What RED can do that FILM can't?

[Dalibor Fencl]

adjusting ISO without swapping film stock/mags is impossible with film but easily done on RED.

Red cannot adjust ISO in camera. In fact, Red can't adjust ISO at all, period. It is what it is. The "ISO" setting you are changing has no effect on the sensor sensitivity, it's simply meta data that changes how your monitor perceives the RAW data.

Yes, I think we all understand that.

Well, not everybody.

 

[Dominic Jones]

Touche!

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Hey Shawn, it's great to have you here too man...

EDIT:
Plus, If you're going to get patted down by anyone, might as well be someone with ASC after their name!!!

Lol, I'm an Irish SOB, so David can feel free to pat me down if he feels so inclined, notice I didn't say anything to him , just others chiming in on top of him that got me to say something.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Well, not everybody.

Thank you

 

[dino g]

We were hired to be at a music video a couple of weeks ago with 2 435 as the a & b camera, red was a test.

the director after seeing all of the footage said, film is better in the highlights by 2 or 3 stops; red is better in the shadows/blacks by 2 or 3 stops...

i am sure he will talk more about the difference when he gets his and joins the party, but and here is the point, his next video is shooting with RED...

was supposed to happen in la on the 10th, now it is shooting in NY (mark watch for the call, i turned him onto you) on te 14th i think...

so RED won the side by side for that director.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes it is awesome to have him here, but you reply to him patting me down? Whatever.

I wasn't patting you down really... I just wanted you to know that I know (and we've discussed here before, so many others know too) that changing the ASA is just a metadata thing...

I'm half-Irish, for whatever that's worth (the other half is Japanese.)

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I wasn't patting you down really... I just wanted you to know that I know (and we've discussed here before, so many others know too) that changing the ASA is just a metadata thing...

Okay, thanks, I should have been more specific that I wasn't directing my comment at you but rather at the other poster who specifically stated that Red could change ISO unlike film.

 

[jbeale]

This may be stretching the point a bit, but in some genres it is a factor... Red can BE THERE when film might not be there. Simply due to cost & infrastructure reasons. There's going to be a lot of Reds out in the world pretty soon.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=113971&postcount=14

Of course this is just "existence" not "quality"... if shooting has less of a mystique because it's cheap & easy, the median quality will no doubt suffer.

 

[noclip]

The reason people like the look of film can't be classified by any objective criteria. Film's appeal comes from our subconscious association of its characteristics with big budgets and high production values. If department store ads start being shot at 24 fps on 35mm film cropped to 2.35:1 or 1.77:1, that mental association will start to get eroded and ultimately disappear. Compare how interesting "bullet time" was in 1999 to how interesting it is now that it regularly shows up in car commercials.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

I'm half-Irish, for whatever that's worth (the other half is Japanese.)

Wow! I just now noticed the second part of your message. That's a powerful combo, and one you don't hear of/see very often.

 

[mezmo]

The concept of being able to see exactly what I'm recording as I'm recording it has always been appealing to me...

Never being able to see exactly what I'm shooting on film has never been
a problem for me over the last 30 years or so......
Sorry had to do that.
mezmo

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

That was most of the fun when shooting on film.
What I won't miss are the expensive Tele-Cine sessions!

 

[Häakon]

Never being able to see exactly what I'm shooting on film has never been
a problem for me over the last 30 years or so......
Sorry had to do that.
mezmo

Never had a shot turn out mis-focused or improperly exposed in 30 years of shooting film? Wow, now that's impressive!

 

[Mike Prevette]

Be fair, he didn't say that.

 

[Häakon]

I think he knows I'm teasing. ;-) But the point is that these kind of problems should be entirely avoidable with a digital workflow if you do your job correctly. Whether or not you prefer the aesthetic of RED, it does offer fundamental advantages that just aren't available with film no matter how you slice it.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ask Steven Soderbergh:

What RED can do that FILM can't?

And the answer is:

And more detailed answer we get in coming up movies like Guerrilla and The Argentine.

