Just saw Red Footage in an Optimal Viewing Enviro

[Evan Winter]

Hello Adam,

 

The best way for me to discern whether the Red camera is worth it for me to use is for me to see the quality of the image in the end state that I would be using it. I'm saying that, in my opinion, the footage I saw playing back from a D-Beta tape onto a telecine quality monitor looked every bit as good as 35mm film (when playing back under the same conditions). In fact, it looked better than what I typically expect from S35mm film under these circumstances.

 

Also, remember that the vast majority of filmed footage we see is seen as D-Beta playback (TV shows, Music Videos, Commercials, Documentaries, basically anything that airs on Television). So, I think this is a very valid test for image quality vs. film. Again, most shot film ends up on D-Beta.

 

Could you tell me the conditions under which you viewed and analyzed Red footage? Did you have a chance to view Red footage playing back from a D-Beta on a properly calibrated monitor? How do you feel it stacks up against film shown in the same way? How was the footage you saw shot? Was it DP'ed by an individual whose work you typically respect but somehow felt the Red let them down? Was the footage colored by a professional colorist who normally works on commercials/movies?

 

I don't feel that Red footage brought into a home system and viewed on a computer monitor is a fair way to judge and I don't want to assume that's how you viewed the footage. If you let me know the setup perhaps I'll have a better understanding of whether it's simply a difference of opinion or something else.

 

Evan W.

[Lars Zemskih]

This is a little unrelated. :)

 

But I have to ask, Emile why can't you get your head around why Superman Returns would be edited on Adobe Premiere Pro?

 

Evan W.

 

Evan, I've started editing and did it for a long time on Adobe Premiere and it is a great tool in my opinion. However, Final Cut still works faster on many aspects including rendering to me, but since Mac's work faster usually it might also do with system specifications, I mean if you have a powerful PC it is probably the same, I'm not certain of this. Final Cut is also ahead of Premiere each time with features, for example there was no color correcting tool until version 7 in Premiere. I just really wonder why such a huge budget movie would do it on Premiere, that's all. Maybe it's something to do with shooting on HD and the workflow that they worked out where Premiere worked the best with it, I just really want to know why.

 

But you are right in saying that an edit is an edit and I think a good editor can take the film and cut it with scissors and stick it together with tape, and it will still be good. All of this editing softs are great tools, plus even when I cut in Final Cut, I always use After Effects for one thing or another. So no, I wouldn't think anything less of someone especially editing low budget stuff whether it is Premiere or Final Cut, plus I've seen people cut with Premiere on their Apples, and cross-platform development is renewed due to Intel Macs, so there will be a new Premiere for macs as well. But when it is such a huge budget like Superman, you just wonder.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Emile Rafael

[Lars Zemskih]

Premiere pro was used for digitising data and file conversion, not for editing. It was edited on avid.

 

<a href="http://www.hdexpo.net/virtual/panels/ace03_300.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.hdexpo.net/virtual/panels/ace03_300.html</a>

 

R.

 

And now it is clear :) Great discussion video as well, thank you.

Edited October 28, 2007 by Emile Rafael

[Evan Winter]

Just a little reminder to all of us (myself totally included) about the dangers of being too certain. In other words, healthy skepticism, doubt, and an open-mind are truly valuable things in this world. The film v digital debate can often bring out the worst in all of us but remember never say never:

 

A List of the top 30 Failed Technology Predictions:

http://listverse.com/history/top-30-failed...gy-predictions/

 

Evan W.

[John Sprung]

.... What it can do for indies is to just make them easier to make and more of them to make, which means more job opportunities for us, so some of you, stop freaking out. I was freaking out too, but this is my opinion today and I believe in it.

 

As long as the film can make more than quadruple earnings though, there will always be tons of money invested.

