, obviously that's your final resolution, 4K right?, you can't go beyond that. But, what is the actual resolution of 65mm film, without been scanned (or projected straight from film?), and after that, how can that be compared to Dragon??

It means Dragon has a higher MTF than 65mm upto 4K (and probably some more). Between 5 and 6K MTF goes to zero (or aliasing takes over) while 65mm goes on some higher. Modern 65mm has more than 4K resolution and is usually scanned at 8K. If you have seen Samsara in 4K it was obvious that 4K was a compromise and did not provide the full detail of 65mm.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Is there going to be Dragon Monochrome?

Yes.

 

[Roger Valdes]

We all know Jim likes making bold claims for markerting / hype reasons.

I haven't seen any sensor come even close to beating 35mm in terms of image quality, skin tones, colors and so on.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

We all know Jim likes making bold claims for markerting / hype reasons.

We all know we stay here because Jim and Jarred occationally gives a bit of info.
Of course this is REDs main marketing channel.

But all the camera manufacturerers I know do that.

Actually it looks like some try to copy the "drumroll for suspence" philosophy, by announcing things well in advance of delivery...

 

[N_Villers]

I understand what you are saying, but in normal situations, there are always standards. Your avatar looks more pleasant to me than mine, I agree, why?, because it is already genetically imprinted in our brains as something pleasant, a little cute animal.. and no matter how hard I try to explain to you, that my avatar is a computer model of the Fibonacci sequence spiral , found everywhere in nature, even in far galaxies, and is beautiful, you are not going to like it a bit more, so I agree. Now, 100.000 people right now will agree with me that this $600 camera, it has the best movie-looking-life-like-skin-tones ever, even when we all know, that is a low end DSLR, is not a cinema camera, doesn't have a full frame sensor, or high dynamic range and high frame rates, and most important, is not even a 2K sensor camera. that's why I am saying, There are always standards. I love the bleach bypass effect on movies, but I know that even when I am looking at pallid green faces, it originally came from something natural, that was already there, and there is no way to fool the brain with something diferrent. There are some standards, is all I can say..

EDIT: Maybe not 100.000 but close..

Ugggh OHHH FilmMaker's Gang is back. LOL

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Ugggh OHHH FilmMaker's Gang is back. LOL

That actually made me LOL!

 

[Elsie N]

hahahaha

... plain and simple there is a certain faction of people in this world that will NEVER be happy with anything digital....to them film is like some sort of unattainable holy grail....afterall "it has some sort of magical warmth about it that just can't be described, but you know film when you see it." ...

IIRC, it was around the middle of 2007 when Graeme posted how much he liked listening to old vinyl records, saying the music had a certain warmth to it. I still remember that post and often wonder how this man could be so dedicated to analog and yet, be the driving force in helping digital become dominate? Of course, it's probably nostalgia that keeps him connected to analog music. And I'm sure nostalgia is what causes people to cling to film... Tarentino as an example.

Newer generations likely don't have that nostalgic connection and are probably better equipped to judge any viability of digital over film. And of course you have certain famous directors and DPs who can think outside of the nostalgic box and have chosen digital when they could have shot film. I guess I'm making excuses for people who are defending film, as being a product of their times for the most part. In the end they will be stuck at a certain level while those who embrace the future will be able to progress.

 

[mikeburton]

IIRC, it was around the middle of 2007 when Graeme posted how much he liked listening to old vinyl records, saying the music had a certain warmth to it. I still remember that post and often wonder how this man could be so dedicated to analog and yet, be the driving force in helping digital become dominate? Of course, it's probably nostalgia that keeps him connected to analog music. And I'm sure nostalgia is what causes people to cling to film... Tarentino as an example.

Newer generations likely don't have that nostalgic connection and are probably better equipped to judge any viability of digital over film. And of course you have certain famous directors and DPs who can think outside of the nostalgic box and have chosen digital when they could have shot film. I guess I'm making excuses for people who are defending film, as being a product of their times for the most part. In the end they will be stuck at a certain level while those who embrace the future will be able to progress.

I respect your opinion but don't see it that way. I think there are plenty of us that aren't just nostalgic but actually truly love working with film because there is a different approach to it, a discipline to it if you will. I'm not just about the process of film though, I love the simplicity and convenience of digital. I just think they both have there strengths and weeknesses for different creative opportunities. That said, after using, working and posting both formats for a while now I wouldn't categorize myself or some of the other guys I know who love film as not being able to adapt to the new technologies. But, we can still enjoy one medium over another if we so choose especially if we are true to the story that is being told. Will I be sad when film is gone. Of course. I actually hope all of you are. That just means you have one less creative choice. But, will I embrace and continue to work with new formats...of course I will as will most. Because our passion goes beyond the sensor or the celuloid, and at its core is about the stories being told for our children to grow up with and be inspired. To me, that's what's important and I think I speak for quite a few guys who love film in this business who I know feel the same.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Digital is clearly transforming the industry while also making it more democratic. But film will always have an organic quality, and a disciplined methodology, that must always be respected. Its one of many creative choices we have. There's no harm in that.

