Red vs Film

[Wesley Scoggins]

Except for the argument that image quality and latitude is better on film. Oh, and the workflow is better established.

Same for many black and white stocks when compared to Color less than a century ago.

At this moment in time, film still has advantages, but they can't last forever.

While the image quality of a raw stock may be excellent, film has a far worse generational degradation than digital, and many other limitations.

Regardless, workflow kinks are quickly being sorted out and the industry is quickly adjusting to meet the needs of digital cinema cameras. For how far the workflow has come in just a decade (compared to film having a full century of refinement to it's workflow), I think that workflow issues is a moot point with how short of a time it's been around and how far it's come already.

Keep in mind that film stocks are changing and evolving, too.

Well film is reaching the limit of what it can accomplish. Stocks ARE still evolving, but film has largely reached it's limit of what it can accomplish, while digital has only just started developing as a real cinema tool.

Digital technology has accomplished what has taken film development over a century to get to. There are a realistic limit to how big film can be made and still be economical, we won't be seeing anyone using anything bigger than IMAX on a film anytime soon.

While digitally we're less than a year from 28K.

Film stock is evolving, but it took Kodak 5 years to get from Vision2 to Vision3, for only a minimum visual advantage (it's advancement true, but slight).

It took Red 2 years to get from Prototype to commercial product, and it's taken them another 3 years to get from 4K to 28K.

Look at how far we've come in 10 years in digital cinema, and think of how far we'll be in another 10 years (heck, another 2, we're far closer to having more efficient workflows very very soon.)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Except for the argument that image quality and latitude is better on film. Oh, and the workflow is better established.

Keep in mind that film stocks are changing and evolving, too.

Digital has its benefits, but for the utmost in image quality and latitude, film is still king.

Two arguments which will only be true for another few years. Digital is improving far far quicker than film. And the ease of workflow with film is only a function of it having come first. It's intrinsically more difficult to work with, just more widely and better understood.

 

[mike ogden]

I didn't mean you Wesley or Gavin. You guys seem more level headed when referring to 'fanboys' on here

But can I point out here that no one has seen 28k, let alone worked with it. Lord knows what sort of super duper computer you're going to need to deal with a 28K image size. Sometimes I think Red runs before they can walk in terms of development.

I sort of wish they'd gone with a 3 chip design for the Red. Would have made a better color workspace from the off and been closer to Cineon specs. But still, people seem to be making good images with it, I guess it can only get better. Wonder why they did go with Beyer technology?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Mike, the color space of the RED is just fine. I don't know what Cineon specs you're reading, but the ones I've read don't define any form of colorimetric color space. The specs deal with mapping negative film densities to code values - an encoding curve, and that is it. There's no implied colorimetry, and no reference back to actual linear light data either.

3 Chip designs are practically useless for larger chip sizes (notice lack of 3 chip cameras beyond 2/3" sensors), and vastly complicate the lens designs. I don't think it's quite "you can't make one bigger than 2/3"", but that for all practical reasons you wouldn't want to.

Why Bayer - it's been answered before - it offers, in a single chip design, the best optimization between photosite count and perceived resolution / image quality. With how we work it with a wavelet codec, there are other advantages to in terms of image scalability, which is what will make 28K resolution still useful - you'll be able to easily deal with it at lower resolution extractions, only going up to the resolution you need when you actually need to.

Graeme

 

[Stefan Christou]

Mike, the color space of the RED is just fine. I don't know what Cineon specs you're reading, but the ones I've read don't define any form of colorimetric color space. The specs deal with mapping negative film densities to code values - an encoding curve, and that is it. There's no implied colorimetry, and no reference back to actual linear light data either.

3 Chip designs are practically useless for larger chip sizes (notice lack of 3 chip cameras beyond 2/3" sensors), and vastly complicate the lens designs. I don't think it's quite "you can't make one bigger than 2/3"", but that for all practical reasons you wouldn't want to.

Why Bayer - it's been answered before - it offers, in a single chip design, the best optimization between photosite count and perceived resolution / image quality. With how we work it with a wavelet codec, there are other advantages to in terms of image scalability, which is what will make 28K resolution still useful - you'll be able to easily deal with it at lower resolution extractions, only going up to the resolution you need when you actually need to.

Graeme

Wise words from Graeme.

I like what Ridley Scott says:

they are two very different mediums, and digital really must be treated as a new, not replacement artform...

both are suitable for storytelling... the latter is all that matters.

And that was where the discussion should have been put to bed

:closed2ur0:

 

[mike ogden]

Are you an admin, Stefan? I didn't realise...

 

[David Battistella]

WHen this discussion comes up I am always very surprised at how easily biated everyone is into pushing an opinion on something so subjective.

Why not call the thread:

RED vs. SUPER 8
RED vs. 16mm
RED vs. SUPER 16mm
RED vs. 35mm
RED vs. SUPER 35mm
RED vs. 70mm
RED vs. IMAX

Each one of the film formats laid out are their own specific type of film with their own characteristics.

RED is a digital medium with it's own personality and style.

It's not a competition.

David

 

[Steve Sherrick]

This is very subjective and has certainly been covered many times, in many forums usually going around in circles because it's a question without a definitive answer.

But sometimes what comes out of it are more questions, ones that are perhaps more important. I find the topic of archiving digital media a far more fascinating topic because it's something that is tangible and could certainly benefit from many intelligent perspectives so as to find solutions that are effective and offer filmmakers confidence that their work will be easily retrievable years down the line. It's these topics that truly have an impact on us.

The film vs digital is a project by project question, one that will evolve over time. If the topic is to really hold merit, it seems like a far more interesting discussion would revolve around tests that people may want to share between say a particular film stock and the RED. Perhaps they might want to discuss how they conducted their tests, why they decided to go with one over the other, and then receive feedback. I like these kind of discussions over general blanket statements and opinions, especially when film and digital each encompass many different flavors within their own realm.

That's just me.

 

[David Battistella]

Great points Steve,

Storing Data in the long term is going to be very interesting for many of us.

David

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I didn't mean you Wesley or Gavin. You guys seem more level headed when referring to 'fanboys' on here

But can I point out here that no one has seen 28k, let alone worked with it. Lord knows what sort of super duper computer you're going to need to deal with a 28K image size. Sometimes I think Red runs before they can walk in terms of development.

I sort of wish they'd gone with a 3 chip design for the Red. Would have made a better color workspace from the off and been closer to Cineon specs. But still, people seem to be making good images with it, I guess it can only get better. Wonder why they did go with Beyer technology?

Thanks. But from what I understand in regards to 3-Chip is there are a few issues with it that makes it unviable for 4K image capture.

First very high-quality prisms are VERY expensive and hard to make, and there is a limit to how good the prism can economoically be beyond 2/3" (As Graeme pointed out), also you can't use regular cine lenses on 3 chip designs, you have to have either ones with a special element designed to compensate for the prism or you have to have a special adapter between them.

Then there is the issues of blooming and stuff in regards to prisms, especially ones that big.

I recall reading that if Red has gone with a 4K 3CCD design it would have bloomed the camera price by more than 10 times (since I don't believe there are any 4K 3CCD sensors available, so Red would have to have spent tons of money developing on), for little to no real increase in image quality (Since the limitations of the prism would be hampering the capabilities of the sensors.)

CMOS Bayer chip means it's cheaper, uses less electricity (thus longer shooting times), can use standard cinema lenses, and doesn't suffer from as many defects as huge 3CCD's (all the blooming and streaking and light loss you get from prisms that big).

And true, no one HAS worked with 28K yet, but I assume that Red will have developed a viable option for working with 28K footage (and being able to downscaled it to a 4-8K master for editing) before the brain is released.

The dynamic range and clarity of 28K footage sampled down to 4-8K will be HUGE, I forgot the exact conversion scale (I believe it was David Mullen or Graeme who talked about this in a thread recently) but when downscaling you can see an increase in the dynamic range and a decrease in noise.

Someone talked about if you're downscaling to SD or YouTube size 4K footage can jump from 10-11 stops of DR to like 12-13. So if you're downscaling 28K to 4-8K for a 35mm print, and the Dynamic range of the new sensors is already higher than the Mysterium...

I don't know how much that is, but it sounds like it could definitely beat the dynamic range of Vision 3, or most any other 35mm stocks.

 

[mike ogden]

Not quite sure I understand how you can get more stop by downscaling? Anyone have a link to the threat mentioned about 28k and dynamic range? I'd like to read that.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Downsampling needs a low pass filter. Any noise in frequency above that low pass filter will be removed, making a smaller, but less noisy image. Oh, and DR is noise limited, so lowering noise is effectively increasing DR.

Graeme

 

[James Brundige]

Can I just point out for the umpteenth time that shooting on a Red for a feature in reality makes no significant saving in the great scheme of things. This I know for a fact as I've just done a comparative.

The cost of film stock and lab isn't significant enough to warrant shooting Red as a cost saving unless your budget is sub a million and even then there are options.

Anyone who naysays this really has never budgeted well or properly. This isn't to cast aspersions on the Red cam, it's just a falsehood I am tired of hearing again and again.

Please provide some figures to support this assertion. Unless you think $100,000 of savings is insignificant.

