tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Looks like they didn't even have the budget to get a 35mm camera ;) can't deny it. no money for a 35mm camera to bury. sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted December 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2008 I've worked on DVX shoots that wont ever shoot 35mm film ever again. And I'm doing Docs now I'd not recommend 35mm film for. Saying that X or Y production or producer is shooting on a b or c and never going back to d e or f is as pointless as what I just wrote. Anyone who can't see a camera as a specific tool in the way to get a desired result probably should take a step back from all the b/s and breathe. Certainly there is a place for the RED in production. Certainly there is a Place for 35mm film, super 8mm film, Betacam is STILL used, HDCams etc etc etc. What people fail to realize is that we as DPs are making creative choices based on which platform works best for the specific film we've been hired to shoot. Also the RED is not film and is not meant to replace film, as I believe Jim Jannard said himself, just as a Nikon D whatever is not a Nikon F whatever. They both have different looks to them, pros and cons etc. Now that's my own opinion on the current state of things, along with this, that film "people," aren't afraid of change or Luddites or anything like that, rather it is that they are working in a medium which serves their purposes for their jobs at hand. Any DP will gladly change to a different format to accomplish the look which is suited for the given piece. And please don't say RED doesn't have it's own unique look, it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Walker Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 and what are you trying to accomplish Andrew? if people bad mouth a product then let their ignorance represent them. you don't have to DEFEND RED, let the company's reputation do so. it's all pointless. Don't be so offended by what people think. I just tired of hearing misinformation. Like at NAB this year, people were walking around talking out of their asses about the Red camera. Some of them still believed that the camera was vaporware even though it was out and being used on dozens and dozens of projects ranging from commercials to big budget feature films. I'm not trying to defend the camera, just trying to educate people on what they think is dead wrong...its my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 But it's not us who said that RED is better or worse.... THEIR commercial implies that RED is replacing film! Thay didn't said: RED is a just a new diferent thing, that you can ad to your pallete of tools..... They acctualy directly implied who should be considered as a winer and who as a loser in the SAME arena ! Pretty dissapointing if RED menagment is behind such an idea... Just to clarify..Red management is not behind the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted December 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2008 Most people suffer from misinformation. It happens. I have the feeling most of us here are hands on-people who already understand a good deal of cameras and the like the pros and cons, and I would think that most people on this forum specifically will look at each piece of work from the camera as opposed to the camera itself. Now this goes for most people. In any group, you get the stubborn ones on both sides of the debate-- or rather disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Fritzshall Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 To my eyes it seems that some, if not most, film shooters are afraid of change away from film. Not sure why. I also didn't come over here to stir things up. I just heard at Reduser that this clip made it over here and that you guys were freaking out about it. So I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I started to read this thread and saw that most of the film people on here were trashing the Red camera. Basically the same thing I've been hearing from the beginning, since the Red camera was announced. First the camera was vaporware and then when it came out it just wasn't good enough. Some people can never be pleased. This thread and the other ones weren't directed solely at you Scott and I'm not sure why you would think that. Again, unless I totally missed it, I didn't see anyone really "trashing" the camera. Several people said that they thought that this commercial didn't do the camera any favors, but that's not the same thing. With regards to "never being pleased," a lot of us, myself included, are really really critical about stuff like this. I don't really think that any of the digital cameras out there right now are more than "pretty good." Being critical is what drives innovation- several years ago there were people who claimed that the F900 was just as good as film, and part of the reason we've got better stuff right now is that enough people complained that it wasn't nearly good enough. RED in particular makes itself a target because of the huge amount of hype surrounding it- the more people saying "it's the most amazing thing ever," the more we need people to give serious criticism. I think that, if anything, a lot of us don't think that digital is ready to replace film. Why would anyone be in favor of a replacement that's not as good as what it's replacing? So I guess I'd say that I'm "fearful" as far as that goes- I think we still need a few more years before digital matches film; not in "look," but in objectively measurable qualities like color reproduction and latitude. But I can assure you that beyond that issue, no one is really afraid of anything, and it's weird to see it always asserted on reduser that this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 So I guess I'd say that I'm "fearful" as far as that goes.... Fear is the path to the dark side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Fear is the path to the dark side. So film is the dark side and digital is the rebel alliance? OK. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2008 To my eyes it seems that some, if not most, film shooters are afraid of change away from film. Not sure why. The "why" is simple -- they think that film looks better. It's as simple as that. If you thought that way too, why wouldn't you be worried about tossing away a process that can yield such beautiful images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted December 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2008 Hi, The Viper a 5 year old camera has not killed film, I think Benjamin Button http://www.benjaminbutton.com/ looks way better than your spot. For your spot to have any credibility it needs to be in another league, had it been shot by Claudio or David M, it would have shown what a RED one is capable of. Best, Stephen quote from the poster:"It is not just the budget that is to blame for your worse than a 1st-year filmschool-level obnoxious short. What are you...like 15?" hey so what if I am young. you guys had to start somewhere didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted December 24, 2008 Site Sponsor Share Posted December 24, 2008 Just to add very little to this... It's not the camera... maybe I am a film guy because I part own a motion picture lab?? It is those who understand the light. The little spot looks bad, no amount of re compression will fix it's problems but as the originator said it was a learning experience. One thing that is missing, I feel, from this thread is the fact that a quiet and unassuming camera the SI-2K has really eclipsed the red in the very real terms of being the primary camera in a successful international film "slumdog millionaire" I went to see this picture with my girl two days ago and although sugary I though it was quite good, including the look. I thought the SI was a bit soft compared to the ecn in the picture and that the color was a tadd bit less punchy than ecn as well. Did I care? not so much the picture looked good probably because the chap behind the camera understood light and composition. That said the most successful picture of the year was cut largely from the biggest piece of film cloth available in motion. No digital system yet holds a candle to big negative and when you understand that the cost difference means nothing why use anything but the best? I can only imagine that Lean Huston and Kubrick would be less than impressed with the grave, and I would take that bolex, dirt and all, we have had our busiest year yet at Cinelab. -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts