RED ONE footage

[Evan Winter]

Hey Adam,

 

Beautiful frame grabs. I love the film one of my favorites. Would you be able to find frame grabs from several other film scenes lit solely by candles? There must be tonnes since it's been more than 30 years since 1974...

 

My point?

 

One example does not a case make.

 

Besides, I wasn't lauding the Red One for being able to shoot in candlelight. I was simply pointing it out for those interested in checking out the footage. Additionally, I'm a director/dp and all my work (minus two short films) have been shot on either 35mm or 16mm. I've seen what film can do. I love film. But I consider myself open-minded enough to see and understand that digital technology can and will advance faster than film technology and that at some point (in the not too distant future) the superior capture format will be a digital one.

 

Many of the labels/artists I work with ask about digital capture for their projects and I always tell them that if they can afford to shoot film (which is the only thing I currently shoot on) that they should shoot film. I'm looking forward to seeing more from the Red One and I plan to take it out and test it thoroughly and if it lives up to my expectations, needs, and artistic desires (from a capture format) I will rent it out and shoot some projects on it.

 

I want to be open-minded and I want to judge according to my aesthetic, my opinions, and using my reasoning powers - all of which tell me that in my lifetime the majority of commercials, music videos, TV shows, and films will be shot digitally.

 

Only time will tell but I'd be willing to wager a decent amount on my prediction (the bet would only be valid if I lived a decent lifespan though ;) ).

 

Evan W.

[John Sprung]

So your saying all grains are the same size and follow a grid like pattern? Well if your disagreeing with me then youd have to You wouldnt be trying to subvert my meaning to score points would you?

Absolutely not. Grains are random in size, shape, and distribution. Where you went astray was in saying that they also have an analog response to exposure. It takes a fixed number of photons, IIRC about six, to latensify an individual grain. Fewer photons, and it remains unexposed. Millions more, and it doesn't get any more exposed than it was by the first half dozen. The larger the grain, the better its chances of getting hit by enough photons. That's why fast film has big grain. A frame of Super 35 contains something between ten million and a billion grains, each one equivalent to a binary digit.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

TV's big problem is that fewer and fewer people are watching each show as more and more streams of programming become available to them. Therefore, the only direction for budgets in down. Any show that is viable on tape will never revert to film, because film costs more.

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Programs that invest in production standards do well. People will watch high quality shows and always will.

Of course it would be untactful to name specific titles, but there've been lots of shows over the last 22 years that had big budgets, shot on film, and didn't do all that well in the ratings. They've pretty much disappeared from the ancillary markets as well. Production values alone won't carry you.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That, or just put some makeup on the actor in the first place

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

NOT a good idea with the RED.

I think it depends more on the makeup artist than anything else. Their best work looks like they didn't do anything at all. Being in post production, I don't know any of them personally. Perhaps someone can get a good makeup person to visit this board and comment.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Mullen ASC]

I hate getting into the prediction game because it is generally impractical and irrelevant -- you only really have to deal with the production reality of today and maybe two years from today. After that, it doesn't really matter what tools will be used. Of course, as someone who doesn't own camera gear, I don't have to worry about my gear being usable ten years from now, but most business plans should be based on going into profit on equipment purchases (especially electronic ones) within two years.

 

My gut tells me that, despite the high quality of film, which keeps improving, the advantages and quality of digital cameras will keep increasing at a faster rate until we reach a tipping over point, which hasn't happened yet. We all know today that everyone who thought that cameras like the F900 would replace 35mm for TV and independent feature work were basically wrong, and the RED camera is the first digital camera to come along with both an increase in quality for a reduction in price to upset the current stalement -- until now, anything better than the F900 (the Viper or F950 with a recorder, the F23, the Genesis, the Dalsa, the Arri D20) were more expensive to shoot than the F900, and thus you had this budget barrier where anyone who had more money to spend than an F900 would cost would generally just go back to film, expect those who particularly wanted to shoot digitally no matter what (Fincher, Lucas, Rodriguez, etc.) I've shot eight indie features on the F900 and have never been able to convince a producer to make the cost leap up to a Viper, etc.

 

But now with the RED existing as a reasonably-priced but high-quality digital option, we are starting to see the beginning of the final shift away from film as the primary format of mainstream production -- and I mean beginning. And I have no idea how long the period of infancy will last, and how long the transition period will last, but certainly film will be a major production tool for several more years. And I don't think it will really fade away either, not for decades, but eventually it will cease to be the primary production tool, maybe in a decade.

 

But I never have understood the hostility towards film that some pro-digital people have - I think they are taking all their frustrations of being on the outside of a major industry and projecting it in the wrong direction. Film is not the gatekeeper, nor are the cinematographers who use it, but some people act as if that was the situation.

[Mark Williams]

Absolutely not. Grains are random in size, shape, and distribution.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Where you went astray was in saying that they also have an analog response to exposure. It takes a fixed number of photons, IIRC about six, to latensify an individual grain. Fewer photons, and it remains unexposed. Millions more, and it doesn't get any more exposed than it was by the first half dozen. The larger the grain, the better its chances of getting hit by enough photons. That's why fast film has big grain. A frame of Super 35 contains something between ten million and a billion grains, each one equivalent to a binary digit.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did I say that?

 

What I actually said was

film is analog each granule is infinitely variable. The combination of more tightly packed grains and infinite variability in each grain allows film to capture more truer pictures while digital always has a fixed number of steps or grayscale levels limited by the bit-depth of the pixel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Of course it would be untactful to name specific titles, but there've been lots of shows over the last 22 years that had big budgets, shot on film, and didn't do all that well in the ratings. They've pretty much disappeared from the ancillary markets as well. Production values alone won't carry you.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said production values equals success?

I said

 

QUOTE

Programs that invest in production standards do well. People will watch high quality shows and always will.

 

People will watch High quality shows? Do you understand what that sentence means? HIGH QUALITY Means the acting the script in fact everything.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

I think it depends more on the makeup artist than anything else. Their best work looks like they didn't do anything at all. Being in post production, I don't know any of them personally. Perhaps someone can get a good makeup person to visit this board and comment.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes but thats not taking into account film that is electronicly sharp to the degree the red appears to actually add to lines and wrinkles so goodness knows how makeup might fare although Female makeup seems to stand up OK. I wouldnt like to comment on mens though.

 

Please try to read my posts properly without subverting them so you can undermine me Its childish and turns the discussion into being silly. Try to stick to comments I have made and see if you counter the argument. Really by arguing the way you are it is a sure sign you have no argument at all.

[John Sprung]

In the TV business, our sitcoms have all gone digital. The hour dramatic shows are split, the majority are 35/3 perf, but the margin is not large. If the Reds hold up well in the field and get a reasonable number of units in the rental houses, they could be a very important part of our future. These are interesting times.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Walter Graff]

But I never have understood the hostility towards film that some pro-digital people have - I think they are taking all their frustrations of being on the outside of a major industry and projecting it in the wrong direction. Film is not the gatekeeper, nor are the cinematographers who use it, but some people act as if that was the situation.

 

 

Mr. Mullen says it well., almost too much on point.

[Brad Grimmett]

In the TV business, our sitcoms have all gone digital.

-- J.S.

Not all, but most.

[Seung Han]

I think its more of an issue with low budget indie filmmakers who want the establishment to recognize the tools they can afford as being valid. I wouldn't be so concerned about the people behind the gates who can afford whatever tools they want, simply because they will have that choice no matter how many over excited RED user screams film is dead. But when words like organic and natural get thrown around to discredit a format many people who don't have access to funds have to use to tell their stories it is a little disheartening.

[Brian Drysdale]

Part of the problem is that shooting on film (especially 35mm) has been part of the selection process by distributors. If someone has managed to put together the funds to shoot on film there has to have been some quality control by the funders. Whereas the distributors have to wade through large numbers of Mini DV indie films, without name actors, to find the gems.

 

RED isn't really going to change the problem of getting distribution for the indie filmmaker. At best the most they can realistically hope for are screenings around festivals and the art house cinemas and then release on DVD and perhaps TV sales. Perhaps there might be some form of online distribution, but this could border on vanity publishing in some cases.

 

However, you can currently get DVD distribution shooting on Mini DV, although that will start to change as HD matures on the DVD market.