The rub here is that if more indie features are made, they'll be competing for the same number of screens and seats. Theaters become the bottleneck, along with the audience. How many people will want to see these many more indies? Maybe there's more elasticity on the DVD side, but we have to think about how upping numbers one place affects the rest of the big picture.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Dan Goulder]

What it can do for indies is to just make them easier to make and more of them to make, which means more job opportunities for us

That threshold was crossed years ago with the advent of mini-dv, which is now being supplanted by sub-$1,000 HD cameras. These would qualify far more as 'tools of the masses' than a camera that falls well above the affordability level of the average low budget filmmaker.

[A. Whitehouse]

Hi Evan,

I'm just wondering how the film was transferred to D-Beta and whether either sets of footage were graded in their natural state (ie was the RED graded from the redcode files, was the film graded from the neg?) In my opinion this is were some of the distinct advantages and disadvantages of either format might come into play. How was the filmed footage transferred, was it best light, one light, etc.?

I must admit I would be very surprised to hear that the RED has superior latitude to film and this goes against a lot of what Ive seen and read but then I haven't seen anything with my own eyes yet in a good environment so who knows. Were your colorist and dp friend grading the D-Beta (as in tape to tape)? My experience would suggest that most commercial projects are graded in telecine rather than a flat transfer to D-Beta with a tape to tape but I'm sure that lots of different pipelines are utilized out there and its certainly a luxury which every project doesn't have. Especially outside of commercial work in long form.

Look forward to seeing it in action, I might get a chance this week.

[Tenolian Bell]

Superman returns was shot on HD, it's budget is 270,000,000 $. I mean, where did the money go on saving all the film?

 

There was really no money saved though. No one is going to say we spent 200 million, but at least we did not have to spend 200,000 on film.

 

What it can do for indies is to just make them easier to make and more of them to make, which means more job opportunities for us, so some of you, stop freaking out.

 

Not necessarily. mini DV makes it even more affordable than RED does. As we have learned over the past 8 years the acquisitions format does not really have much influence over whether a movie gets made. Nor does it determine if a movie is distributed.

 

As long as the film can make more than quadruple earnings though, there will always be tons of money invested.

 

Investment and earnings is also not really determined by the acquisition format.

[Seung Han]

Not necessarily. mini DV makes it even more affordable than RED does. As we have learned over the past 8 years the acquisitions format does not really have much influence over whether a movie gets made. Nor does it determine if a movie is distributed.

 

 

 

Investment and earnings is also not really determined by the acquisition format.

 

This is wrong. Acquisition format greatly determines whether a film gets made. Look at the thousands of DV and HD features made every year worldwide and the number is growing. Distribution is another issue but I could argue that your assumptions here are wrong as well.

 

On low low budget features investment and earnings can be tied to the acquisition format for a great many reasons.

[Tenolian Bell]

This is wrong. Acquisition format greatly determines whether a film gets made. Look at the thousands of DV and HD features made every year worldwide and the number is growing.

 

This all depends on the end expectation of the film. My comments were based on the fact that most people's desire is to produce a film that will be seen by a wide audience and produce a profit. Yes it is possible to make a movie for little money. What was the point of making the movie if there is no audience to see it.

 

You are right if the entire budget of the movie is spent entirely on the camera and media. Then the acquisition format does play a part in whether that particular movie is made or not. This type of film has a very small chance of being seen by a wide audience or producing a profit.

 

The majority of movies that are seen by a wide audience and produce a profit, acquisition format is expected to be 35mm by default so its rarely a factor.

 

Distribution is another issue but I could argue that your assumptions here are wrong as well.

 

I am not making assumptions the acquisition format alone rarely plays much part in determining if a movie receives wide distribution. Unless you stretch YouTube, Myspace, and a screening on a living room television for friends and family as distribution.

 

On low low budget features investment and earnings can be tied to the acquisition format for a great many reasons.

 

Investment on this type of movie is generally out of pocket and they rarely earn any money. 90% of the movies that receive wide distribution are not made this way.

