how about a new subforum?

[jan von krogh]

i am constantly distracted by the always returning digital vs film subtones in, especially, the red forum.

 

its getting on my nerves - yes, i do have the opinion, that in a given amount of time most of us working digital. that is my -opinion-.

 

But that has nothing to do with the red camera.

The red may accelerate the translation i see happening, the red is a symbol for that, but besides that, its a excellent camera worth having a forum free of axegrinders.

 

so, how about a subforum "film and or against digital".

 

i personally am -tired- of being touted somewhone who is against film or haves a red agenda (hey, i have ONLY 35mm and hdcam to rent out & shoot on right now).

 

35mm started my career, i -LOVED- my first 35mm shots, i still own one arri 35b, and some of my best stuff is done on 35mm - however i think that film is almost done for me. but that isn´t a RED topic - that is a different discussion.

 

furthermore, i think it would be interesting to read this subforum - independent of products. And it would allow both sides open communication without speculation.

[Antonio Bunt]

I support that motion. Great idea to let opinions and frustrations out in the air (or in the web for that matter!)

Edited April 29, 2007 by Antonio Bunt

[David Mullen ASC]

Unfortunately the fact that the RED is a 4K Bayer-filtered digital camera sort of means that it's meant to compete with film, not with typical broadcast video cameras, hence the constant comparisons. Over at the RED site, there is a number of posts with a "film is now dead" subtext (or primary text) -- it's just flipflopped here the other direction because as a general cinematography site, there are a lot more film shooters here.

 

The RED forum should just be more heavily moderated. I think any posts that drift into a classic film vs. video tirade should get a warning from the moderator to discontinue that line of attack, as Geoff Boyle does on the CML (or the quote him "...not another f--king film vs. video argument!")

 

This forum should be mainly about the practical application of the RED camera, how to post the footage, questions on how it is designed, what the recording options are, etc.

 

Evaluation of footage, even to compare it to film, even to be critical of the RED, is fine as long as it is a fairly technical discussion and doesn't fall back into standard film vs. video arguments (the emotional ones).

 

The F900 went through this same controversy, because it was touted when it was released as a "film killer" by Sony, (who knows better now), and who can forget all the paranoid nonsense surrounding the Panavision Genesis before we started seeing it used on productions? (Or in the DV groups, the hype before the DVX100 was released and then later than HVX200).

 

Every new tool takes some time before its place in the world is more accurately gauged. Just say to yourself "This to shall pass..." I'm just seeing the same arguments that I saw before with previous cameras and I am sure I'll see them again.

 

Sure, we can create a "film vs. video" subforum for posts with pointless posturing, but I won't be reading them... It's a little like what someone once said that more people write poetry than read poetry. More people want to write film vs. video posts than want to read them.

[Nathan Milford]

There is no such thing as film VS video. It is tantamount to nail VS screw: both are fasteners and are used in different situations to achieve similar ends. Film and video are methods of imaging and are used in different situations to achieve different ends.

 

Film VS video threads are really 'my aesthetic VS your aesthetic' threads or they are economic, social or even (dare I say it) religious discussions rather than practical discussions on the relative strengths and weaknesses of a particular tool.

 

I believe David put it perfectly:

More people want to write film vs. video posts than want to read them.

[jan von krogh]

Unfortunately the fact that the RED is a 4K Bayer-filtered digital camera sort of means that it's meant to compete with film, not with typical broadcast video cameras, hence the constant comparisons. Over at the RED site, there is a number of posts with a "film is now dead" subtext (or primary text) -- it's just flipflopped here the other direction because as a general cinematography site, there are a lot more film shooters here.

agreed.

 

The RED forum should just be more heavily moderated. I think any posts that drift into a classic film vs. video tirade should get a warning from the moderator to discontinue that line of attack, as Geoff Boyle does on the CML (or the quote him "...not another f--king film vs. video argument!")

thats why i dont post on CML anymore - i -hate- censorship and at cml, i have to agree, its necessary.

 

The F900 went through this same controversy, because it was touted when it was released as a "film killer" by Sony, (who knows better now), and who can forget all the paranoid nonsense surrounding the Panavision Genesis before we started seeing it used on productions?

my humble opinion.

 

the sony hdcams/gv vipers/panavision genesis etc... were for me an -alternative- to film.

we bought, we shoot, we used them. and there were several situations where we used 35mm instead of digital.

 

red (and the certainly following cameras) are for me not an alternative.

they are (for me, just my producer/director/colorist opinion) the 1st cameras to actually make film obsolete.

