Jump to content

Film Vs. Red


Nigel Stanford

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

It's cleaner to color time just once. The DP should make the look in timing, not accept some automated software's idea of color timing. Add grain if you want, it's kinda like making your car smell like a horse.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:munches popcorn:

 

Let's see, so far we have:

 

Likening film to a horse

The word "Versus" in the title

A rolls eyes smiley right after showing "interest" from both sides as to their opinions

 

 

If you still want to be a sucker after all this, you're easier to bait than I am! This thread is a sign from God that I need to quit staring at a monitor, end my break, and get back to work, doing my best to prolong the hastening arrival of this utter stupidity in my workplace. It's inevitable, but God does it cheapen completely the skill and craft of producing beautiful imagery, painting with light, shadows, filtration, lighting, diffusion, and movement.

 

All anyone wants to "paint" with anymore is a rickety mouse on a bootlegged copy of Photoshop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. Don't read into my smiley icon. I just can't resist their cuteness. ;)

 

I guess with that title I was hoping to get people who have an opinion about film and digital to look at the thread, check out the software and give me their opinion.

 

I had forgotten that it is a religious war with 2 camps:

  1. RED is awesome, it's better than film in every way and anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron LOL!!1!
  2. film is perfect and there is no scientific way we could ever possibly recreate it's MAGIC by any means other than plastic and chemicals!!!1!

 

I personally belong to a 3rd camp. I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive, and I like the advantages of shooting digital.

 

Is there anyone else out there? Or am I the only atheist in Kansas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, fair enough.

 

 

Looking at the differences between the emulator and V3, they are a pretty good match, dare I say it enough to fool me in a blind side-by-side (maybe not in actual motion, but then again shooting film isn't just about a grain structure!)

 

Of course, a lot of this can be accomplished in a simple grading session, adding contrast.

 

 

I'd like to see a larger image, or it applied to a more challenging situation. Of course film is going to see far better into the highlights and digital far better in the shadows. The emulation can't add back shadow detail, or restore blown highlights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. Don't read into my smiley icon. I just can't resist their cuteness. ;)

 

I guess with that title I was hoping to get people who have an opinion about film and digital to look at the thread, check out the software and give me their opinion.

 

I had forgotten that it is a religious war with 2 camps:

  1. RED is awesome, it's better than film in every way and anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron LOL!!1!
  2. film is perfect and there is no scientific way we could ever possibly recreate it's MAGIC by any means other than plastic and chemicals!!!1!

 

I personally belong to a 3rd camp. I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive, and I like the advantages of shooting digital.

 

Is there anyone else out there? Or am I the only atheist in Kansas?

See, you've already started out with a misconception, FILM, IF you plan out the work, it just as cheap, if not cheaper than shooting digitally so you're not really an atheist, you're a digital fanatic in politically correct clothing. And as for making digital look like film, it's impossible. Digital looks like digital, and film looks like film. You like the advantages of shooting on digital, own it. Shoot digital. BUT If you want the look of film, shoot film because there is NO OTHER WAY to get that look so you have to deal with the needs of film. This dicussion is nothing more than yet another film vs. digital flame fest. Just let it go and shoot what you want but don't make some bold, been said a thousand times before statement that digital is JUST THE SAME as film, 'cause it's not and never will be. Not saving it's any better or any worse, just different. YOU prefer digital, just say it and move on or better yet, just shoot it and don't mention it at all. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These exchanges are getting boring!

 

Why, oh why, cannot it not be accepted that those who prefer to record images in digital form for whatever reason are free to do so, and those who prefer to record them on film are also free to do so? Instead, we get "discussions" which are more often than not merely an attempt to present what in reality can only be a subjective view as though it is an objective view, or what is nothing more than opinion as though it is fact? Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"? Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production?

 

I just wonder whether those who start such "discussions" are trying to convince themselves of what they say they believe, rather than others.