[Brian Drysdale]

Movies can be made on other formats and succeed. "Once" which is doing extremely well for a low budget film, was shot on HDV and transferred to 35mm. Perhaps this and other such films are exceptions to the rule that only go to prove the rule, but you really need to bring elements that overcome the acquisition format's limitations, If these are there, an audience will be drawn to the film.

 

Hmmm... perhaps some larger format productions could do with this as well.

[Lars Zemskih]

This all depends on the end expectation of the film. My comments were based on the fact that most people's desire is to produce a film that will be seen by a wide audience and produce a profit. Yes it is possible to make a movie for little money. What was the point of making the movie if there is no audience to see it.

 

Tenolian, I must admit that I am not entirely sure what you mean by an acquisition format, English is not my first language. The difference between DV and Red is that miniDV is not 4k for example, so it just simply looks worse and you can't really screen it in proper cinemas because of the resolution. Plus, usually to produce great cinematography, you need the help of lights, dollies, cranes, not to forget make-up, costumes and all the other stuff that you must invest in to make a good looking film, so we are not talking about low low budgets here shot on pd150.

 

And do you think a person not working in the industry can tell a difference between HD and film? Most of them can't, so being able to shoot at 4k on digital might change some stuff.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Emile Rafael

[A. Whitehouse]

And do you think a person not working in the industry can tell a difference between HD and film? Most of them can't, so being able to shoot at 4k on digital might change some stuff.

 

I don't think thats correct. Ive got a lot of friends who have commented on the look of something only to be told that they had spotted it was shot on digital. On TV and in cinema. The shift in seasons and between pilot and series on battlestar people could clearly sense a change. Watching 28 weeks later the other night my friend commented on how different each bit looked (as they changed formats). Audiences are smarter than we think, even if they don't realize it.

[John Sprung]

And do you think a person not working in the industry can tell a difference between HD and film? Most of them can't, so being able to shoot at 4k on digital might change some stuff.

Pretty much anybody can see the difference between 2/3" DOF and 35mm film or equivalent sized chip DOF.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Alessandro Machi]

The rub here is that if more indie features are made, they'll be competing for the same number of screens and seats. Theaters become the bottleneck, along with the audience. How many people will want to see these many more indies? Maybe there's more elasticity on the DVD side, but we have to think about how upping numbers one place affects the rest of the big picture.

 

-- J.S.

 

The bottleneck may be an illusion. It ultimately comes down to percentage of movies that get shown versus the volume that are made.

 

If I am a distributor and I know that 1 out of 5 films is probably worth looking at, but only 1 out of 10 videos is worth looking at, I'll always go through the films first and then look at the videos because I have a higher percentage of sellable film product AND I'll have less product to wade through to find the gems.

 

I find it fascinating that when the day comes when more video originated material gets sold than film, the video side will proclaim it a victory even though I am pretty certain the actual volume of video productions it took to make that happen will be much much greater than film productions.

 

Quality relates equally to quantity of productions made, and how they were made. Film productions have more built in restrictions that usually mean if the project gets done it will probably have a higher probability of being sold. Video's advantage is that ANYONE can try to make a project no matter where they live.

 

The system actually works the way it currently is set up, I kind of wish it would stay exactly as it is rather than film being viewed as horse and buggy technology that needs to be obsoleted.

[Tenolian Bell]

Tenolian, I must admit that I am not entirely sure what you mean by an acquisition format, English is not my first language.

 

Acquire, means to obtain or secure. Film and video are two formats used to record or acquire images.

 

The difference between DV and Red is that miniDV is not 4k for example, so it just simply looks worse and you can't really screen it in proper cinemas because of the resolution.

 

I agree from a technical point of view. But from an aesthetic point of view resolution does not matter so much if the audience is engrossed and moved by the story.

 

People place too much emphasis on 4K recording. Resolution is an important aspect of filmmaking, but it is not the only or even a dominant aspect. There is a lot to know from the artistic side of movie making as well as the business side of movie making. Simply shooting 4K is not enough to complete a finished movie, create a great movie, or get around the challenges of marketing and distributing a movie.