 

I think people tend to forget the importance of having a good producer. If you've got a good script they'll tend to be attracted to the project. However, most scripts never get made into films for various reasons often because, even if well written, they don't have that something that makes them standout.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Brian Drysdale

[Mark Williams]

But when words like organic and natural get thrown around to discredit a format many people who don't have access to funds have to use to tell their stories it is a little disheartening

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Well your in the same boat as me then. Probably better off. Because I would like to make films but can only afford DV. I'd like to buy film for my 16mm standard BL camera but I cant afford too. I like the RED camera and would buy it if I could. I have been going over in my mind what can I sell to make enough to buy the RED but its not just the camera its all the peripherals. I probably wouldnt have much change from £20,000 Compared to the new Sony EX1 which will be about £4600 The Sony may not have anywhere near the ability of the RED but it is almost within reach of the enthusiast. And if I wanted to make something better then perhaps renting the RED is an option. Although at the moment even the Sony is out of my range. Anyone who wants to practice film making only really needs a DV camera especially as its not likely your work would be shown on TV and is easily sufficient for the internet. If the opportunity comes available to make a film because you have an amazing script and a cast lined up with a film crew ready to go. Then Finance won't just be about camera rental or buying one.

[Mark Williams]

The RED is great for high quality and to learn and get work seen BUT if I personally wanted to make a film a professional fim commercially my frst choice would be 35mm failing that super16mm

Edited September 18, 2007 by Mark Collins

[Michel Hafner]

You are missing the point entirely. It's obvious where you are coming from.

You seem to have no point at all except film is film and somehow untouchable.

Why is it so many people listen and digest information like an angry child?

Have fun in your own little worlds.

That seems to describe your mindset perfectly. :lol:

[Michel Hafner]

UP TO now I have yet to see a single convincing bit of red footage that competes with film.

You will see plenty on the big screen. From 35mm prints and digital projectors. Then you can reevaluate the situation.

[Michel Hafner]

... damn ya. <_<

What was that quote of yours about 'angry children' again? :rolleyes:

[Michel Hafner]

Here's a grab or two that was lit by candels. Shot in 1974 I think it was. It's of course too grainy to really enjoy on a big screen, but Alcott at least tried.

... with his super light gathering Zeiss-NASA lens. And what exactly is so laughable about the fact you can do it now without the Zeiss-NASA lens and tons of grain?

[Keith Mottram]

Cool Evan.

 

Here's a grab or two that was lit by candels. Shot in 1974 I think it was. It's of course too grainy to really enjoy on a big screen, but Alcott at least tried.

 

Thank you ladies and germs... I'm here all week!

 

 

 

I can't be bothered to say it to you every day of the week, but you are quite simply a twat.

[Michel Hafner]

Look at me living in this HD age and yet Im happy with my old CRT Projector shoving out ordinary DVDs foregoing the HD digital projectors Perhaps Im so old fashioned and ancient.

If you watch your DVDs or HD on your CRT projector, what are you thinking? Gosh, I hate that ugly looking video stuff that looks nothing at all like film! No? What are you thinking?

[Michel Hafner]

But I never have understood the hostility towards film that some pro-digital people have ...

I don't either. Film is great. But neither do I understand the hostility of (apparently) film people towards the upcoming very high quality digital cameras and workflows. :unsure:

It resembles more a religious war than any civil exchange of factual arguments.

[Seung Han]

The RED is great for high quality and to learn and get work seen BUT if I personally wanted to make a film a professional fim commercially my frst choice would be 35mm failing that super16mm

 

Yeah, the divide between reality and a wish can be wide indeed. I think the RED ONE has narrowed it considerably for quite a few aspiring filmmakers.

 

Truth is a great script will only get worse through the production process and once you finish on a low res format than distributors will be leary of picking it up. I do know at least in Korea where many HD films are being projected digitally at theaters that the distributors here would rather pick up crap stories that look good than good stories that look like crap. At least now, I can afford to shoot a feature with what I hope is a good script and have comparable production values. I can save a ton on camera rental, stock film, processing and even in post and put that money on actors, locations and production design. When you are talking about feature films for under five hundred thousand than quality differences in formats will make a huge difference to the filmmaker and potential distributors.

