RED ONE footage

[Brian Dzyak]

VIDEO does not capture reality in any sense of the world it somehow manages to remove any and all emotions and sense of scale it presents the world in a sort of graphical representation that censors it. This makes it good for news footage.

 

FILM does not capture reality in the true sense but it gives a feeling of unpredictabilty along with beautiful images that capture nature in a more fluid and therfre natural way.

 

It's all subjective at a point, but I'd disagree entirely with that blanket statement. Traditional Standard Definition video actually captures reality for what it is more than film, which arguably, is why people prefer to use film to shoot narratives. Film has a more ethereal "dreamy" quality that, if used correctly, can ADD emotional qualities that aren't present in reality.

 

That said, I'm finding that HD technology is able to give me, the cameraman, the opportunity to include some of those same ethereal "emotional" attributes the way standard definition video hasn't been able to. A lot of that has to do with frame rate.... the higher the frame rate, the more "real" our minds perceive an image to be. Shooting in 23.98 instead of 59.94 helps add some of those "film-like" attributes. But the camera isn'g the only factor either....

 

Traditionally, video has been the tool of news gatherers who don't have the time or the need to light for "emotion." Using pictures like that as the comparison is apples and oranges. Excellent and emotional images can be created using standard definition video as long as the cameraman understands the technology in his hands, its limitations and its possibilities.

[Thomas James]

When we do a fair comparison between Red footage and film we cannot hold film back but we must base our comparison on the gold standard of film which is 65mm. Merely saying that Red outperforms 35mm is not good enough.

[Stephen Williams]

When we do a fair comparison between Red footage and film we cannot hold film back but we must base our comparison on the gold standard of film which is 65mm. Merely saying that Red outperforms 35mm is not good enough.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

Whilst I think you have a point I think the economics of RED v 65mm, RED is the winner on cost, it's also easier to handhold.

 

Stephen

[Mark Williams]

Nonsense. In the end it's an analogue signal with a measurable dynamic range, noise floor and resolution (far from infinite) and there is a digital version of it that contains all relevant information. There is no magic here. There is no need to model every molecule of the film emulsion to replicate the look exactly so no human can tell the digital version apart fro the analogue. Digital can do all film looks. Film can only do a subset of all digitally created looks. Digital is a superset of film, not the other way around. (I'm talking about the principle, not specific product. There are no digital cameras yet that can simulate all film cameras.)

Yes resolution is measurable film scientists sometimes peg Kodachrome's digital equivalent as a 100 megabyte file. the resolution of fine grain 35mm Kodachrome film is about 2,200 lines--per millimeter! Silver halides are effected by light and physically. alter in size and shape this more truly reflects reality.

 

As for defination Slow, fine-grained 35 mm films with speeds of ISO 50 to 100 have estimated megapixel equivalents of 20 to 30 megapixels. The RED does 11.5 Megabytes and a dynamic range of 66dB

 

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.

 

These arguments mean little because your limited by other factors. Digital creates film looks and are great only they may be called film looks but they dont look like film because the film look is a process completely different to digital.

 

35mm Film is still the best medium for the cinema as far as Im concerned and by a long way. Digital films shown at the cinema just dont cut it losing the rich fluid larger than life beauty that film portrays. You can oversaturate the colours or use all kinds of tweaks at the end of it all film will deliver that sense of action that befits the big screen. Digital is great in home cinema. And for effects.

 

You may want to undermine or disagee but time will tell. I reckon when digital can escape the boxes and merge into each other when they can change size and colour variation then digital will takeover.

 

FOR NOW FILM REIGNS SUPREME.

 

No matter what changes they make facts are facts

[John Michael Corey]

My 2-cents...

 

Mark Collins... lousy attempt at trying to get this long-winded thread closed.

 

What i find entertaining is all the "film is organic" and "film is natural" and "oh, the grain, the grain" and "35mm this" and "35mm that" etc... But, how many of the guys spouting this rhetoric have seen 65mm or 70mm film on the big screen with their own eyes?

 

The next time you're viewing 65mm or 70mm film, please tell me where's all "the grain" - oh, the holy grain?