 

Plus, usually to produce great cinematography, you need the help of lights, dollies, cranes, not to forget make-up, costumes and all the other stuff that you must invest in to make a good looking film, so we are not talking about low low budgets here shot on pd150.

 

Yes all of those in accordance with the skill and talent of a great crew. But you can use lights, dollies, cranes, make up, costumes to produce great images on a PD-150. Technically it is not superior to a format with more resolution but the skill of the people using these things trumps the tools themselves.

 

And do you think a person not working in the industry can tell a difference between HD and film? Most of them can't, so being able to shoot at 4k on digital might change some stuff.

 

The business of marketing and distributing movies is not about film, HD, or 4K. There are many factors that go into what films are distributed and resolution is the least of it.

 

If I am a distributor and I know that 1 out of 5 films is probably worth looking at, but only 1 out of 10 videos is worth looking at, I'll always go through the films first and then look at the videos because I have a higher percentage of sellable product AND I'll have less product to wade through.

 

The number of films a distributor will see is already decreased by film festivals, film markets, production companies and sales representatives. Any film that does not go through some official channel has next to zero chance of being viewed by any major distributor.

 

Film productions have more built in restrictions that usually mean if the thing gets done it will probably have a higher probability of being sold.

 

I see what you are saying but I would look at it differently. A movie that has been shot on 35mm generally has had more advantages, that is why it has a higher probability of being sold. This type of film will generally have known actors, a higher budget, a skilled director, and a talented crew.

[Lars Zemskih]

I don't think thats correct. Ive got a lot of friends who have commented on the look of something only to be told that they had spotted it was shot on digital. On TV and in cinema. The shift in seasons and between pilot and series on battlestar people could clearly sense a change. Watching 28 weeks later the other night my friend commented on how different each bit looked (as they changed formats). Audiences are smarter than we think, even if they don't realize it.

 

Ok, maybe side by side it easy to spot the difference when digital and film are cut together. But going back to Superman Returns, do you think that after the screening of the film when asked whether it was shot digital or film, most people will give you the correct answer? I mean, most people don't care about this, just as long as it looks good and the story is well, of Superman, then not many people stop and question what it was shot on.

 

The system actually works the way it currently is set up, I kind of wish it would stay exactly as it is rather than film being viewed as horse and buggy technology that needs to be obsoleted.

 

I wish so too, it would be so much easier and I would loose less sleep thinking about where the film industry is going at the moment.

[Seung Han]

This all depends on the end expectation of the film. My comments were based on the fact that most people's desire is to produce a film that will be seen by a wide audience and produce a profit. Yes it is possible to make a movie for little money. What was the point of making the movie if there is no audience to see it.

 

Listen, you said acquisition format doesn't play a part in a film being made. You are simply wrong in this assumption. Many more films then not get made because of the choice of an acquisition format. That is reallity today, period.

 

Also, many filmmakers from all over the world make small films and make enough of a profit to continue attracting investment.

 

You need to stop scouring the weekend box office numbers for your perspective on the film industry. Yes, the U.S. is the biggest market, but its a big wide world out there and there's no need to be so pessimistic.

[Tenolian Bell]

Listen, you said acquisition format doesn't play a part in a film being made.

 

In the context I was speaking this is true.

 

Many more films then not get made because of the choice of an acquisition format. That is reallity today, period. Also, many filmmakers from all over the world make small films and make enough of a profit to continue attracting investment.

 

This is a different context than what I was talking about. There are many films that get made because of less expensive formats, but at the same degree the far majority of these films will never be seen by a large audience.

 

You need to stop scouring the weekend box office numbers for your perspective on the film industry. Yes, the U.S. is the biggest market, but its a big wide world out there and there's no need to be so pessimistic.

 

Working in Hollywood is what most of us here are talking about. When people say they want to make a film. It is generally implied they want to shoot a great film that will be bought by a large US distribution company which will provide a wide theatrical release.

