Difficile est longum subito deponere amorem

[Anatole Sloan]

I will try and put this in a fairly unheated way, so as not to stoke the fire in this forum that should have been cooled months ago; please read to the end before you reply.

 

To be utterly frank, I think it?s about time that this argument about Red vs film should stop. The purpose of this forum is to be one that?s informative, and helpful to somebody wishing, and to allow people to make their own informative decisions. The rest of this forum happens to fulfil this purpose; for example, all the other sections on cameras all for a place in which owners and potential owners can converse with utter freedom, and without the fear of being trampled over.

 

What?s worse is that this argument is not only raging in the Red forum, but is spilling out into the rest of the cinematography.com website; anybody (who only happens to own a Red) who attempts to avoid this particular section so that they may receive genuinely creative comments, rather than an endless, futile debate, is immediately caught up in the whirlwind upon mentioning that they used this particular camera. I believe you have all witnessed such a case.

 

I myself have opinions on the Red camera, but this is not such place to put them, and therefore will not include them. We all know that this would only result in further argument which is ultimately fruitless. I am sure that the camera has its problems, and why can?t this be the place in which people can converse about these faults? There is no need to act as the balance to a form of propaganda, as some would call it, for all this does is fuel this vain discussion.

 

And finally, to conclude, before I am torn to bits, the only reason I am approaching you as such is due to my frustration of the juvenile way most of you have been acting in; and that is fairly strong coming from me, considering I am sixteen. Consider how far you must have gone to irritate an ?adolescent? into making such an astute comment.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I will try and put this in a fairly unheated way, so as not to stoke the fire in this forum that should have been cooled months ago; please read to the end before you reply.

 

To be utterly frank, I think it?s about time that this argument about Red vs film should stop. The purpose of this forum is to be one that?s informative, and helpful to somebody wishing, and to allow people to make their own informative decisions. The rest of this forum happens to fulfil this purpose; for example, all the other sections on cameras all for a place in which owners and potential owners can converse with utter freedom, and without the fear of being trampled over.

 

What?s worse is that this argument is not only raging in the Red forum, but is spilling out into the rest of the cinematography.com website; anybody (who only happens to own a Red) who attempts to avoid this particular section so that they may receive genuinely creative comments, rather than an endless, futile debate, is immediately caught up in the whirlwind upon mentioning that they used this particular camera. I believe you have all witnessed such a case.

 

I myself have opinions on the Red camera, but this is not such place to put them, and therefore will not include them. We all know that this would only result in further argument which is ultimately fruitless. I am sure that the camera has its problems, and why can?t this be the place in which people can converse about these faults? There is no need to act as the balance to a form of propaganda, as some would call it, for all this does is fuel this vain discussion.

 

And finally, to conclude, before I am torn to bits, the only reason I am approaching you as such is due to my frustration of the juvenile way most of you have been acting in; and that is fairly strong coming from me, considering I am sixteen. Consider how far you must have gone to irritate an ?adolescent? into making such an astute comment.

 

Since the decision to shoot on red rather than film is something that faces directors and producers in the real world of production, I would say this is the perfect place to have those discussions, since those interested can lean on the experience of other professionals who have gone through it and had good (or bad) experiences.

 

What is not helpful, is people who have no experience of either ranting and raving about digital will "never" be as good as film, or film is dead, when both extremes are obviously horseshit.

 

R.

[Anatole Sloan]

Since the decision to shoot on red rather than film is something that faces directors and producers in the real world of production, I would say this is the perfect place to have those discussions, since those interested can lean on the experience of other professionals who have gone through it and had good (or bad) experiences.

 

What is not helpful, is people who have no experience of either ranting and raving about digital will "never" be as good as film, or film is dead, when both extremes are obviously horseshit.

 

R.

I agree with you absolutely, and in my opinion, it seems that those who are ranting generally dominate the majority of conversations that have taken place; I, myself, prefer to stand back and listen to these conversations, as admittedly, I can't be terribly experienced at 16, but the experience is getting rather painful.

[Nate Downes]

Since the decision to shoot on red rather than film is something that faces directors and producers in the real world of production, I would say this is the perfect place to have those discussions, since those interested can lean on the experience of other professionals who have gone through it and had good (or bad) experiences.

 

What is not helpful, is people who have no experience of either ranting and raving about digital will "never" be as good as film, or film is dead, when both extremes are obviously horseshit.

 

R.

There is no practical matter to make digital as good as film, as digital is dependent on lithography for it's very construction, the same technologies used for high-density filmstock. Every time a lithographic improvement allows for an improvement on digital, it can be applied to filmstocks, viola, another jump for digital to overcome. It's as simple as that.

 

Now, that being gotten out of the way, you can get digital "good enough" for all practical purposes. And that is what needs to be focused on, not some pissing contest. The last shoot I was on was digital, the next one film, and each one was ideal for the particular needs of the shoot.

 

Frankly, too much focus is on the details of the equipment and not enough on the practical matter of actually, ya know, shooting.

[Keith Walters]

I will try and put this in a fairly unheated way, so as not to stoke the fire in this forum that should have been cooled months ago; please read to the end before you reply.

 

To be utterly frank, I think it?s about time that this argument about Red vs film should stop. The purpose of this forum is to be one that?s informative, and helpful to somebody wishing, and to allow people to make their own informative decisions. The rest of this forum happens to fulfil this purpose; for example, all the other sections on cameras all for a place in which owners and potential owners can converse with utter freedom, and without the fear of being trampled over.

 

What?s worse is that this argument is not only raging in the Red forum, but is spilling out into the rest of the cinematography.com website; anybody (who only happens to own a Red) who attempts to avoid this particular section so that they may receive genuinely creative comments, rather than an endless, futile debate, is immediately caught up in the whirlwind upon mentioning that they used this particular camera. I believe you have all witnessed such a case.

 

I myself have opinions on the Red camera, but this is not such place to put them, and therefore will not include them. We all know that this would only result in further argument which is ultimately fruitless. I am sure that the camera has its problems, and why can?t this be the place in which people can converse about these faults? There is no need to act as the balance to a form of propaganda, as some would call it, for all this does is fuel this vain discussion.

 

And finally, to conclude, before I am torn to bits, the only reason I am approaching you as such is due to my frustration of the juvenile way most of you have been acting in; and that is fairly strong coming from me, considering I am sixteen. Consider how far you must have gone to irritate an ?adolescent? into making such an astute comment.

I know that nobody in your age group ever wants to be told this, but a lot of the problem is that these sorts of "arguments" have been going on since long before you were even born! The only difference now is that the Internet allows a more international participation.

 

The problem that a lot of people have is that these days, their job security is often in the hands of non-technical executives, who are all too easily gulled by fast-talking nonentities telling them what they want to hear, rather than what they need to know.

 

And all too often, what they want to hear is that by investing the shareholders' money in yet another new whizz-bang technology that nobody else apparently knows anything about, the company's profitibility is going to skyrocket, and they will get the credit for it and so on.

 

But the usual outcome is that the investment is a dismal failure and the company ends up bankrupt, (but usually, not before the Idiots in Business Suits have managed to siphon off a large amount of the shareholders' funds before they inevitably get fired). This has happened to me on two separate occasions. (I often wonder what became of all the analog HDTV equipment that was bought in the early 1990s, when HDTV was "just around the corner")

 

So yes, a lot of people do have a vested interest in ensuring that ALL of a manufacturer's dirty linen does get aired in public. In cases like the RED, a lot of people have managed to convince themselves (and/or people who have loaned them money to buy the equipment) that buying a RED system is their ticket to fame, fortune and security in their old age. They are not particularly pleased when people point out the holes in their grand schemes, but as far as I am concerned, most of them are going to crash and burn at some time or another, so I really don't feel I am going to make any difference to the inevitable, by asking awkward questions.

 

As for the film vs RED thing, Jim Jannard has stated several times that they never intended the RED to replace film, it's more designed as an economical replacement for the overpriced ENG cameras that are currently being promoted as "Digital Cinematography" cameras. (Personally, I would have designed the camera somewhat differently, but we'll see who is right eventually).

 

So a large part of the annoyance is the fanboys who keep hammering the "Film is Dead" line.

(In case you don't know, that was a famous headline from a 1956 issue of Variety:-)

Another large part is the fact that many of the more prolific loudmouth posters here clearly have little or no real-world production experience at all, but they somehow imagine that their youth and enthusiasm is going to make up for this.

[Anatole Sloan]

I know that nobody in your age group ever wants to be told this, but a lot of the problem is that these sorts of "arguments" have been going on since long before you were even born! The only difference now is that the Internet allows a more international participation.

 

The problem that a lot of people have is that these days, their job security is often in the hands of non-technical executives, who are all too easily gulled by fast-talking nonentities telling them what they want to hear, rather than what they need to know.

 

And all too often, what they want to hear is that by investing the shareholders' money in yet another new whizz-bang technology that nobody else apparently knows anything about, the company's profitibility is going to skyrocket, and they will get the credit for it and so on.

 

But the usual outcome is that the investment is a dismal failure and the company ends up bankrupt, (but usually, not before the Idiots in Business Suits have managed to siphon off a large amount of the shareholders' funds before they inevitably get fired). This has happened to me on two separate occasions. (I often wonder what became of all the analog HDTV equipment that was bought in the early 1990s, when HDTV was "just around the corner")

 

So yes, a lot of people do have a vested interest in ensuring that ALL of a manufacturer's dirty linen does get aired in public. In cases like the RED, a lot of people have managed to convince themselves (and/or people who have loaned them money to buy the equipment) that buying a RED system is their ticket to fame, fortune and security in their old age. They are not particularly pleased when people point out the holes in their grand schemes, but as far as I am concerned, most of them are going to crash and burn at some time or another, so I really don't feel I am going to make any difference to the inevitable, by asking awkward questions.

 

As for the film vs RED thing, Jim Jannard has stated several times that they never intended the RED to replace film, it's more designed as an economical replacement for the overpriced ENG cameras that are currently being promoted as "Digital Cinematography" cameras. (Personally, I would have designed the camera somewhat differently, but we'll see who is right eventually).

 

So a large part of the annoyance is the fanboys who keep hammering the "Film is Dead" line.

(In case you don't know, that was a famous headline from a 1956 issue of Variety:-)

Another large part is the fact that many of the more prolific loudmouth posters here clearly have little or no real-world production experience at all, but they somehow imagine that their youth and enthusiasm is going to make up for this.

 

It is absolutely healthy to maintain a certain level of debate over things like this, and it is only through criticism that an industry advances; however, there are also other aspects of any camera that must be thoroughly discussed, and should not come under the category of argument; however, it seems to me, that anything somebody posts in this forum related to the Red is automatically walking into a such debate, despite their primary purpose of trying to provide information that others can discuss with a degree of calm intellect. To me, this only seems to happen with Red; for example, those showcasing their work in the critique section, hoping to receive some form of helpful feedback, instead find that their thread has turned into a heated argument about the camera, some complaining about the camera's faults and others praising it; but should this not be a place where others can talk about their work, not Red's?

[Daniel Sheehy]

...so as not to stoke the fire...

 

Yet another pointless thread started in the name of ending the discussion, which does absolutely nothing except prolong it!

 

Look, if you don't like the way the discussion is going on, refrain from joining in.

 

If and when you get the opportunity to shoot with the camera, assess it yourself, based on your budget, needs and work flow. That's all that matters really. Everyone will have an opinion, but that only matters if you chose to listen to them.

[John Sprung]

There is no practical matter to make digital as good as film, as digital is dependent on lithography for it's very construction, the same technologies used for high-density filmstock. Every time a lithographic improvement allows for an improvement on digital, it can be applied to filmstocks, viola, another jump for digital to overcome.

Um, .... Lithography? The only thing I'm aware of in motion imaging that was sorta similar to lithography was the 1930's Technicolor release printing process.

 

Film raw stock consists of grains of silver halide and dye couplers suspended in gelatin. I don't see how there's anything remotely like lithography in that.

 

Chips are made using a photo-resist process, basically a reduction printing process, from a photographic mask set. I kinda doubt that the grain of the film used for the masks is the limiting factor in shrinking the minimum feature size on chips. You want sharper? The easy way to get it is to use bigger film.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Nate Downes]

Um, .... Lithography? The only thing I'm aware of in motion imaging that was sorta similar to lithography was the 1930's Technicolor release printing process.

 

Film raw stock consists of grains of silver halide and dye couplers suspended in gelatin. I don't see how there's anything remotely like lithography in that.

 

Chips are made using a photo-resist process, basically a reduction printing process, from a photographic mask set. I kinda doubt that the grain of the film used for the masks is the limiting factor in shrinking the minimum feature size on chips. You want sharper? The easy way to get it is to use bigger film.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

It was the easiest way to explain it. How silicon masks are made uses much the same emultion technology as photography, but is acid based rather than silver based. But the same techniques necessary to make finer acid baths have been applied to the chemistry in photogtaphy, resulting in ever smaller grain structure such as you find in Vision3.

[Anatole Sloan]

Yet another pointless thread started in the name of ending the discussion, which does absolutely nothing except prolong it!

 

Look, if you don't like the way the discussion is going on, refrain from joining in.

 

If and when you get the opportunity to shoot with the camera, assess it yourself, based on your budget, needs and work flow. That's all that matters really. Everyone will have an opinion, but that only matters if you chose to listen to them.

It's already been going on for long enough...how long do you expect till this finishes? Does it not require co-operation on the part of every individual, and in order to get that, how else to do it but attempt it? Do notice that I generally do refrain from joining in, and in this case I am purely making a statement, without entering either sides in the argument. Does that not suggest I am making a genuine attempt?

[John Sprung]

But the same techniques necessary to make finer acid baths have been applied to the chemistry in photogtaphy, resulting in ever smaller grain structure such as you find in Vision3.

I'm still kinda bewildered here. The acids that I'm familiar with go into solution and dissociate into H+ and whatever-, like HCl into H+ and Cl-, which is used for etching plates. Grains are much larger structures than that, perhaps millions of atoms rather than individual ions. John Pytlak would have known for sure how big the individual grains are, and how they control the size of them.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Nate Downes]

I'm still kinda bewildered here. The acids that I'm familiar with go into solution and dissociate into H+ and whatever-, like HCl into H+ and Cl-, which is used for etching plates. Grains are much larger structures than that, perhaps millions of atoms rather than individual ions. John Pytlak would have known for sure how big the individual grains are, and how they control the size of them.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

I've helped design a few plates in my day, and no, a film t-grain (for instance) is made up of only 30 atoms (6 silver nitrate molecules), while the acid used for etching (hydrofluoric acid) is 20 atoms (2 hydrofluoride molecules, 6 water molecules)

 

it's the techniques used to apply each which have been refined, giving far more clarity to both, enabling such things as 45nm silicon process. Both are applied as an emultion (in most cases, some silicon is applied through ionic bombardment, others through electrostatic application, but this is a simplied situation so let's stick to the common hydrofluoride acid technique).

 

The technologies used to enhance yeilds of tighter acid burns are applied to the application of film emultion, getting better yeilds of higher quality film. But yes, John would have known far better than me, I'm going by data that is a tad dated (I haven't burned a silicon mask since college) by now.

[John Sprung]

(6 silver nitrate molecules)

Wow, so it's silver nitrate, not a halide. I remember seeing photomicrographs of the metallic silver grains in developed B&W film. The grains were big stringy tangly structures, they looked sort of like the stems you have left over after you eat a bunch of grapes. From that, I figured that the grains had to be fairly large. Could it be that they link up somehow in the developing process?

 

I also remember a long time ago getting silver nitrate on my hands. It makes a black stain that takes a long time to go away. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Nate Downes]

Wow, so it's silver nitrate, not a halide. I remember seeing photomicrographs of the metallic silver grains in developed B&W film. The grains were big stringy tangly structures, they looked sort of like the stems you have left over after you eat a bunch of grapes. From that, I figured that the grains had to be fairly large. Could it be that they link up somehow in the developing process?

Depends on the stocks, I was using nitrate as that's the one I worked with directly. But you're half right, they do link up, but the linkup is in the emultion-creation stage, and it is there which the new techniques have been applied. Newer techniques have created ever smaller grains, such as T-grain, which react to light faster while simultaneously being physically smaller in size. It's an amazing process to witness so I am led to believe.

I also remember a long time ago getting silver nitrate on my hands. It makes a black stain that takes a long time to go away. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

You can say that again. I make my own emultion for my glass plate camera.