 

[Harry Clark]

I'm sure I'll get crucified here for saying this, but... here's a casual observation:
Film makes everyone focus. Everyone on the set knows how expensive it is, and that puts everyone on their A-game. The AD and his team crack the whip, the grips work hard, the ACs measure and mark the focus 12 ways to Sunday. The actors hit their marks, remember their lines, and rarely ask, "are we rolling?"
Even on micro-budget indie movies everyone stays in the game, even if they don't yet have a lot of experience.
I've noticed, on digitally photographed projects, that everyone loosens up a bit, and often the mantra becomes the old standby, "tape is cheap". Maybe the dolly grip does not pay as much attention and misses his mark by a little bit, maybe the actress fumbles her way around the lines a bit more, maybe the AD is wondering if his Porsche is ready to be picked up instead of cueing the other actor...
NOW,
Some wonderful accidents happen, often where performance is concerned, when everyone loosens up. And rolling out over and over again just when the performance is getting good on a 200' mag because that's the only way to jam the camera inside that Mini-Cooper is not very rewarding from a cinematography point of view.
BUT...
When everyone focuses, work gets done. And sloppy operating and relaxed PAs joking with the director instead of locking up the street is a BAD thing.
I bet right now, with 4 minutes on a CF card, everyone focuses. But once we get those hard drives, will many people shooting with Red become sloppier just because we can keep rolling? (although it does not seem to have slowed down people with P2 cards)
And remember, some poor schnook (the editing team) has to review, log, back up and archive all of these files.
I'm speaking here of narrative work, not docs or reality TV, where rolling a lot is a GOOD thing. And, of course I get it... you could certainly end up with a polished turd that lots of professionals focused on, and a rough but lovable piece of art that everyone was relaxed on. I just don't think the latter occurs as often as some people think.
And I'm half-joking, because I believe that the advantages of digital photography outweigh any technical or philosophical shortcomings (otherwise I would not be chomping at the bit for #344)
But those are my observations, nonetheless... Ok, I think I rambled a bit...
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Over a 2/3" camera:
DOF
Lens selection
Picture quality
Scalability
Modular design
Shoots speed (more than Varicam)
SHOOTS TO CF CARD Non proprietary Data centric recording device (not p2 and XDCAM)
4K Recording

Depth of field, Picture quality a lot of these points are a little too subjective.
Maybe even lens selection.

I wouldn't count CF card either, This isn't an advantage at all you can't just grab any old CF card and throw it there.

 

[M Most]

I think he knows I'm teasing. ;-) But the point is that these kind of problems should be entirely avoidable with a digital workflow if you do your job correctly. Whether or not you prefer the aesthetic of RED, it does offer fundamental advantages that just aren't available with film no matter how you slice it.

Really? Then how come I've seen at least as many - if not far more - focus problems on HD material over the last 10 years as I have on film (regardless of whether it was 16 or 35)? The truth is that in almost all cases, performance is king. If a take has a great performance but soft focus, I would be that the editor would use the better performance oh, about, 100% of the time. And that holds true regardless of what type of camera you have.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I'm sure I'll get crucified here for saying this, but... here's a casual observation:
Film makes everyone focus. Everyone on the set knows how expensive it is, and that puts everyone on their A-game. The AD and his team crack the whip, the grips work hard, the ACs measure and mark the focus 12 ways to Sunday. The actors hit their marks, remember their lines, and rarely ask, "are we rolling?"
Even on micro-budget indie movies everyone stays in the game, even if they don't yet have a lot of experience.
I've noticed, on digitally photographed projects, that everyone loosens up a bit, and often the mantra becomes the old standby, "tape is cheap". Maybe the dolly grip does not pay as much attention and misses his mark by a little bit, maybe the actress fumbles her way around the lines a bit more, maybe the AD is wondering if his Porsche is ready to be picked up instead of cueing the other actor...
NOW,
Some wonderful accidents happen, often where performance is concerned, when everyone loosens up. And rolling out over and over again just when the performance is getting good on a 200' mag because that's the only way to jam the camera inside that Mini-Cooper is not very rewarding from a cinematography point of view.
BUT...
When everyone focuses, work gets done. And sloppy operating and relaxed PAs joking with the director instead of locking up the street is a BAD thing.
I bet right now, with 4 minutes on a CF card, everyone focuses. But once we get those hard drives, will many people shooting with Red become sloppier just because we can keep rolling? (although it does not seem to have slowed down people with P2 cards)
And remember, some poor schnook (the editing team) has to review, log, back up and archive all of these files.
I'm speaking here of narrative work, not docs or reality TV, where rolling a lot is a GOOD thing. And, of course I get it... you could certainly end up with a polished turd that lots of professionals focused on, and a rough but lovable piece of art that everyone was relaxed on. I just don't think the latter occurs as often as some people think.
And I'm half-joking, because I believe that the advantages of digital photography outweigh any technical or philosophical shortcomings (otherwise I would not be chomping at the bit for #344)
But those are my observations, nonetheless... Ok, I think I rambled a bit...
Cheers,
Harry

You sure have a point there.

But I think that the most expensive thing on set is always - time.

Rentals, deadlines, permissions, budget shrinking, people going crazy, etc.

"Time is always against us".

So, I don't think that RED would spoil filmmakers too much.