 

For the first time in a long time, it looks like my first choice and the right choice seem almost aligned. I think many other Indie filmmakers probably have similar sentiments so are getting excited about getting their hands on this camera, because the footage to us is making it clear that with some ingenuity and hardwork the gap in quality is closing in. We should see some interesting work from some new names soon. I don't think there is going to be a flood, but it will start trickling in from all over the world. Watching good innovative stories is never bad, even if some of the highlights are blown and there's a little CA, we will get some quality looking films. We should all be happy about this, no?

[John Sprung]

Not all, but most.

Our company doesn't have any film sitcoms left, but I'm not supposed to make public statements for the company, so I shouldn't say which company. ;-) What film sitcoms do the other guys have?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mitch Gross]

Scrubs is shot using Aaton Super-16 Xtera cameras, supplied from Abel. Also, 30 Rock is shot in 35mm. I think there are a few others.

[Maarten Treurniet]

 

So, I'm asking. Will someone step up to the plate and start a dialogue on how the Red may be used by itself or in conjunction with XXX to enable a more organic look to the images it produces? Regardless of the medium, content is king. However, art is most effective in the cinematic world if it imitates life, especially in how the images are presented, captured, etc. So, again, how can the Red's potential be more effectively used to circumvent this byproduct of digital capture?

 

Can the Red Team, distinguished members of this forum, guests, or just anyone with an idea or potential solution weigh-in?

 

---Lets end the discussion about resolution right here and lets get rid of motion-blur. The only way to really have a better picture in the cinema is not by raising resolution from 2k to 4k (you'll only benefit from this when you are seated in the first 3 rows of most theaters anyway) but by by raising the speed of the images. Let's go to 100Hz. It'll be like looking out of the window.

 

Maarten

[Brad Grimmett]

Scrubs is shot using Aaton Super-16 Xtera cameras, supplied from Abel. Also, 30 Rock is shot in 35mm. I think there are a few others.

Those were the two I was specifically thinking of. I think there may be one or two more, but yes, in general sitcoms are going digital.

 

Is it me, or is this thread starting to look like a spam war?

[John Sprung]

Those were the two I was specifically thinking of. I think there may be one or two more, but yes, in general sitcoms are going digital.

They're both single camera, right? The last multi's on film were things like Friends and Frasier, that had a lot of film episodes on the shelf, and wanted to stay consistent.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Evan Winter]

Here's a link to about 10 seconds of a music video shot on the Red Camera:

 

http://web.mac.com/fini1/iWeb/Site%20135/4...d%20Camera.html

 

I must admit, in this case, I'm not a fan. The image looks like the edges are too sharp and the lead singer has that weird 'I'm-standing-in-front-of-green-screened-footage' look that sometimes happens in video-land. The colors also seem to stand apart from one another too distinctly, whereas, in film they seem to bleed together in a more visually appealing manner. The depth of field (admittedly this is a composition thing and has nothing to do with Red) is not shallow enough for the shot nor deep enough - the drummer is distractingly there but annoyingly out of focus. What's more, the elements that are out of focus, for whatever reason, feel like photoshopped lens blur as opposed to the in-lens OOF feel. Finally, there is something that I can't quite put my finger on but that something seems to take away from the 'romantic' look that film tends to have. I know that's a virtually uselessly abstract statement so I'll try to make it more concrete:

 

Uhm... As sad as this is to say (and it's counter to a previous argument of mine), the elements that are in full focus (e.g., the microphone) seem to be too much in focus...they feel too sharp in a way that nothing is in film. This should, in theory, be a good thing but it reduces the world that was captured into a less attractive place; everything stands out in too much relief from everything else. It feels like the image doesn't exist as one.

 

Okay, enough pseudo-psychobabble for one night. :) Besides, only so much can be deduced from 10 seconds of footage. I'm still looking forwards to seeing more from Red and can't wait to get my own grubby lil' hands on one.

 

Evan W.

 

edit: perhaps many of my issues are stemming from the fact that the focus in the shot is placed squarely on the mic when really it should be following the singer's face....

Edited September 19, 2007 by Evan Winter