The next time you're viewing 65mm or 70mm film, please complain about all the increased (and stunning) resolution (which looks nothing like 35mm) that just isn't "natural." It must be those damn silver halides! LOL! All this is like someone touting 16mm film as "supreme" while ignoring 35mm film entirely.

 

What's really interesting is hearing the comments from those who have seen 65mm or 70mm film on the big screen, and have also seen the 4k RED imagery. Most compare the 4k RED imagery to 65mm or 70mm film, excepting there's zero hint of grain and the resolution may be a tad finer.

 

I have some sharp criticisms for some of the Crossing the Line footage (which was shot in... how many days? ...which therein lies most of the problem...) Yeah, there were some shots that looked "cheap" - like when the measly explosions were going off. The resolution magnified the unrealistic/unimpressive bomb bursts to the point that each burst was laughable. I think people learned that if you're shooting in 4k, then you better have heavy pyrotechnics because cheap/wimpy explosions won't be hidden in a soft cloud of blur. Bad lighting in 4k looks way, way worse than in 35mm too. There was some close-up of something (i forget what exactly) that got dirt thrown onto it. It was a quick run & gun shot - AND IT SHOWED. For huge budget/blockbuster type movies, more money will need to be spent on lighting, pyrotechnics, effects, period wardrobe, set decorations, etc. in order to appease the audience's elevated level of scrutiny.

 

RED may or may not equal or surpass 65mm or 70mm film in all image areas (yet), but the closest comparison to the red footage seems to be the current "gold standard" - 65mm or 70mm film.

 

And, then you look at the various cost savings...

[Thomas James]

And yes some of us can remember seeing real 65mm film productions when they first came out such as the "Sound of Music" and "2001 a Space Oddysee". And the first thing someone thinks when we talk about film grain is that we just want more noise in the picture. This cannot be further from the truth. We don't just want more grain noise in the picture and as a matter of fact there is nothing wrong with the cleaner look of 65mm film. What we want is a more natural looking picture and this has nothing to do with noise but all to do with the fact that you will never achieve a natural look with an orthagonal grid of square picture blocks.

 

As far as the economics of film production the fact remains that big productions can justify the higher costs of 65mm film and if this format is really promoted audiances will pay the slightly higher price for their movie tickets.

[Stephen Williams]

As far as the economics of film production the fact remains that big productions can justify the higher costs of 65mm film and if this format is really promoted audiances will pay the slightly higher price for their movie tickets.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

Whilst many big productions could easily afford to shoot on 65mm, very few actually do. For that reason the choice of lenses & development of cameras is poor relative to 35mm. As I have mentioned before the cost of film & processing are fairly insignificant relative to the cost of A list actors. Format's will be chosen for the suitability of the task in hand, for some projects Red will have an advantage on others film will be used.

 

Stephen

[Graeme Nattress]

Pay more to go to the Cinema? No way - it's way too expensive a "treat" as it is! Pay more because the film was shot on 65mm? I severely doubt the average audience cares what the movie was shot on, but they sure as hell care about how much it costs to get in....

 

Graeme

[Phil Rhodes]

> Pay more to go to the Cinema? No way - it's way too expensive a "treat" as it is!

 

You have clearly forgotten life in the Old Country. I paid the equivalent of $15 to see "Shoot 'Em Up" yesterday in an extremely average 100-seat screen.

 

Phil

[Graeme Nattress]

That's expensive! Last time I was at the Cinema here in Canada, it was about $10CAD, and with lowering attendences I think they tried to drop it - or was it $12 that they dropped to $10 - either way, way too much when you can buy a DVD and all three of us can watch the movie at home for less than a trip to the Cinema, and as you may know with little ones, if they watch a movie once, they watch it ten times!

 

Graeme

[Ken Cangi]

As far as the economics of film production the fact remains that big productions can justify the higher costs of MM film and if this format is really promoted audiences will pay the slightly higher price for their movie tickets.

 

I'm not so sure about that. With the price of tickets now up to and, in some cases, over ten dollars, in conjunction with the fact that these films turn over to Blockbuster in approximately sixty days, combined with the price of ten to fifteen dollars for a popcorn and soda, I serious question the longevity of cinema as we currently know it.

 

I have been forgoing the theater because of the high prices and other inconveniences. With the quality and relatively low cost of HD televisions, fast turn over of films, convenience of viewing in the privacy of home, and added attraction of special features, where is the impetus to pay a small fortune to see another average studio flick at the theater, when I can rent six of them at Blockbuster for the same price?

Edited September 16, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Brian Drysdale]

One of our city centre multiplexes sells tickets at £2.50 ($5.00) every Tuesday.

 

Cinema has one advantage over home screening and that is the collective audience experience. With films like "Jaws" you could smell the tension.

[Michel Hafner]

What we want is a more natural looking picture and this has nothing to do with noise but all to do with the fact that you will never achieve a natural look with an orthagonal grid of square picture blocks.

Of course you can. Even if you assume that there is something fundamentally wrong with orthogonal grids (which is not the case) you can with an orthogonal grid simulate any other grid as long as the former is fine enough. And whatever grid you use, once the projected pixels are smaller than what your eye can resolve it becomes irrelevant. It simply looks the same to you with any kind of grid.

[John Holland]

People like me used to pay over the odds to see a proper Cinerama / 70mm presentation fantastic experience . All that has gone now its about hotdogs and poop food , i a have always wanted to be able [money wise ] to set something like that again , so my kids can say that is amazing instead of when i show them DVDs of old 70mm films saying its boring and me saying try and imagine it on a screen thats twice as wide as our house !!

[Michel Hafner]

Yes resolution is measurable film scientists sometimes peg Kodachrome's digital equivalent as a 100 megabyte file. the resolution of fine grain 35mm Kodachrome film is about 2,200 lines--per millimeter!

We are talking motion picture negative used for motion. Not what the best still frames under ideal conditions resolve on stationary objects. You will never ever see 2200 resolved lines per millimeter on any film print. You are lucky too see that from the whole 35mm frame in a cinema. It's usually < 1000. That's the release print, not the original negative.

[Guest]

"Cinema has one advantage over home screening and that is the collective audience experience."

 

Also cinema's greatest flaw.

 

I wish there was a teenager free cinema some place. The only time you can escape their annoying hoards is to watch a movie that has some intelligence to it, problem is these movies are few and far between. I think Finding Neverland was a teenager free experience if I re-call.

 

Then there's the people that insist on arriving 10 minutes after the start of the show and walk in front of you back and forth looking for a seat.

 

The movie theatre floor is of course also legendary and the target of many a late night talk show hosts jokes.

 

Most annoying of all is the 20 minutes of commercials we are now subjected to before the movie starts with the volume high enough that it shakes the theatre. This fact alone has been cited by many of my friends for shunning the theatre. People are sick of being marketed to and the only place you can escape it is your home. If you turn off the TV, radio, and telephone of course.

 

R,

[Mark Williams]

I wonder if a good comparison might be 720p and 16mm? Two different looks. BUT a clear difference in the image they produce. TV programs going over to digital have suffered because of it.

[Evan Owen]

It's amazing how far this topic has wandered... and back... and away again.

[Stephen Williams]

It's amazing how far this topic has wandered... and back... and away again.

 

Hi Evan,

 

That does happen here sometimes, I don't see it's a big issue myself.

 

Stephen

[Evan Owen]

Hi Evan,

 

That does happen here sometimes, I don't see it's a big issue myself.

 

Stephen

 

It makes it a bit harder for those trying to find specific information, but I see your point.

 

I suppose the original topic has been covered well enough already anyway.

[Seung Han]

When did film become more 'natural' than digital?

 

wikipedia -- Photographic film is a sheet of plastic (polyester, nitrocellulose or cellulose acetate) coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts (bonded by gelatin) with variable crystal sizes that determine the sensitivity, contrast and resolution of the film. When the emulsion is sufficiently exposed to light (or other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays), it forms a latent (invisible) image. Chemical processes can then be applied to the film to create a visible image, in a process called film developing.

 

Its 'natural' to create millions of miles of plastic strips and process tons of toxic chemicals. At what point was film more 'natural?' Oh right, the image, because it has those grains and shows roll off in highlights better than digital.

 

The grain can be added in post in a closed process now, zeroes and ones, with no impact to our 'natural' world, if that is your meaning about film being more 'natural.' As far as dynamic range is concerned, I believe there will be updates in firmware where the differences you are concerned over will be negligible to the human eye.

