Hank den Drijver Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Ok then, Film vs Red. 1. Cost of equipment- advantage RED New 35mm film camera system= roughly $150K-$300K depending on model and accessories. New RED ONE system= roughly $25K Used 35mm film system= roughly $25K-$100K depending on age, model and condition 2. Cost to use- advantage RED The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film. 3. Dynamic Range- advantage 35mm film Film is roughly 13 stops. The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although they are working on it.) 4. Resolution- advantage RED 5. Grain- If you like it, advantage 35mm film. If you don't like it, advantage RED 6. Convenience- advantage RED Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours. 7. Pulling a key- advantage RED. To me Red is the clear winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Ok then, Film vs Red. 1. Cost of equipment- advantage RED New 35mm film camera system= roughly $150K-$300K depending on model and accessories. New RED ONE system= roughly $25K Used 35mm film system= roughly $25K-$100K depending on age, model and condition 2. Cost to use- advantage RED The RED camera is microscopic in costs compared to buying, processing and scanning film. 3. Dynamic Range- advantage 35mm film Film is roughly 13 stops. The RED camera is currently 11.3 (although they are working on it.) 4. Resolution- advantage RED 5. Grain- If you like it, advantage 35mm film. If you don't like it, advantage RED 6. Convenience- advantage RED Shoot a film load for max 10 minutes before re-load. Shoot RED for 2 hours. 7. Pulling a key- advantage RED. To me Red is the clear winner. I think its best to wait until we see footage from the newly designed red with its better lattitude however if judging from the test footage so far then film is much more filmic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted April 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2007 Hanky Panky If you quote someone, as you do with Jim Jannard in this case, please say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2007 Then you should use RED if that's your conclusion, Hank. Special efx movies have been pulling keys from 35mm chroma key photography for a long time now, so it's not as big of a factor as you are making it out to be. If you can afford to shoot in 35mm, then the cost advantage of shooting with the RED is less of a factor. If you are an irregular renter shooting a wide variety of projects in different formats, then the cost of ownership isn't a factor, and again, the cost of rental may not be a factor if your budget is high enough. Finally, as I said before in the other thread, artists don't always make logical, cost-efficient choices. Look at the German film "The Lives of Others" -- the director didn't even want to record digital sound if he didn't have to, let alone do a D.I. for the movie. That was just as much an emotional choice as it might have been a creative one, but it certainly wasn't a bottom-line decision. Cinema is an artform and a business, not exclusively one or the other. And it's made by flawed human beings with a wide variety of tastes and personal biases. One cannot logically predict the course of human behavior just by determining what seems to be their "best" choice given the facts. So all you can do is determine your own best course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 So buy a red. do we really need this sort of discussion anymore? This argument back and forth is all I have heard for the past 12 months. The cameras out, its done. Get one and shoot something great. I'll stick to renting the gear I need, and shooting film any chance I get. Maybe one day I will rent a red...but the choice really doesn't change the fundementals of what your doing. at least it shouldn't. can we end these red hypothetical debates. They go nowhere and do nothing to advance the art of cinematography. reduser.net would be the place for those dicussions I think. I look forward to the day that I click new posts and don't see half that are various arguments for and against red. I do look forward to posts with people actually shooting with it and reporting how it performed, but until then....this numbers game is just sorta played out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Winter Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 The way I see the FvR 'discussion': 1. film - superior image quality 2. film - more established and proven workflow 3. film - more established and proven accessories 3. film - vastly superior support structure (technical etc) 4. film - greater dynamic range (image can be manipulated much more) These are the first 4 things that popped into my mind, after 2 minutes of thought, I'm sure I can come up with others. Then, after looking over my stream of consciousness list, I realized that most of my concerns have to do with a sense of control over my tools. To be a true artist the tools do not need to be the sharpest, most powerful, lightest, or anything else - they need to be the ones that offer the most control to the artist and they need to be the ones that allow the artist to forget about the technical and focus on the creative. Personally, I have no doubt that one day everything will be digital but that day is not today and so today I will shoot on the tool that allows me to be the most creative. I believe that tool to be Super 35mm film. I will keep an eye on tomorrow but I can only live today. Evan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Oh tempting, so tempting...... But why do I freaking care? I already know what is the best and why. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Topey Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 (edited) J: Question. What kind of bear is best? D: That's a ridiculous question. J: False. Black bear. Edited April 30, 2007 by Brett Topey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Well, just to fan the Boddington here, these are my reasons: 1. I don't have Red. 2. I do have film. 5. (3, sir, 3.) Shooting film is more fun. Honestly, I would take 16mm over 4k at this point. It's better suited to what I want to do. I do see the use of the Red kind of image, but that's not what I want right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted April 30, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2007 J: Question. What kind of bear is best? Kodiak or Fuji? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I just don't understand why so many drama TV shows are being ruined because their using video when they could use a 16mm camera much cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 J: Question. What kind of bear is best? D: That's a ridiculous question. J: False. Black bear. Ah! That's funny. First it was: Red is a scam. They can't deliver. They delivered. Then it was: it can't be good. It must be awful. It wasn't. Then the last trick up the sleeve: It doesn't matter which one is best. Let's redicule the whole discussion as if the quality is unimportant to us filmers, and proven workflow is all that matters. As long as they can spread the idea that film is superior. Why would they spread that idea, no matter what? To reveal the scam of Red, to protect fellow filmers of the red evil? Hmm... more like fear of change and protection of investment, I guess. The elite position in which 35mm folks have safely been because of the high production costs is suddenly threatened by the arrival of a camera giving more or less equal quality for a lot less money. So when 'everyone' can afford such a camera it really comes down to how good you are and not how well funded you are. I think the people screaming the loudest over the arrival of Red are the ones that are the most afraid about what the future might bring, and the least certain about their own abilities as a filmer. Also the fact that Red listens to the future users, not exclusively to the arrived d.p.'s but to the indie folks as well is something a lot of folks cannot stand. They feel ignored in their superior position, and react like spoilt children. The people that have no doubts about their own capacities are the ones you don't hear screaming. All they think is they have a new tool. It's cheap, yes, but if it performs, well why the hell not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I just don't understand why so many drama TV shows are being ruined because their using video when they could use a 16mm camera much cheaper? Because producers keep thinking that video is cheaper than film - when often thats not the case. P.S. - What a stupid thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 The elite position in which 35mm folks have safely been because of the high production costs is suddenly threatened by the arrival of a camera giving more or less equal quality for a lot less money..... Also the fact that Red listens to the future users, not exclusively to the arrived d.p.'s but to the indie folks as well is something a lot of folks cannot stand. They feel ignored in their superior position, and react like spoilt children. Hank as this is only your third post here, don't you think you are pissing in your own water fountain? If you are a filmmaker on any proffesional or ametuer level, you would know that professionals have long embrassed alternative technology to 35mm, be it DV, 16mm, super16, HDcam to get the film made. And many have produced interesting and compelling material. The absence of Red, hasn't made present inde films any less inferior in quality - if anything its usually the low standards of production - talent, production-design, etc, which is the problem on indie films - rarely the format it is shot on. Now currently 35mm is the high-end (but not too high end) production standard - and despite Red it will probably be like that for some time - at least untill the infastructure can adapt - I don't yet see underwater Red cameras, Red crash cameras, nor high speed Red cameras. Nor would it be cheaper to make a feature for theatrical presentation on Red than 35mm, why - because of the expensive filmout. Also you seem to asume that anyone is going to be able to pick up a Red and make it look like Lord of the Rings, rubbish, with 35mm DOF like RED has you need someone who can pull focus on 35mm, thats no easy task! Its something some people dedicate their lives to. This is not to say people haven't been cynical (and rude) about Red, well thats not suprising, it was promising a lot and wasn't helped by a few 'unusual attitudes' from individuals. The film industry is small, most people arn't paid enough considering the hours they work - so why are you throwing stone insults at your future colleagues - the future collegues who will set up your lights, keep your leads in focus? Just wondering, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 P.S. - What a stupid thread. Haha, and you're in it!!! Say cheese! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 why are you throwing stone insults at your future colleagues I'm not talking about everybody in the film industry, just the ones that feel spoken too, I guess. Would that include you, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 you seem to asume that anyone is going to be able to pick up a Red and make it look like Lord of the Rings, I think it is very unlikely 'anyone' can pick up a Red and make it look like Lord of the Rings. Unless that one happens to be Peter Jackson, perhaps. I do say however it is a good thing that 'anyone', and not only the well-funded and established, can have access to the tool. Your skills will determine the end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Brett......your way off track. Kodiak brown bears rule the tundra. If I see a black bear in the woods, I just laugh and go about my way....see a brown bear and you hope your guns loaded...just in case. I personaly want to see digital cameras go into a medium format or large format package, complete with billows lenses. Digital could offer new interesting opportunities, but rather they follow trying to make it as much like 35mm film like as possible. Am I alone? wouldn't a film shot in 4x6 (or approximation of that after aspect ratio is considered.) open a lot of room for growth in the art? I bet when the pixels are nearing 0.1mm dynamic range wouldn't be an issue. It would be quite impossible to shoot medium format motion picture.....70mm can get expensive. mostly I wanted to make that point about brown bears.....brown bears your on notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I'm not talking about everybody in the film industry, just the ones that feel spoken too, I guess. Would that include you, perhaps? Oh okay, so now you're not talking about everybody - just the people who are keeping those little people who are thrieving with talent down. Those evil gaffers and grips, clapper-loaders and sparks who steal the dreams of so many video rental clerks whose only want in life is making the next 'Get Shorty,' well that and to lose their virginity. Well from my short and pretty lousy career I have met some rough and bullish individuals, unfortunatly sometimes i've learned thats its them who keep the standards up - the're less than cheery bedside manner is sadly what keeps them focused. Don't get me wrong sometimes they're behavior can be unforgivable, but their not the ones who spend their time contributing to web forums or informing people who don't quite now what the're on about the reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Hank, you WIN! Woo-hoo, give it up for Hank folks! Hank, the man, Hank! Three cheers! STREAMERS and BALOONS fall from the ceiling. HANK sheds a solitary tear. CUT TO BLACK THE END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 (edited) I think it is very unlikely 'anyone' can pick up a Red and make it look like Lord of the Rings. Unless that one happens to be Peter Jackson, perhaps. You see this where you are living in a fantasy, even with a Red camera Peter Jackson couldn't make something look like Lord of the Rings - it would probably look more like Bad Taste (am I mistaken is that the one shot on a Bolex?) because Peter Jackson doesn't make Lord of the Rings look Lord of the Rings - his DOP, Gaffer, operator, etc make it look like it does. Peter Jackson may have the vision, they make the vision a reality. And they don't do that purely with raw talent, they do that with their talent and experience and utilising the knowledge bank their experience has given them. Whats more its paying for their salary and time that makes films so expensive, not the shooting format - in low budget filmmaking the format may be chosen by the budget, but the format does not stop a film from being made, people like say Richard Boddington have made features on 35mm for tiny budgets. And often the shooting format is a small factor in the budget. 35mm may be expensive, but people are more so. Edited April 30, 2007 by Andy_Alderslade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Those evil gaffers and grips, clapper-loaders and sparks who steal the dreams of so many video rental clerks whose only want in life is making the next 'Get Shorty,' well that and to lose their virginity. Now then, Andy. No need to get all upset. Let's talk about the Red camera some more. And its pros and cons in comparison to 35mm film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Now then, Andy. No need to get all upset.Let's talk about the Red camera some more. And its pros and cons in comparison to 35mm film. I'm not at all upset, i'm just defending the industry and trying to enlighten you to the realities of real filmmaking. Yes great lets discuss Red, but remember its still a hypothetical conversation, and will be for 2 or 3 years till a few of us actually get to shoot something on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 remember its still a hypothetical conversation, and will be for 2 or 3 years till a few of us actually get to shoot something on it. Why do you think it will take 2 or 3 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Why do you think it will take 2 or 3 years? Because thats the practical timeframe of turning a prototype into a product produced in quantity under economicaly viable conditions. Plus then it has to be distributed to different retail and rental outlest globaly before anyone can actually take it out to shoot with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts