Rodrigo Llano Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Does anybody know a 35 mm blow up experience from Red? rodrigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 (edited) Does anybody know a 35 mm blow up experience from Red? Its only just now being tested on features.... now their was suppose to be a private screening a while back... but I think it was just 4k... Now thinking about it... I'm sure they did... but I wonder if any of these films shooting with the prototype did do a film out to see how it looked... If so and with the productions who are shooting with the camera now would release those tests... who knows might show that the camera is ready for the market... Edited July 27, 2007 by Gary McClurg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 In theory it should blow up very well, considering that many major films get run through 2K DIs before print. Of course, the origin of the material and the differences in latitude, dynamic range, etc, between film stocks vs CMOS sensors is a whole 'nother issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Does anybody know a 35 mm blow up experience from Red? rodrigo [/quote yes- steven soderberh and peter jachson as some examples. they were totally entousisasic. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Webster Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Park Road Post has done a transfer to film of 'Crossing the Line' by all accounts they were happy with the result. They have also done a re-grade of the original 4k version. I have not met anyone other then PRP staff that have seen either. For a full rundown of the 'Crossing the Line' shoot click here for the Onfilm article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted July 28, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 28, 2007 Does anybody know a 35 mm blow up experience from Red? rodrigo yes- steven soderberh and peter jachson as some examples. they were totally entousisasic. Hi Jan, Have you seen the 35mm version? Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodrigo Llano Posted July 29, 2007 Author Share Posted July 29, 2007 Have you seen the 35mm version? Stephen actually this is what I'm looking for. If somebody with some experience have seen 35 mm projections.. we could read a lot of stuff about how good or which problems the prototype could have, but how really looks ? Rodrigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodrigo Llano Posted July 29, 2007 Author Share Posted July 29, 2007 Have you seen the 35mm version? Stephen actually this is what I'm looking for. If somebody with some experience have seen 35 mm projections.. we could read a lot of stuff about how good or which problems the prototype could have, but how really looks ? Rodrigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 If there has been a 35mm film out... no one has seen it... I'm sure that the productions shooting with the camera did a film out... I would... so I'm sure that these producer and directors have done the same... It would be like I used to do a while back... go to RGB in Hollywood... get 35mm film stock put into still rolls... then I'd go out shoot and see which stock I liked the best... after viewing the slide... It had nothing to do with plot or story... so the footage could be colored timed to look its best like any other film and let the world see it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Bonnington Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Cheap 4k projectors are on the horizon, so converting Red footage to film reels may ultimately be a waste of time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 30, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2007 Cheap 4k projectors are on the horizon, so converting Red footage to film reels may ultimately be a waste of time and money. The installed base of 35mm theater projectors is large enough -- tens or hundreds of thousands -- that they're likely to remain dominant for many years. It'll take a while to make and sell that many 4K projectors. Digital distribution, though, is significantly less expensive than making film prints. That'll put some pressure on the process. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 30, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2007 Cheap 4k projectors are on the horizon, so converting Red footage to film reels may ultimately be a waste of time and money. Film projection is still the predominant method of projection, so as of now transfering digitally shot films to 35mm is still something that has to be dealt with. Holding your breath until all the projectors in the world are digital is going to give you a very red face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Film projection is still the predominant method of projection, so as of now transfering digitally shot films to 35mm is still something that has to be dealt with. Holding your breath until all the projectors in the world are digital is going to give you a very red face. No pun intended right... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank den Drijver Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) Here's some experience. Mind you: (and my friend Max Jacoby will confirm this) this was posted on Reduser.net by J.J. so it is probably untrue. Or at least unwanted advertisement of his Red camera. On the other hand: it is within the subject of this thread. "We're shooting RED side by side film. We scanned the film 4k and took both into the Baselight, compared them and then did a filmout of both. When we screened side by side, we literally could not tell the difference. In fact, most people picked the RED footage as film because of a greater dynamic range in the highlights than in the 5218. It's not enough to say it is the best digital image out there. The fact is, finally, we can intercut digital with film. It looked remarkably better than the filmed images. I thought I would never be able to say that" Jon Farhat, VFX Supervisor, "Wanted". Edited July 30, 2007 by Hank den Drijver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 It's not even really an issue. 4K out to film is going to look just fine. 2k out to film looks good enough for multiplexes, so why would 4K not be sufficient? Of course I am assuming that the finished Red One will perform up to expectations in terms of image quality, dynamic range, etc. But that remains to be seen. 4K to 4K digital projection in theory could rival 70mm chemical film projection in terms of clarity and detail, according to some of the things I have read. This is not to say that Red's sensor will match the capabilities of five-perf 65mm negs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Yernazian Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 will see what happens, I will love to see all kinds of thing been projected at 4k starting with Red, 35mm, 65mm and man, even Super 16!!!, but of course super 16 will have a top on res at 3k Now I also heard a study that the human eye can't detect more than 2 to 3k res, but yet I guess teh ultimate goal is to have a projection power that can , instead of showing a movie in wall, to have window that can look as reality itself and I think the more people keep working at it will get to that futuristic point I hope that makes sense hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2007 ... instead of showing a movie in wall, to have window that can look as reality itself ... For the more distant future, perhaps instead of a display that we look at with our eyes, we'll bypass our eyes and ears, and couple directly to the brain. ;-) -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 but yet I guess teh ultimate goal is to have a projection power that can , instead of showing a movie in wall, to have window that can look as reality itself and I think the more people keep working at it will get to that futuristic point Sounds rather like "slow glass". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 The installed base of 35mm theater projectors is large enough -- tens or hundreds of thousands -- that they're likely to remain dominant for many years. It'll take a while to make and sell that many 4K projectors. Digital distribution, though, is significantly less expensive than making film prints. That'll put some pressure on the process. -- J.S. It is? $120,000 per-screen per-year for the digital projectors is less expensive than $45,000-$90,000 per-year per-screen for the film prints? Unless there's been a quantum leap in hard drive storage and DLP technology, the film projectors are still the cost savings leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 31, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2007 It is? $120,000 per-screen per-year for the digital projectors is less expensive than $45,000-$90,000 per-year per-screen for the film prints? Unless there's been a quantum leap in hard drive storage and DLP technology, the film projectors are still the cost savings leaders. The way to compare it is projectors to projectors and prints to downloads. The film projector is cheaper, you can get decent ones for perhaps $35k, but in most cases they're a sunk cost, already in place. Digital projectors, figure $250k and up. The scary thing about them is guessing what the useful life will be. They'll most likely become obsolete and unmarketable well before they fail due to long hours of use. That could be just a couple years, while film projectors are still running after 70 odd years in some cases. It's been a long time since I had to know film print prices. By now, I'd guess somewhere around $2k each, does anybody know? Sending encrypted files by wire, or even by satellite, has to be a lot cheaper. Projectors are bought by the theaters, prints are bought by the distributors. For theaters that are close to the tipping point on going digital, it might be wise of the distributors to offer a little incentive -- sort of like the government incentives for installing solar panels. Theater specific installation issues will also be important. Older changeover houses may be in a better position to go to one film projector and a platter, losing the chanegover capability to make room for digital projection. Cramped multiplex booths designed initially for platter only operation may have a tougher time, perhaps having to make some rooms digital only. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now