 

Of course films are made and distributed outside of the US industry. I've heard of successful production companies in Africa. Shooting films on mini DV and being very profitable, but that is not what most people here are aspiring to.

 

Also, many filmmakers from all over the world make small films and make enough of a profit to continue attracting investment.

 

I'm sure this is true, but that being true does not invalidate what I've said. Because where I am that is how it works.

 

If someone is able to shoot a mini DV film and make money in a smaller market. I would imagine they would not be concerned about RED shooting 4K or how it compares to film. They would be too busy making films. In which case the acquisition format still does not matter.

[A. Whitehouse]

Working in Hollywood is what most of us here are talking about. When people say they want to make a film. It is generally implied they want to shoot a great film that will be bought by a large US distribution company which will provide a wide theatrical release.

 

Of course films are made and distributed outside of the US industry. I've heard of successful production companies in Africa. Shooting films on mini DV and being very profitable, but that is not what most people here are aspiring to.

 

Sorry Tenolian, I don't think you are correct about the aspirations of film makers outside the US. I don't know if you're in the states but this is a very American-centric view. I'm not trying to be vitriolic here but the market and numbers of film makers outside the US is larger than those inside it. I'm an American over seas and I think that most board members here would react to these statements.

[Alessandro Machi]

The number of films a distributor will see is already decreased by film festivals, film markets, production companies and sales representatives. Any film that does not go through some official channel has next to zero chance of being viewed by any major distributor.

 

Usually will only be viewed if a fee has been paid. A distributor may actually look at a film project just because it was shot on film because they know the odds are higher they may have a sellable product. It doesn't mean they will watch the whole thing, but they might take a peek whereas if one says it was shot on HD, they will just cringe because nowadays there are over 50 DV formats. How many HD formats, I don't know, but probably at least a couple of dozen, whereas in film it's either 35, 16, or 8.

 

I see what you are saying but I would look at it differently. A movie that has been shot on 35mm generally has had more advantages, that is why it has a higher probability of being sold. This type of film will generally have known actors, a higher budget, a skilled director, and a talented crew.

 

Sure, so if one can afford a 35mm film project and finish it, they probably will have a better chance of selling the project. I would say the primary exceptions being if they just didn't shoot enough angles or coverage or the story was too boring.

[Michael Lehnert]

Ok, maybe side by side it easy to spot the difference when digital and film are cut together. But going back to Superman Returns, do you think that after the screening of the film when asked whether it was shot digital or film, most people will give you the correct answer? I mean, most people don't care about this, just as long as it looks good and the story is well, of Superman, then not many people stop and question what it was shot on.

 

Actually, although that is a tempting notion, I disagree with that most severly. This is also a dangerous starting point, namely to regard your audience as being more stupid or less educated. Actually, based on my experiences, I found that most one-job-filmworkers I met are actually anything but more intelligent or wits-ful than the Average Joe audience member, even in basic technical matters of filmmaking!

 

I have heard stuff like "ah, let's skip that 11th take, the audience won't notice" or stuff like that alot, and although some people truly believe that, and considerable parts of the audience might not notice too because they basically glance over the story superficially due to today's rapid visual firework that conditions space and pace, a lot of people with more brain power than the archetypical 11-year-old braindead that constitutes todays target/focus group samples actually WILL notice that "Superman return" has a different material aesthetics than Jurassic Park or Superman I - III! They might not guess that it's shot on 2K to HDCAM SR or whatever, or that it wasn't shot on 65mm Rumblerama, but they see that it looks different.

 

And I have heard alot that the "look" of the film was "odd", "cold", "strange", "disconnecting", "digital B) ". Also, the flatlining story and disenchanting acting weren't helping to move viewers away from the asthetical "Otherness" ? which is why "Superman returns" neither rebooted the franchise nor was the hoped-for commercial blockbuster.

 

Similarly, alot of people who see new prints on 35mm or 70mm of "historical" films on the silver screen are actually blown away by how great this looks. Some attribute this to "new digital technology like Blu-ray ? isn' that used in cinemas already?" while in fact it's just a cleaned-up fresh print. And they rediscover the screened cinematic experience, too, with that.

 

So, in essence, people recognise the visual uniqueness of cine-film, but because few know how filmmaking is technically made today and/or believe the marketing HD-ready blabla of their consumer goods and transfer those Sony InStyle catalogue motion picture product placemement implys (some people I met thought in 1993 that Spielberg shot JP with a Sony 3-chip VX-1 ? no joke!).

 

With video format basically vying to copy the film look (with RED being the closest cheapest bettest anything attempt, if one were to believe the RedUserForum) for decades instead of cultivating their own video look,or define what that is supposed to be in the first place (u-matic, S-VHS-C, D5?), that clearly shows what position cine-film as a demarker of visual aesthetics holds in the image acquisition industry. That a film as bad as "Superman returns" has become the pin-up of digital videography's possibilities is almost a sadly twisted irony of this debate.

 

Anyway, before I get hanged, drawn and quartered for this post, may I invite the fellow members of this forum to remember that polemics are to be written in a sharp feather, and that this post should be read like this, because the perpetual and never-concluding topic that is epitomised by this thread necessitates such a writing approach. Looking forward to seeing optimal viewing environments all over the planet soon so that viewing digitalians will finally appreciate the filmhistorical and filmtechnical greatness of "Superman returns".

[Michael Lehnert]

I've seen footage shot and projected in Chicago two weeks ago and what I saw was stunning. What I saw would hold its own with 70mm. And I used to get offended when friends called me a film snob.

 

Yes, I would love to see a direct-output RED footage laserprojected digitally on a Cinerama-sized theatre screen, too, to see how it blows away, say, Stanley Kubrick's "2001" on 65/70...

 

Joe, just out of interest, when was the last time you have been to a film theatre and seen a fresh 70mm print of a 65mm cine-film (think quick)?

[Michael Lehnert]

Having followed the unfolding Red development with distant interest, I must say these HD threads are really funny to read.

 

Without the reality-checking posts by David, Alessandro, Tenolian and Tim and some others, it would be pure comedy, reminiscent of all the same debates when S-Video and DigiBeta appeared in 1992.

 

I remember Francis Ford Coppola (yes, he who is now struggling to get a film of some intellectual challenge made in today's industry, and has to publicly ask his audience to think about the film while it is screened) talk about how camcorders will revolutionise filmmaking, make cinema theatre screenings accessible to everyone.

 

And Wim Wenders (whose company had then just been purchasd by Sony Entertainment... no implications there...) publicly revelled how 3-light RGB tube projectors for video formats will allow more screening spaces to be made in every city (that was during a wave of cinema closures and new cineplexes being built across Europe), and that he will soon shoot on Hi8.

 

Well, he did it with "Aufzeichnungen zu Kleidern und Städten", a film nowadays as fondly remembered as "The American Friend", "Reverse Angle" or "Paris, Texas" (this sentence is contaminated with heavy irony).

In hinsight, he should have watched his own "Room 666" before making such utterances in public. They came back to bite him.

 

And now, thanks to a sunglasses salesperson operating out of a self-proclaimed "Inter-Planetary Headquarter" in CA, everyone with $20k to spend can live through the same illusion of progress that a previous generation saw come, pass and go, without much changes other than a dented personal reputation.

 

Seriously now, before someone kills me for writing all this, I am leaving this Matrix. See you in the other forums where I try hard and work harder than here to contribute meaningfully. ;)

[Michel Hafner]

Joe, just out of interest, when was the last time you have been to a film theatre and seen a fresh 70mm print of a 65mm cine-film (think quick)?

Some years ago, many examples. Red on the Sony 4K looks more like 70mm than 35mm.