 

bold statement. i know. however i think so. and for this discussion, we shouldn´t abuse the red-forum.

as this statement of mine will, and has to, make other people with other opinions write down their pov.

 

but that has not anything to do with the red one camera. its just a symbol for the other debate.

 

i am -really- ready to explain why i think we all will be shooting digital within 5-10 years for the huge mayority of our work. my opinion.

however, even if red delivers, i don´t want to base that on one particular camera - dozens of other cameras, 4, 8, 16, 32 MP will follow. because that is their product. not my opinion.

and this subforum has the awful tendency, as we just saw in the arri d20 forum, to mix these both -different- aspects all the time.

 

i can´t talk about red vs. d20, if i have to go into film vs. digital. i can´t talk about film vs. digital, if i have to go into red vs. millenium.

this subforum has become a mess due to these reasons. a -i suppose we can agree on that- outstanding camera system like the red one deserves better,

a proven camera system as the d20 deserves better as well. so, i recommend to split 2 topics into 2 forums.

 

Sure, we can create a "film vs. video" subforum for posts with pointless posturing, but I won't be reading them... It's a little like what someone once said that more people write poetry than read poetry. More people want to write film vs. video posts than want to read them.

for me (as i am spending $$$$.$$$ on film/and/or/digital cameras a year) this discussion has more than just artistic, "poetic" values.

i do appreciate your contributions, i do respect your experience - but when it comes down to business, its dollar time and its sad that we mix up those fully different, however not independent topics in this subforum all the time.

in every single thread.

cinematography.com deserves better.

[jan von krogh]

There is no such thing as film VS video. Film VS video threads are really 'my aesthetic VS your aesthetic' threads or they are economic, social or even (dare I say it) religious discussions rather than practical discussions on the relative strengths and weaknesses of a particular tool.

 

i agree on the artistic side. i disagree, however, from a producers pov and especially money&workflow-wise.

[David Mullen ASC]

All I can say is that if we all shut up and didn't talk about the RED for the next two years, I suspect that after the two-year mark we'd see that the RED has found a niche in production big & small, but other formats would still be considered by different filmmakers and producers regardless of their budget restraints.

 

I see it all the time even on lower-budgeted productions -- producers don't always reach for the cheaper alternative or conversely, the highest-quality alternative. If the director is passionate about using a format like Super-16, let's say, and the budget can be modified to make that possible, it will happen today and it will happen two years from now. It's not always about either the costs or the quality, it can be also about the look. (It's not even about the most efficient workflow -- I remember an artist at CalArts who physically cut in frames of Super-8 into a 16mm frame with an x-acto knife, frame-by-frame, when there were easier methods. He won awards for that short film. I believe it was Eric Darnell, who later directed the CGI features "Antz" and "Madagascar".)

 

Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions. What seems like an obvious choice to one person doesn't look so obvious to another. Artists are not necessarily logical, and I'd have to say that many producers aren't either (and some are artists themselves.) So one can argue all the logical reasons why the RED camera will take over in the next few years, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Given enough of a budget, you have choices and people take advantage of that.

 

Even talking about CGI animated movies, there are still people who go through the laborious process of doing stop-motion animation. Not everyone wants to make things easier on themselves.

 

If the film industry, big and small, hasn't fully made every decision based on cost only, but factored in artistic reasons and plain personal taste, even whimsy... why would they start now?

[jan von krogh]

All I can say is that if we all shut up and didn't talk about the RED for the next two years, I suspect that after the two-year mark we'd see that the RED has found a niche in production big & small, but other formats would still be considered by different filmmakers and producers regardless of their budget restraints.

 

that belongs into the 35mm vs/or/and digital forum :)

 

ok, no joking.

 

in germany they have a -tough- saying.

"the normative power of the facts".

 

we have >2.000 red cameras incoming in our industry.

within months.

so i hardly can follow any "niche" argumentation.

if they deliver -and i think meanwhile agree that this is no queston of "if", but rather of "when"" -

i would have -strong- objections for any s16 shooting, just from the production POV.

 

stopmotion / 3d animation isn´t a good comparision.

they both do fifferent things.

35mm digital sensor and 35mm stock don´t.

[Adam Thompson]

that belongs into the 35mm vs/or/and digital forum :)

 

ok, no joking.

 

in germany they have a -tough- saying.

"the normative power of the facts".

 

we have >2.000 red cameras incoming in our industry.

within months.

so i hardly can follow any "niche" argumentation.

if they deliver -and i think meanwhile agree that this is no queston of "if", but rather of "when"" -

i would have -strong- objections for any s16 shooting, just from the production POV.

 

stopmotion / 3d animation isn´t a good comparision.

they both do fifferent things.

35mm digital sensor and 35mm stock don´t.

 

Your posts lead me to believe that you are very much a small business owner or surely more of a business technician than film guy. Saying things like you are about S16, for example, is way off base so read on, for your $ake.

 

I'm involved with two projects in development by two different feature directors. One of them is a knowledge machine, knowing easily as much as I do about photography but encouraging risk, with an eye for really creating mood and environment with all heads of production. I'm helping him in various ways and will probably end up as an operator/AC on his show as there's a more commercially exp. DP on board. The other guy knows very little, if anything at all, about film, coming from the DV world, and only wants to get another movie under his belt to put onto the legitimate DVD market. I'm the DP on his. The thing they both have in common is wanting 16mm to be their medium.

 

The latter guy has reasons that have more to do with distribution and the fact that only film or high-end HD productions are often the only ones even screened by dist. companies (and rightly so since the DV crowds have clogged those systems up). The other, more theater worthy director is extremely interested in S16's texture, color space and overall feel (those things that can't be technically explained) for his, two-year in development, feature. And he has screened pretty much every format available at LA and NY labs and makes choices based on a really matured view of the final product's needs.

 

So if he came to you and you tried to tell him how stupid it was to shoot on S16, do you think you'd have any of his business, ever? No way. The 'just get it done' director might come to you and not be able to compete with your tech talk, but his Producer's rep surely knows more than you do about his project's needs.

 

Who are you to argue with either guy? You'd just end up hurting or confusing the 'just get it done' guy and you'd end up looking really, really ignorant trying to talk film vs. video with the other guy. Either way, you'd not do any $$ with either one, ever again.

 

So good luck with that.

[Max Jacoby]

This thread is putting me to sleep already.

 

Under the pretense of creating an new subforum we get the same film vs Red arguments over and over again. It bores me to death. I think I'll just call up Michael Ballhaus and we'll go for a drink...

[David Mullen ASC]

i would have -strong- objections for any s16 shooting, just from the production POV.

 

You've got to admit though that you're expression a personal preference -- other producers and directors might not have the same objections if Super-16 gave them exactly the look they wanted and it was within their budget.

 

Look at "Babel", which used Super-16 for the Morocco sequences; I doubt they would have used a 4K digital camera instead if it were available.

 

Even on the lower-budget level, people make different decisions than someone else, for artistic reasons, and move the budget numbers around to accomodate it. Look at "George Washington" a tiny indie movie shot in 35mm anamorphic - was that a logical choice given their budget? No, it was an artistic choice. And on the flip side, look at "28 Days Later", a film with a budget of several million dollars shot on a prosumer PAL DV camera -- was that a logical choice or an artistic one?

 

What seems so obvious to you is not going to necessarily be so obvious to other people.

 

And it's not the producer's job to necessarily dictate the shooting format to the director and DP; he's supposed to be an artistic enabler and do what he can to make things happen, not automatically write-off a director's suggestion that they use Super-16, let's say, not if there was some way possible to accomodate that request. To me, a producer who dictates to a director and DP how they will be shooting the project without their feedback is not doing his or her job. It's got nothing to do with budget; I've seen producers even on tiny indie films work to accomodate the creative vision of the director.

 

And it's got nothing to do with whether it was technically possible to give RED footage a Super-16 look; again, we're talking about artists here and their passions -- it's not logical. You will run into some who would rather shoot in Super-16 than the best digital format possible. Now you could refuse to produce for them and let them find another producer, if you don't mind getting the reputation of not considering wanting to work with a director's creative ideas but dictating issues like format to them.

 

2000 RED cameras will arrive in Germany in a few months? Well, assuming that really happens on schedule, let's meet back here in two years to see if Germany has gone all-RED. I doubt it but I could be wrong. That sort of mass-conversion in shooting formats over a short period is fairly rare, but who knows. You have to ignore all the existing cameras in Germany already owned by people, plus the people who can afford to shoot 35mm.

[Guest]

Well Tim Tyler did create a sub-forum called "Richard Boddington."

 

I thought the whole point of that forum was to have endless film vs video debates, but Tim closed it down :D

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Well Tim Tyler did create a sub-forum called "Richard Boddington."

 

I thought the whole point of that forum was to have endless film vs video debates, but Tim closed it down :D

 

R,

 

I like that idea -- we can all refer to discussing film vs. video as "doing a Boddington". As in "I don't want to Boddington this thing to death, but the trouble with digital is..." Or simply write "Boddington" as a reply to a film vs. digital post, let other people figure it out. It could be a new cultural catch-phrase, like "grok".

[Sam Wells]

in germany they have a -tough- saying.

"the normative power of the facts".

 

Walter Benjamin had a critical saying, "the triumph of artifice passed off as a fact of nature"

 

(I'll spare you the political side of this...)

 

-Sam

[Guest]

I like that idea -- we can all refer to discussing film vs. video as "doing a Boddington". As in "I don't want to Boddington this thing to death, but the trouble with digital is..." Or simply write "Boddington" as a reply to a film vs. digital post, let other people figure it out. It could be a new cultural catch-phrase, like "grok".

 

Yes, and we can refer to any well thought out, intellectual, factual response, as "doing a Mullen."

 

Any ultra negative response can be called a "Phil Rhodes." (Provided of course you have the vocabulary for the big fancy words.)

 

Perfect!

 

R,

 

PS: I love you Phil :D

[Ken Cangi]

And on the flip side, look at "28 Days Later", a film with a budget of several million dollars shot on a prosumer PAL DV camera -- was that a logical choice or an artistic one?

I was interested in the idea that 28 Days Later was shot on DV, so I looked up the specs. ALLOCINE.CO.UK listed it as: Colour Film negative format : 35 mm.

 

http://www.allocine.co.uk/film/fichefilm_g...film=46940.html

 

I'm wondering if they are referring to 35mm film-out.

[Ken Cangi]

Just found an interview with Danny Boyle, in Indiewire. Apparently parts of it were shot on a Canon XL-1s.

[Thomas James]

The way I see it if the film crowd wants to say that film is better they are simply going to have to go to a bigger format like 65mm. With 65mm film they can easily make the argument that 65mm is better than 4k. And this is what the film crowd has been doing for decades. When television was first invented it tried to kill film but the film crowd said that 16mm is better. Then along came high definition and the film crowd said that 35mm is better. So when 4k comes along the bar is raised to 65mm. With film the bar can always be raised but it costs money to do so.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Just found an interview with Danny Boyle, in Indiewire. Apparently parts of it were shot on a Canon XL-1s.

From what I recall, the whole movie was shot with 10 Canon XL-1s, fitted with special lenses (forgot which ones).

[Nathan Milford]

The way I see it if the film crowd wants to say that film is better they are simply going to have to go to a bigger format like 65mm. With 65mm film they can easily make the argument that 65mm is better than 4k. And this is what the film crowd has been doing for decades. When television was first invented it tried to kill film but the film crowd said that 16mm is better. Then along came high definition and the film crowd said that 35mm is better. So when 4k comes along the bar is raised to 65mm. With film the bar can always be raised but it costs money to do so.

 

That might be one of the silliest, most unfounded statements ever made on this forum. And there are A LOT of uninformed people on this forum who like to bloviate on matters they aren't qualified to. Congratulations >8)

 

FADE OUT FROM PREVIOUS STATEMENT

 

CUT TO: CU of Indian's face. A single tear drops.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I like that idea -- we can all refer to discussing film vs. video as "doing a Boddington."

"BODDINGTON . . . BODDINGTON, BODDINGTON, BODDINGTON!!!"

[Thomas James]

It's true when television threatened to kill film in the 1950's the movie industry responded with these so called wide screen formats. In the 1960's cable television threatened to put the movie theatres out of business with their pay tv and the theatre industry responded that pay television would create a money draining monstor in the home and that television should always be free. Now with the advent of the high definition home theatre people are finding that the movie houses are not offering any improved picture quality than to what you get if you just stay home and watch it on Blu-Ray disc. Whether film dies or not is unclear but these movie house if they want to compete are either going to have to offer 70mm projection or 4k digital projection.

[David Mullen ASC]

I didn't see the whole movie (the film projector died ironically) but apparently at the end of "28 Days Later" there is a 35mm sequence.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I didn't see the whole movie (the film projector died ironically) but apparently at the end of "28 Days Later" there is a 35mm sequence.

Ahhh . . . perhaps the aerial photography sequence?

[Ralph Oshiro]

From what I recall, the whole movie was shot with 10 Canon XL-1s, fitted with special lenses (forgot which ones).

I stand corrected. They used as many as 8 Canon XL-1s using, "the higher-resolving Canon EC (6-40mm) and Canon EJ (50-150mm) prime lenses to the camera bodies with Optex adapters." Excerpted from the American Cinematographer article here . . .

 

28 Days Later Article in American Cinematographer