In the meantime, I'm grateful that RED is unleashing cinema quality cameras and workflows that let us all dream...we can change the world.

There's no harm in that either.

 

[Elsie N]

I respect your opinion but don't see it that way. I think there are plenty of us that aren't just nostalgic but actually truly love working with film because there is a different approach to it, a discipline to it if you will. I'm not just about the process of film though, I love the simplicity and convenience of digital. I just think they both have there strengths and weaknesses for different creative opportunities. That said, after using, working and posting both formats for a while now I wouldn't categorize myself or some of the other guys I know who love film as not being able to adapt to the new technologies. But, we can still enjoy one medium over another if we so choose especially if we are true to the story that is being told. Will I be sad when film is gone. Of course. I actually hope all of you are. That just means you have one less creative choice. But, will I embrace and continue to work with new formats...of course I will as will most. Because our passion goes beyond the sensor or the celluloid, and at its core is about the stories being told for our children to grow up with and be inspired. To me, that's what's important and I think I speak for quite a few guys who love film in this business who I know feel the same.

Mike. Just one (rhetorical if you prefer) question. Were you exposed to film first (no pun intended) '-) or was your first jobs in digital? Maybe nostalgia doesn't apply to you and you could fit into the category I referred to as someone who can put aside their imprinted preference and can judge things on their own merit. That sounds like the case and if so, good on you.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

To me, "film is dead" is not really relevant. What I can do with tools that I can access for films I wanna make, is.
.

I'd actually love to shoot film if I get the chance one day.
But i don't sit down and NOT work, while I wait for that day.

Tools, of any kind, are generally liberating, not limiting. They do not guarantee quality, but they give you access to new ways of expression.

We can allways wish for "more" and over time we will get that.

But after recently having cleaned out my house of 15 years and trying to see what I want to keep, I see that I have collected 300m2 of "more" and mostly unused opportunities that I have collected and ditched on the drive for "more".

At some points, it is of some importance to ask oneself: what more do you want?
An to me, that is images and storytelling. If I "have to do" with an Epic MX, I am actually not that bad off.
If i can do it with a Dragon at a later stage, cool.
And maybe film one day.

But if I cannot do half decent images with the tools at hand, there isn't really anything wrong with the tools....

And if i one day get the option to shoot on film, I guess it won't be limiting, and I guess I am glad that it isn't "dead". I love films shot on film, so why should I wish it a sudden death?


Ok...

Being philosophical here.

Mods if this doesn't fit... Just remove....

 

[mikeburton]

Mike. Just one (rhetorical if you prefer) question. Were you exposed to film first (no pun intended) '-) or was your first jobs in digital? Maybe nostalgia doesn't apply to you and you could fit into the category I referred to as someone who can put aside their imprinted preference and can judge things on their own merit. That sounds like the case and if so, good on you.

It's a good and very valid question. I started shooting super8, then 16mm, then 35mm. Never shot 65mm unfortunately. But, film has always been extremely expensive to shoot with and at the same time was shooting Super VHS cameras and then into the MiniDV era. I feel I have a preference on a per job basis. Although I mostly do post color and finishing work now I see more than ever the impact different formats have on the end result of a project. And I've made my own creative mind up as to a personal preference in cameras versus "the story". Mind you I owned a RED camera and it was beautiful for what I used it for which was primarily commercials, music videos. It brought a level of clarity unmatched at that time with a workflow that was very similar to a film workflow with access to the RAW / digital negative. And although many don't feel the same and which I completely respect I don't love it for narrative feature film. However , many do and I've colored many RED films and appreciate everything it has done for independent filmmakers who otherwise would still be trying to raise capital to get their movies made. And the fact that it has given that opportunity to filmmakers is a wonderful thing.

 

[Pablo Moreno]

I have no idea what you just said. I guess I'd ask if you understood everything I said.

Jim

I guess I wrote too many words for my limited English, ha ha, my apologies.. But I understood everything you said, except for the 65mm film resolution, how can that be compared to Dragon?, can you explain a little more..

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Whithout attempting to be Jim, 4k is the current highest end displayong resolution available for cinemas. And this 65mm is often (but not allways) scanned at that rez.

Dragon has a better signal to noise charracter than 65mm scanned at 4k.

But I may be off...

 

[Eric Haase]

Digital has, in the past, been down on dynamic range when compared to film. As of the Dragon... that is no longer the case.

To recap... the Dragon has more dynamic range, less noise, no blocking and high ISO capability. And it is an upgrade!

Digital is finally better than film in every way.

Jim

Can you tell us about improvements in color and skin tone rendition? Do you feel that Dragon is superior to film in this way as well? Really looking forward to seeing images!!!!!!!

