Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Spielberg's latest...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whatever, who cares. Result is important.
Red, film, movieola .... just tools
 
Can anyone tell me the rumor about Spielberg on RED DAY?
I heard some kind of rumor that he saw Crossing the Line, and said "did Peter Jackson shoot that in 2 days?", but I think that comment more meant about that whole production, shooting a 12 minute WW1 short film in 2 days, not so much about the camera... If he did say something about the camera - IF he has seen it - can someone clarify?

I'm a RED fan AND a Spielberg fan, so I'm pretty curious :)
 
spielberg/kahn edit is great. you feel that they edit in the old way. the editing is great, beautiful skilled. the main pont are the dramatic scenes with actors, so some CGI line A.I. are not so important for the charavteristic of the edit itself.
spielebrg is right in all what he says. he is spielberg. he has pushed cinematography and cinema art forward in a dramatic way (storytelling, suspense, editing, looks (ryan!) not every movie is the big hit, but his life achievement is untouchable.
but, you are right, he has the money to shoot with a kaminsky on film.
i can´t imagine a "schindlers list" shot on digital, this has to be film.
so in my case i will choose what format, film or digital, will support the story.
and i am glad that there will be a red on the list.
i like the look of the camera and it gives you all possibilities in the postproduction.
 
Red South West said:
... i can´t imagine a "schindlers list" shot on digital, this has to be film....
Click to expand...

I can easily imagine a "schindlers list" shot on digital, with final look of film and same thing shot on film with final look of digital :)
 
All films, even Spielbergs end someday on a DVD. And to fit on a DVD you need to do a LOT of noice reduction, my feeling is, that a lot of stunning films have a kind of plastic look on DVD what is in my eyes a poor quality. RED will have an advantage on that. You can prozess it with or without grain. Both will look great.
 
artbeatsart said:
All films, even Spielbergs end someday on a DVD. And to fit on a DVD you need to do a LOT of noice reduction, my feeling is, that a lot of stunning films have a kind of plastic look on DVD what is in my eyes a poor quality. RED will have an advantage on that. You can prozess it with or without grain. Both will look great.
Click to expand...

That's a load of BS need a lot of noise reduction my ass.
 
CraigWB said:
That's a load of BS need a lot of noise reduction my ass.
Click to expand...

Actually they DO need noise reduction because noise kills the encoding and degrades the overall picture quality. The more noise you have the higher bitrates you need to have in order to remain close to your picture's quality. Since in long DVD movies you can't have very high bitrates you must do a lot of noise reduction before the encoding.
 
front row viewing

front row viewing

i think we also have to take into account where spielberg is coming from. he speaks of viewing the print on a moviola or sitting in the front row and watching the dailies and the chemicals. no one does that unless you're a filmmaker and obsessed with the image. audiences watch dvds and movie screens from a comfortable viewing distance away. they cannot see such things and don't care about them. this is simply an older filmmaker stuck in his ways because it works for him. now imagine soderbergh saying the same thing 25 years from now. it won't happen because soderbergh has always been changing style and workflows to adapt to new technology. that's what works for him. two master storytellers with 2 completely different approaches.
 
RED is revolutionary for 3 reasons:

1. image quality
2. price point
3. business model

2 out of 3 of these mean nothing to him. all three of these are meaningful to me and are significant reasons for my RED purchases. his opinion is relevant to his situation only and has little bearing on my situation. or the situation of most potential RED users, presumably, most of whom do care about #2 and #3....

#1 will take care of itself, and is largely going to be in the hands of the operator. the potential awaits the user.
 
I think it's quite endeering that someone who carved his place in history for thinking outside of the box and ahead of the game, should now look to hold onto previous techniques in place of new ones.

I've got absolutely no problem with it at all, if I could afford to go out and shoot reel after reel of film and never have it dent my bank account I probably wouldn't care less for digital cameras. Film has given us some beautiful movies over the years and I can completely understand the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Digital is for a different breed. It's liberating because of it's ease of shooting for those without extensive budgets. If something like Red had come about just as Speilberg started out he probably would've adopted it back then. Chances are many of us will be scoffing at some sort of holographic theatres in 50 years time as we hark back for the days of 2D cinemas and shooting with our antique RedOne's! :)

Paul
 
artbeatsart said:
All films, even Spielbergs end someday on a DVD. And to fit on a DVD you need to do a LOT of noice reduction, my feeling is, that a lot of stunning films have a kind of plastic look on DVD what is in my eyes a poor quality. RED will have an advantage on that. You can prozess it with or without grain. Both will look great.
Click to expand...

Yes, some dvd’s can look real horrible. But have you seen some of those new Blu-ray/Hd-dvd’s? I don’t think they need that much noise reduction before encoding (some got a lot of filmgrain)? If someone has insight into this issue than please explain. I guess the codec’s makes a great deal as to bit rate.
 
Fix said:
Yes, some dvd’s can look real horrible. But have you seen some of those new Blu-ray/Hd-dvd’s? I don’t think they need that much noise reduction before encoding (some got a lot of filmgrain)? If someone has insight into this issue than please explain. I guess the codec’s makes a great deal as to bit rate.
Click to expand...

Look people some DVDs look awful because they have JANK encoding it has NOTHING to do with a grainy source, I've seen Minority report a thousand god damn times and that thing does not have severe noise reduction on it.

Just the act of taking the resolution down from the HD transfer down to NTSC or PAL eliminates some of the grain but you still have the feel of it.

Not only that some films have more or less grain I assume due to the cinematographic process Tony Scott's Deja Vu.

Or another Tony Scott film which I remember to be fairly grainy which turned out fine on DVD is Man on Fire.

I myself have encoded some fairly noisy footage in the past with no real problems.
 
Film is a tool and so is digital.

Different tools give you different options...

Tools don't make masterpieces by themselves.

People do.

Using tools...

Owning a brush won't make you a Picasso.

The essence of filmmaking is something else.

It's a mystery... it's alchemy... it's magic...

Story is paramount.

Inspiration... Imagination...

Where do good stories come from?... Life...

And what is life?... A mystery.. an alchemy ... magic ... nightmare ... triumph...

Good stories are a mirror of this mystery called life.

Tools are important but not paramount.

Magic is paramount...

Life is paramount...

-------

My 2 cents.
 
and yet here we are... knowing full well that RED will be the most important tool ever and so none of us can't help but to be all giddy about it.
 
I grew up in the printing industry. Years ago, I was an early adopter and advocate of the Mac and saw how it was going to change everything in the industry. I was laughed at, called all sorts of names by folks who are now out of a job because they thought they were the only "true" keepers of the printing press. I'll never forget one designer saying how the type that came from a Mac didn't look as crisp as what he was getting from a Compugraphic (cold type) machine. The Compugraphic used lenses to expose type from film onto the stock. The Mac used something weird called Postscript. I haven't seen a Compugraphic machine in decades. Yeah, this RED thing is probably just gonna blow over. It's like my father said years ago, "I'm waiting for linotype to make a come back". I can't wait to get the RED I've ordered and begin learning all over again. Old dog, new tricks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top