 

Remember, most people go to the cinemas to escape into a fantasy world and if the advances in digital technology was hindering this process in any way, our master storytellers like Mann, Soderbergh, Lucas, Fincher, the Wachowski Bros, etc...would not even consider it.

[Stephen Williams]

It makes it a bit harder for those trying to find specific information, but I see your point.

 

I suppose the original topic has been covered well enough already anyway.

 

Hi Evan,

 

We only go in for mild moderation here, more relaxed than CML for going off topic.

 

Stephen

[Mark Williams]

When did film become more 'natural' than digital?

 

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

I think the important thing here is film is more organic but yes it is more natural in the fact it is a process that is physically affected by light.

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

 

wikipedia -- Photographic film is a sheet of plastic (polyester, nitrocellulose or cellulose acetate) coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts (bonded by gelatin) with variable crystal sizes that determine the sensitivity, contrast and resolution of the film. When the emulsion is sufficiently exposed to light (or other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays), it forms a latent (invisible) image.

Chemical processes can then be applied to the film to create a visible image, in a process called film developing.

 

Its 'natural' to create millions of miles of plastic strips and process tons of toxic chemicals. At what point was film more 'natural?' Oh right, the image, because it has those grains and shows roll off in highlights better than digital.

 

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

Its physical make-up is not natural nor is the camea or the lights or the studio.

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

 

The grain can be added in post in a closed process now, zeroes and ones, with no impact to our 'natural' world, if that is your meaning about film being more 'natural.' As far as dynamic range is concerned, I believe there will be updates in firmware where the differences you are concerned over will be negligible to the human eye.

 

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

Grain can add to a film giving it an edgy realism however for the most part is not really an issue in 35mm film

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

 

Remember, most people go to the cinemas to escape into a fantasy world and if the advances in digital technology was hindering this process in any way, our master storytellers like Mann, Soderbergh, Lucas, Fincher, the Wachowski Bros, etc...would not even consider it.

 

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

Well Georges latest star wars would have looked a lot better on film and might be the reason the new indiana jones is being made on film.

 

I think its clear now Film makers have a new tool to their arsenal its up to them what they do with it. My personal preference will undoubtably be film. However the RED looks like the beginning of a revolution in Digital. The technology will end up Im sure in consumer cameras very soon. I reckon Sony will within a few years have a $4000 camera using similar red technology that will record sound and all the other consumer gadgets on the streets. And my opinion is that film manufacturers will up their game still higher when that happens then 16mm cameras will again be the mainstay of TV shows.

 

We can all make predictions and mine are as good as anyone elses.

 

One things fo sure the consumer is going to be the BIG winner this time round.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Mark Collins

[Seung Han]

Hiding behind words like 'organic' and 'natural' to compare film and digital is rather flimsy. Pixels are not reacting to light? Sensors are not made from 'natural' matter? I think many filmmakers using the digital workflow might argue convincingly that the digital workflow is more 'organic' than the workflow for film. Read up on Fincher and other directors never turning back after experiencing a tapeless workflow. Unless there is some 'organic' cinema committee I am unaware of certifying freshness for movie projects, I am not getting your argument...

 

As far as the Indy film is concerned, I believe Steven Spielberg is directing, and I completely respect his choice to shoot on 35mm. I am sure the film will look fantastic. Again, different directors will choose what they believe is the best format to tell their stories. My point was that big name directors who can choose any format regardless of budget considerations are choosing digital workflows because they believe the aesthetic is right for their stories and also they like the 75% certified fresh workflow...

 

As far as your predictions about 16mm film, I wouldn't double down on those cards...

[Dan Goulder]

Bad lighting in 4k looks way, way worse than in 35mm.

If that's the case, then it would be an indicator that the current state of 4K acquisition still lacks the dynamic range of film, which would be represented as a more pronounced falloff from light to dark areas of an image. Current HD also has limitations in this area. Resolution is but one aspect of an image. Dynamic range and color saturation also have an important impact on the overall image, and are independent of resolution.

 

Those of us who shoot both on digital and film are aware of the differences and advantages of each, and don't see it as some sort of flash point for an argument. Neither format makes the other "obsolete", and it's a ridiculous waste of time and server space to argue to the contrary.