 

[Pablo Moreno]

Can you tell us about improvements in color and skin tone rendition? Do you feel that Dragon is superior to film in this way as well? Really looking forward to seeing images!!!!!!!

I dug a little bit more about it, and here's what I found: (please don't shoot the messenger!).
There is not one concrete answer when is about to compare resolution of film against digital, because film doesn't have to bother with pixels.
But if all you want to do is count pixels, here are the facts:


First of all, film can resolve insanely fine details.


With film, the image is continuous in all three dimensions: x, y, and z (intensity).


With film, you get the same resolution at color transitions (green/magenta, for instance) as you get for light/dark transitions.


With film, you have complete R, G, and B resolution at every point.


Film is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.


Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on film.


320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.


35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.


To scan most of the detail on a 35mm frame, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels. (lets call that: 9.3K)


each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 9.3K digital camera still can't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.


Since the lie factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP (18.6K) to see every last detail that makes onto film.


Its natural response is similar to our eyes.






The good news is: according to the experts, the average human eye can't resolve more than 10K at ANY distance, so that will be the end of the pixel count race.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pablo,

I'm not sure where all this data is coming from, but if you could point me to the source where you quoting that film has 160 lp/mm (or 320 ln/mm). Also, if you could clarify if these numbers are for negative or print or both?

Thanks.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Of course, it's probably nostalgia that keeps him connected to analog music. And I'm sure nostalgia is what causes people to cling to film... Tarentino as an example.

There's a subjective and objective part of loving or preferring film to digital to this date. Subjective part is quite obvious, really. Some people love the processing, even doing everything themselves by hand. Some love the rhythm of shooting film or it's behavior they've used to. I can't say it's nostalgia or not, but they all agree with the look of film, which brings us to part two. Objectively, until very recently film were giving the fattest, richest neg to work with, it handles some overexposure nice, handles colors and particularly flesh tones so well in most conditions. While most critical analog people just call digital in fashion of Burt Reynolds' character from Boogie Nights "it's shit, baby. it looks like shit, sounds like shit, it's shit", majority of serious no-bs professionals talked about comparison between first-gen Raw cameras and still color reversal film (in terms of latitude, detail and contrast). I've seen enough Red footage to think MX is probably better than that already. Modern sensors are getting closer and closer to the holy grail, which is highlights and wide color gamut. The goal is, I believe, to have sensor you can expose like film negative in any possible situation, then extracting even more good stuff from highlights and shadows in some insane contrast scenes without getting much grain. With clean RGB channels and all the color information captured you would apply a film LUT if necessary or start grading from clean canvas. Objectively this will be the point, where you could say the digital image can give you more options in every field without any excuses like stopping down to save some highlight information or things like that.

Of course you can't win QT with this, but even Nolan said, in the future he'd like to see something to beat film in every possible way, visually speaking. With guys like him and Pfister you can't give them something, that almost like film, or good enough, or kinda on par with film. To convert those guys you need to destroy their minds with something, that deliver a way superior digital negative. Something wonderful.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

We all know Jim likes making bold claims for markerting / hype reasons.

I haven't seen any sensor come even close to beating 35mm in terms of image quality, skin tones, colors and so on.

Yeah - despite his personal expertise and many years of dedication to digital cinema, not to mention his history as a successful and honored businessman, I am sure he is just yanking our chains.

Come on, some opinions are better and more informed than others. In this case, I'll go with Jim's. He has seen what you haven't. :nono:

 

[Keith Walters]

hahahaha

Jim - plain and simple there is a certain faction of people in this world that will NEVER be happy with anything digital....to them film is like some sort of unattainable holy grail....afterall "it has some sort of magical warmth about it that just can't be described, but you know film when you see it." Total BS. I am in the camp that believes digital has already surpassed film. In my mind, everything from here on out such as Dragon (which will be the best in the land!) will continue to revolutionize the medium and push technology forward.

oh yeah...and then there are spiral galaxies or whatever he said

The painful reality is, for every person who has actually MADE something that people have paid to watch, (or paid to screen on TV whatever) there are thousands who have never done anything but talk about it and clearly have no intention of ever doing anything else.
Even the shit commercials I used to shoot on 3/4" tape 30 years ago, still took a bloody lot of work, so I have nothing but respect for anybody who has actually completed a project, and even more so one that people thought was good enough to pay money for!
When even the most basic professional video production equipment cost an arm and a leg, there was always the excuse that equipment to [the barstool producer's] "standard" (usually film) was sadly out of their reach.
Not so now! You can do perfectly acceptable broadcast quality with a cheap DSLR and any number of Freeware editors. I can't believe the image quality you get out of a lot of mobile phone cameras these days. You don't get any control over depth of field, and the dynamic range is a bit suss, but, whaddya want from something that's only an accessory on a phone!
Bottom line, guys, you don't really need film, Pro video cameras are good enough. You're fresh out of excuses :nopity: