RED - Epic and Scarlet

[Tenolian Bell]

There also seems to be an assumption that Red is the only camera platform that is improving while everything else remains the same. This not true.

 

Kodak continues to develop the chemistry of film. Improving its dynamic range, color reproduction, and low light sensitivity. That is one of the reasons it still dominates the motion picture industry.

[Paul Bruening]

Well, fellas, we all knew these days would come: Where digital resolution is getting high enough that the principle difference between film and digital is mostly a matter of aesthetics. We're on the crest of that.

 

Most people I know couldn't look at a screen and tell whether the image was even video or film, much less, parse the aesthetic differences. It does take a trained eye to see the aspects we see. At some point, what we can see won't matter any more and what's cheapest and most practical will take over. I love film and I've got all of my life's wealth tied up into it. But, you don't have to be Fellini to figure out what's inevitable in our near future.

 

Damn it!

[Brian Drysdale]

Hi Tom,

 

Probably the 2/3" one with a fixed lens, I will probably cut the lens off & void my warranty but what the heck. What I want to do is put the chip in an old Aaton ltr7, then I have an optical finder. I wonder if I will be allowed to order one in my own name, if not I can use Max's friend again. ;)

 

Stephen

 

 

You could just use the 2/3" Scarlet without the fixed lens, it looks like it would be cheaper.

[Brook Willard]

Yeah, I was sad to see that whole episode with Brook.

Looks like they eventually thought better of it. I received a phoned apology for my banning and was invited back to the forums.

 

I guess they realized that my apparently misinterpreted compliment wasn't quite reason enough to ban me for life.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Hi,

 

Personally I think the cheap Scarlet is far more revolounary than Red One or Epic, I will buy a Scarlet & still shoot the big jobs on 35mm, much as I do today.

 

Stephen

Stephen,

 

It could even be more revolutionary without Epic.

 

Take care,

Emanuel

[Thomas James]

The look of 35mm film can be artificially replicated. Instead of using an 8 megapixel 4k x 2k sensor you instead use an Epic 128 megapixel 16k x 8k sensor and then you use software to create a jigsaw puzzle array of 8 irregular super megapixels where each super pixel is composed of 16 blocks each. Although the resolution requirements of the sensor are 16 times greater if you are using digital to emulate a film look the computational requirements are not any greater than 4k.

[Tom Lowe]

Looks like they eventually thought better of it. I received a phoned apology for my banning and was invited back to the forums.

 

I guess they realized that my apparently misinterpreted compliment wasn't quite reason enough to ban me for life.

 

Glad to see you back there with full honors, Brook.

[Max Jacoby]

Most people I know couldn't look at a screen and tell whether the image was even video or film, much less, parse the aesthetic differences. It does take a trained eye to see the aspects we see.

Although most people cannot tell the difference between film and video if you ask them, I believe that subconsciously they perceive such a difference. Sometimes I ask people I go to see a film shot on digital how they felt about the image and more often than not they said that something was odd or different.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

The RED One has been used for art house productions, just as HDCAM has been

I know, what do you guys think I was investing before? :-)

 

RED ONE is being used on commercial £1m (and higher) productions and for television, so perhaps its impact is more in those market sectors than for people who have been shooting their own self financed films on Mini DV.

With the due respect, I fully disagree. You're speaking about ' Impact ', right? Not even close.

 

The EPIC is for a different market sector, buying one is a business decision and a personal choice. For the price quoted, it's still good value if comparing to other cameras, bearing in mind that these other, more expensive, cameras do have advantages of their own.

I follow your accurate appreciation. Nevertheless, I've made all my moviemaking life as film student or producer (or even as debuting director) among 16mm, Super16 and 35mm. I have no choice (this is not so cool) in any way other than as going with Epic in order to protect my RED ONE investment.

[Thomas James]

When massive amounts of resolution are used to simulate the grain patterns of film there would be no detectible difference between digital and film. For example I think it would be very easy for a 4K digital camera to emulate the look of super 8 film.

[Tenolian Bell]

This sounds like an overly complicated reason to reinvent the wheel.

 

I would actually go in a different direction. I don't see any reason for digital to simply recreate what film already does. I would like to see digital really revolutionize the way we view movies. Something like recording and projecting holographic images.

 

 

The look of 35mm film can be artificially replicated. Instead of using an 8 megapixel 4k x 2k sensor you instead use an Epic 128 megapixel 16k x 8k sensor and then you use software to create a jigsaw puzzle array of 8 irregular super megapixels where each super pixel is composed of 16 blocks each. Although the resolution requirements of the sensor are 16 times greater if you are using digital to emulate a film look the computational requirements are not any greater than 4k.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Glad to see you back there with full honors, Brook.

Same here. Brook knows it. Who banned him should know it as well.

 

Brook, I've noticed that was your 1st post here. Let me to salute you with my welcome (again ;)).

[Brook Willard]

Heheh, thanks man. I registered here ages ago, but never bothered to post. I probably won't continue to post here [not enough time in the day...], but a little bird told me that there was a discussion of my banning over here.

 

I'm really just a narcissist. ;)

[Thomas James]

But it requires a lot of complexity if you are using digital technology and you want to end up with a natural look because nature by definition is very complex. With digital you are capturing reality in a matrix of unnatural square boxes so you need a tremendous amount of those boxes arranged in a very natural fractal looking pattern in order to escape the artificial look. Of course another alternative for electronic cinema is to create a dedicated natural looking android retina that is composed of hexagonal pixels arranged in a series of concentric circles and employing space variancy but I doubt that Jim Jannard has the understanding for such a radically revolutionary project so we may be forced to carve out our own pixel designs using Jim's quarter gigapixel retinas.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Heheh, thanks man. I registered here ages ago, but never bothered to post. I probably won't continue to post here [not enough time in the day...], but a little bird told me that there was a discussion of my banning over here.

 

I'm really just a narcissist. ;)

LOL (should I write a little bit more in order to justify this my post here? -- after all, this is not reduser.net... :lol:)

[Brian Drysdale]

I know, what do you guys think I was investing before? :-)

 

 

With the due respect, I fully disagree. You're speaking about ' Impact ', right? Not even close.

 

 

I follow your accurate appreciation. Nevertheless, I've made all my moviemaking life as film student or producer (or even as debuting director) among 16mm, Super16 and 35mm. I have no choice (this is not so cool) in any way other than as going with Epic in order to protect my RED ONE investment.

 

All this depends on what you define as "indie". Currently it seems to cover everything from someone making films as hobby to a pretty well budgeted feature film.

 

The RED ONE costs still tend to make it more likely to be used on productions that have some level of budget. However, I do know of one self financed short that used a RED, but the family involved wasn't what you'd term as poor.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

All this depends on what you define as "indie". Currently it seems to cover everything from someone making films as hobby to a pretty well budgeted feature film.

 

The RED ONE costs still tend to make it more likely to be used on productions that have some level of budget. However, I do know of one self financed short that used a RED, but the family involved wasn't what you'd term as poor.

I agree. From no budget up to «well budgeted feature film», there is a big gap indeed. Even at 'no budget', it can happen a few radical different tones. Without counting the countless differences comparing financial systems, distinct local or national opportunities of financing, cooperation and collaboration, i.e. synergies. There's always the danger of generalization. But the things change a lot when we shake some variables to work it out together in a different manner.

[Tenolian Bell]

Independent film (at least in the US) traditionally is a term that simply means a film that was produced outside of the Hollywood studio system. Irrespective of the size of its budget. Generally most people are not independently wealthy or have easy access to the same resources a studio can spend on a movie. But if a wealthy person made a 100 million dollar film outside of the studio system it would be an independent.

 

Since the hollywood studio system assimilated much of the machinery that characterized the true indie movement, actors, directors, production companies, film festivals. Over the past ten years the term "indie film" has been relegated to a marketing term for lower budget (2-20 million) edgy films, with one or two star actors, and a possible Oscar contender.

 

 

 

All this depends on what you define as "indie". Currently it seems to cover everything from someone making films as hobby to a pretty well budgeted feature film.

 

The RED ONE costs still tend to make it more likely to be used on productions that have some level of budget. However, I do know of one self financed short that used a RED, but the family involved wasn't what you'd term as poor.

[Brian Drysdale]

Independent film (at least in the US) traditionally is a term that simply means a film that was produced outside of the Hollywood studio system. Irrespective of the size of its budget. Generally most people are not independently wealthy or have easy access to the same resources a studio can spend on a movie. But if a wealthy person made a 100 million dollar film outside of the studio system it would be an independent.

 

I've always taken it as a film made outside the studio system.

[DJ Joofa]

But if a wealthy person made a 100 million dollar film outside of the studio system it would be an independent.

 

I have read in the past that Hollywood has put an upper limit of just under $30 million for independent movies.

[Tenolian Bell]

I have read in the past that Hollywood has put an upper limit of just under $30 million for independent movies.

 

Its not independent because of its budget. Its independent because it was produced outside of Hollywood.

[DJ Joofa]

Its not independent because of its budget. Its independent because it was produced outside of Hollywood.

 

True. However, I am just reporting what I have read before as the people in Hollywood wanted to put a money tag on what should be considered an "independent" movie regardless of if it was made outside the studio system. I have tried to find that source again. But I can't relocate it.

[John Sprung]

When massive amounts of resolution are used to simulate the grain patterns of film there would be no detectible difference between digital and film. For example I think it would be very easy for a 4K digital camera to emulate the look of super 8 film.

Um, how about dynamic range and the shape of the curve, especially on the high end?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

Film really does not have any dynamic range. Each film grain is either exposed or it isn't so each film grain registers a white or a black value. What seems like a grey scale is actually millions of black and white specks that mimmick various levels of grey. With massive amounts of resolution a digital camera can also mimmick film because it too can register a simple value of 1 or 0, on or off, black or white, which corresponds to each pixel. Therefore just like film digital can simulate grey levels with millions of tiny white and black specks.

[DJ Joofa]

Film really does not have any dynamic range. Each film grain is either exposed or it isn't so each film grain registers a white or a black value. What seems like a grey scale is actually millions of black and white specks that mimmick various levels of grey. With massive amounts of resolution a digital camera can also mimmick film because it too can register a simple value of 1 or 0, on or off, black or white, which corresponds to each pixel. Therefore just like film digital can simulate grey levels with millions of tiny white and black specks.

 

The way we work with sensors, dynamic range is a point property, where as resolution is an area property, so inherently they are two different concepts, and hence, no issue of "having massive amount of resolution to mimick film" as far as DR is concerned. Just like color at a pixel is a point property, where as the texture is an area property around that pixel. Of course, one can always make relationships between dynamic range and resolution, since SNR, which is a rough correlate of DR (and which is implied by many people when they mean DR) can be traded with resolution, etc. The term "dynamic range of the sensor," should be taken to mean the dynamic range of a pixel, however, since in theory, all pixels have the same dynamic range, they may be used interchangeably.

 

If sensor electronics warrant very little noise, then, resolution is mostly irrelevant to mimic the DR of film, as sensor electronics considerations at each pixels are more meaningful, more so in the case of CMOS, which has more processing elements on a single pixel than typical CCDs.

Edited November 18, 2008 by DJ Joofa