 

[david m friedman]

Eventually storage mediums will reach a level of data density and reliability to beat analog storage mediums in every way. We've already got plenty of methods in prototype that are (theoretically) able to last for thousands of years.

I just don't think that film is a standard that we want to rely on in the long term, especially when you're dealing with something like high-end Epic footage.

It's got resolution limitations, and introduces grain structures not in the original footage. Not to mention the cost of scanning it back in digitally, then having to deal with grain structures introduced in the filmout process.

I think 3D holographic mediums will be the high-density format of the next few decades, and will address most of these issues. After that, quantum storage options will take over, and realistically you won't be able to put much data into matter after that without relying on compression algorithms.

People complain about the volatility of storage medium now, just think, it took film a while to move away from nitrate film... Once again digital is a infant medium, and it will take progress a while to come up with methods that are hardy and reliable, but it can and will be done.

true enough that EVENTUALLY storage media reliability and density might be capable of keeping all of your material forever.

but what about that job you shot last week (month, year)???

what about everything that's shot between now and that 'eventually'?

 

[Stephen Williams]

Please provide some figures to support this assertion. Unless you think $100,000 of savings is insignificant.

Hi James,

I know of plenty of 35mm features where the total budget was under $100,000. However they looked like the budget was $500,000.

YMMV
Best
Stephen

Edit, saved money always gets spent elsewhere, sometimes the producer will stay in a better hotel & keep flying fast class, remember this is show business

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

35 mm is pretty expensive here, but red vs. 16 mm is a tough calculation, 16mm stock is just so damn cheap now, guess same will happen with 35 mm, but then all the offline online transcoding nonsense should be a thing of the past.


same like in still photography,

imho you can be part of the evolution or share the fate of dinosaurs.

15 years from now it will make no sense to shoot one millimeter on film.

distribution will be by projectors etc.

but its art, you never know in the end.

 

[Stefan Christou]

Are you an admin, Stefan? I didn't realise...

No you can see under my name I'm just a "registered user" but that emoticon is too good not to use as much as possible.

It's funny people are talking about which is better, rather than discussing how best to mix footage from both media, or the practical working differences between the two (or six or seven or whatever), vs doesn't need to mean a fight, perhaps a comparison based discussion would be more productive?
arty:

(that's another good emoticon)

 

[mike ogden]

James,

To do that I'd have to throw up my entire current budget so you could see this - which obviously I am not about to do. 100,000 euros is really not much to quibble over if I am guaranteed a great, future proof image, a reliable system shooting in the middle of nowhere and the ability to shoot without using a shed load of lights at night. I need to be be mobile, fast and reliable without compromising quality so I'd rather pay and from what I can see, it's a no brainer. Oh and with 2 35mm cameras too I might add.

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the Red. In fact I am certain I shall use it one day on a project I have in mind. But no, 100k on the budget I am dealing with right now isn't worth the worry and trust me it isn't a Batman sized budget either

I'm not flying first and sleeping in nice hotels either. I'd rather it was on the screen where it belongs.

 

[Stefan Christou]

Downsampling needs a low pass filter. Any noise in frequency above that low pass filter will be removed, making a smaller, but less noisy image. Oh, and DR is noise limited, so lowering noise is effectively increasing DR.

Graeme

Interesting :lurk5:

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

James,

To do that I'd have to throw up my entire current budget so you could see this - which obviously I am not about to do. 100,000 euros is really not much to quibble over if I am guaranteed a great, future proof image, a reliable system shooting in the middle of nowhere and the ability to shoot without using a shed load of lights at night. I need to be be mobile, fast and reliable without compromising quality so I'd rather pay and from what I can see, it's a no brainer. Oh and with 2 35mm cameras too I might add.

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the Red. In fact I am certain I shall use it one day on a project I have in mind. But no, 100k on the budget I am dealing with right now isn't worth the worry and trust me it isn't a Batman sized budget either

I'm not flying first and sleeping in nice hotels either. I'd rather it was on the screen where it belongs.

with 100 000 k i would spend the money on great actors (guess the fucking great ones are out of budget?), production design,locations and a fucking great DOP and SOUNDDesigner, dont get me wrong, a movie isnt better because its shot on red or 35 or 16.

future proof image?---not the format will decide if your movie will be watched in the future.
fast and reliable?---whats faster than formatting a cf card...booting is with a hotswap no problem and without, the dop can always change bats while reheasel.
shed load of lights?---sorry but when you know how to post redfootage you can get away with little light at night (denoising the bluechannel)

and again with 100 000 k i would never ever start an expensive tech porn. i would spent half of that for cast and crew, maybe more


i dont know your background, so dont get it wrong.
i just saw a lot of people having spent hundred thousands of dollars and euros just the wrong way.

wish you all the best