Edited by Robert Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to add my point of view; In a 'professional' environment where people are getting paid for their skills and talents shooting digital is not always as cheap cheap as people make out though for many it's easier. Few think about 'real' things like labour and other resources such as transport and insurances, which are the most costly elements of any production, in most cases stock is a very small part of production costs. I know many people who have switched to digital from film believing that digital is cheaper, but in all cases the costs for shooting digital keeps going up.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite amusing that everyone defaults to thinking this is a film/digital argument!

 

Don't people realise that this is a software that Nigel's company has written? It's just an opportunity to get feedback. It maps color at the debayer stage of the R3D files and is really rather good.

 

First post long time reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think What Nigel was saying is that for the smaller productions that can get a digital camera thrown in the mix for a part of the DP's rate, film is way out of reach. As the budget's become more legit, that gap seems to shrink rapidly. BUT, try convincing a penny-pinching producer who questions your choice to rent HMI's for a shoot or better yet, hire a 1st AC AND a 2nd, that the project could be shot on film for about the same amount of cash.

Edited by David Desio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think What Nigel was saying is that for the smaller productions that can get a digital camera thrown in the mix for a part of the DP's rate, film is way out of reach. As the budget's become more legit, that gap seems to shrink rapidly. BUT, try convincing a penny-pinching producer who questions your choice to rent HMI's for a shoot or better yet, hire a 1st AC AND a 2nd, that the project could be shot on film for about the same amount of cash.

 

David, me thinks you should not deal with such Producers if you actually want to make a living. As you know, Profit = Revenue - Expenses. And the wear and tear on your gear makes you very unlikely to profit if you are getting a low rate to begin with. I would think all DPs would push for film as a sort of test of what class of Producer you are working with. Unless of course you like being a bottom feeder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, fair enough.

 

 

Looking at the differences between the emulator and V3, they are a pretty good match, dare I say it enough to fool me in a blind side-by-side (maybe not in actual motion, but then again shooting film isn't just about a grain structure!)

 

Of course, a lot of this can be accomplished in a simple grading session, adding contrast.

 

 

I'd like to see a larger image, or it applied to a more challenging situation. Of course film is going to see far better into the highlights and digital far better in the shadows. The emulation can't add back shadow detail, or restore blown highlights.

Thanks for the feedback.

I have a video here so you can see it in motion 1080p.

 

It's true that we can't add back shadow or highlight detail, and the non mx doesn't really have that many stops, but the MX and alexa are so close as to make dynamic range a moot point i think.

 

I have now shot color charts from black to blown out for 23 different stocks and 8 digital cameras. One day soon I'll write a blog post about it.

 

And yeas, you can do all this in grading if you're talented enough. Like most things, this is just designed to save you time.

Edited by Nigel Stanford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite amusing that everyone defaults to thinking this is a film/digital argument!

 

Don't people realise that this is a software that Nigel's company has written? It's just an opportunity to get feedback. It maps color at the debayer stage of the R3D files and is really rather good.

 

First post long time reader.

 

I was asking for it with that title, I realize that now! Lesson learned :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I disagree that the MX or Alexa are "there." You run into problems with color space (not that it doesn't get chopped off with film scanning anyway) and blown highlights with the best digital cameras. It seems they've worked very very hard to avoid this in the test footage.

 

In the real world, it isn't nearly as easy to avoid clipping. It seems, from what I've seen in the test, they exposed the SPARKS to get detail back out. Even if the software were so great it could guess detail, or pull severely overexposed details out of crummy scans, clipped images, in that case there would be noise if it were severely blown out and brought back.

 

 

Will have to take a look at the footage when I have a better connection, but that should give a far better idea of the software's ability, especially if it is in HD without too much compression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These exchanges are getting boring!

 

Why, oh why, cannot it not be accepted that those who prefer to record images in digital form for whatever reason are free to do so, and those who prefer to record them on film are also free to do so? Instead, we get "discussions" which are more often than not merely an attempt to present what in reality can only be a subjective view as though it is an objective view, or what is nothing more than opinion as though it is fact? Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"? Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production?

 

I just wonder whether those who start such "discussions" are trying to convince themselves of what they say they believe, rather than others.

 

 

In a properly budgeted film, it IS more expensive than HD, about 10% on a low-budget shoot. Of course, if you expect to pay no wages, get deals make everything for free, the next "Clerks" (usually a delusion) it can be a lot more expensive. Personally I'd rather shoot digital than to expect to get everything for free/exploit people. If I were making a low-budget movie with friends who believed in it too, I'd still feel obligated to try to give them *SOMETHING*

 

Skilled labor shouldn't be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Skilled labor shouldn't be free.

 

Spoken like a true union man ;) Surprisingly, out here film projects are so rare (I mean film in the literal sense) that people would gladly work for free to be in front of a real cinema camera with stock in it instead of being in just one more DSLR movie. Seriously, it is sad. People on here always discuss RED vs Film or Alexa vs Film but the reality I see here all the time is more like DSLR vs Film which, to me, is not even a contest at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These exchanges are getting boring!

 

Why do those who so strongly hold the view that digital imagery is best themselves undermine their own proposition by acknowledging that they continue their endeavour to emulate their perception of the "qualities of film"?

 

I didn't say I think digital imagery is best. I think film looks nicer, or else why build a product to make digital look like film?

 

Why do they say things such as "I prefer the look of film but it's too expensive" when it is not supported by even the most simplest "cost benefit analysis" which propery takes into account capital and all other costs of production?

 

Really?

 

I produced a movie in 2007 shooting on a viper to uncompressed DPX, and backing each 30 minute magazine, about 350gb of data to an LTO3 tape twice. At the time, the tapes were about $80. So each 30 minutes cost $160 of materials. Shooting R3D is much much less data than uncompressed DPX.

 

I assume you know how much a 1000 foot roll and development costs.

 

How can this even be an argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

How can this even be an argument?

 

Nigel, I wouldnt open a can of worms that you cant close. Many people on this forum have shot with high end digital cameras and can tell you the true cost if you dont "know a guy" or ridiculous scenarios like that. Look at the price of rentals if you really dont think an argument is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even 16mm is $160 for TEN minutes.

 

 

Of course, what about rental costs, the TIME to back up the data, etc.

 

Another interesting point: You talk about backing up onto LTO tape twice. Assuming your movie's considered culturally valuable (or commercially valuable to a studio): How many times would you have had to back up SINCE then?

 

Unfortunately, budgeting never takes this into account. The amount of backing up that you DON'T have to do with film eventually pushes a certain amount of economic advantage back in its favor.

 

 

 

Current cost for 35mm is over $600 for as little as ten minutes (more like 8-9 reasonably) of shooting time. Then send 900 feet to the lab at $0.25 (is that a currently valid number?) for a $225 bill. Clean and prep for telecine sometimes extra, then the cost of a transfer or two. Easily approaching $200/minute after all is said and done. 16mm is probably nearly half that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The idea that film and digital are even vaguely cost competitive is absolutely ridiculous.

It is certainly most obvious at the low end, where the cheapest half-decent digital stuff (probably DSLRs right now) is so enormously cheaper than any sort of film the argument doesn't even have to be made.

At the high end the cameras are cost competitive with film but the stock is enormously cheaper. You do get into a rather sticky area with post because HDCAM-SR is an extremely expensive tape format, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who record silly formats then moan about posting them.

P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil: That's not true. There's definitely a price-point with 35mm short ends (yes I know we are so spoiled in the US, but hey, we MAKE the stuff so we ought to be a bit spoiled right?) and older cameras versus high-end digital where it can be really close.

 

DSLRs and HDV will still be cheaper, sure. But you can do a good job scrimping if you really want to.

 

You can still get 35mm ends for 10¢/foot if you are really thrifty. That will get you 6x the film for the same price if you are willing to forego those epic 11 minute shots ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...