RED ONE footage

[David Mullen ASC]

So, I'm asking. Will someone step up to the plate and start a dialogue on how the Red may be used by itself or in conjunction with XXX to enable a more organic look to the images it produces? Regardless of the medium, content is king. However, art is most effective in the cinematic world if it imitates life, especially in how the images are presented, captured, etc. So, again, how can the Red's potential be more effectively used to circumvent this byproduct of digital capture?

 

Can the Red Team, distinguished members of this forum, guests, or just anyone with an idea or potential solution weigh-in?

 

---

 

---Lets end the discussion about resolution right here and lets get rid of motion-blur. The only way to really have a better picture in the cinema is not by raising resolution from 2k to 4k (you'll only benefit from this when you are seated in the first 3 rows of most theaters anyway) but by by raising the speed of the images. Let's go to 100Hz. It'll be like looking out of the window.

 

Here is the confusion -- that somehow the goal of imagemaking is to "imitate life"... if that were the case, then is film really that good at it? A hyper-sharp, super-high frame rate grainless digital format may ultimately reproduce human vision more effectively. What we love about the look of film isn't necessarily how realistic it is.

 

"Organic look" is a nice artistic metaphor that we all sort of know what it means, but it is not a practical way of thinking about a technique to alter the inherent look of a process or medium. You have to be much more specific about what you mean -- is it the way that highlights roll off into overexposure? Is it how shadows fall into black? You have to take the time to breakdown the visual qualities you want to achieve in a very dry and technical manner, in terms of things that can be adjusted photographically, optically, or through post manipulation. Because no two people are going to define "organic" the same way.

 

I think dynamic range, contrast, particularly in the highlights, is a primary reason why people think digital images look less "organic" than film. The vivid, grainfree, sharp look (unless artificially sharpened) is less of a reason in my book -- afterall, IMAX images shot on film and projected still look like film, despite being hyper-sharp and clear. (On the other hand, a Kodachrome slide has poor dynamic range though someone might say that it looked "organic"... )

 

I think that digital has its own look, and if you don't like it, then you probably shouldn't shoot it. I'm not talking about bad digital with obvious artifacts, I'm talking about high-quality digital images. You can manipulate it however you want, in camera or in post, but it does have an inherent base image design to it that should be factored, just as Fuji Eterna has a basic look, or a Kodachrome slide, or 3-strip Technicolor, etc. You can emulate and imitate other processes or formats, but what you end up with is a hybrid look. It would probably be more sane and practical to not fight too hard against the nature of the process or format but use its essential qualities to your creative advantage.

[Maarten Treurniet]

Here is the confusion -- that somehow the goal of imagemaking is to "imitate life"... if that were the case, then is film really that good at it? A hyper-sharp, super-high frame rate grainless digital format may ultimately reproduce human vision more effectively. What we love about the look of film isn't necessarily how realistic it is.

---Very true but then we can also give up in terms of exploring new techniques and stick with film. In my opinion it is always good to find new ways of telling a story be it with higher frame rates or more resolution or for that matter 3d. All the major companies like Thompson, Sony, Phillips are busy exploring 3d. Does this mean the image is less organic when shooting 3d digitally than on film? No. It is just another way of telling your story. I would love to see heavy drama in 3d and then judge whether I am emotionaly involved or not. Is that too much of an effect to drag me into the storty or is it just something we have to get used to?

 

"Organic look" is a nice artistic metaphor that we all sort of know what it means, but it is not a practical way of thinking about a technique to alter the inherent look of a process or medium. You have to be much more specific about what you mean -- is it the way that highlights roll off into overexposure? Is it how shadows fall into black? You have to take the time to breakdown the visual qualities you want to achieve in a very dry and technical manner, in terms of things that can be adjusted photographically, optically, or through post manipulation. Because no two people are going to define "organic" the same way.

 

---Helas, I think that "organic" is what you got used to over the years. I think it will always be a matter of taste. But I thought the whole discussion was about what the next step would be. That it will be digital is no surprise to anybody but the real next step? 3d 100 Hz? Have you seen 100 Hz films? because there is a real difference there, no more obturation, no more motionblur and still controlable depth of field, no more headaches. And of course the Americans can go to 120 Hz. There has to be a difference

 

It would probably be more sane and practical to not fight too hard against the nature of the process or format but use its essential qualities to your creative advantage.

 

---Exactly my point.

 

Maarten

Director

[Brian Drysdale]

Getting 3D right is a big enough problem without adding the increased data rates required for 100HZ. I saw some material that had a hyper 3D "video game" effect, so getting "realistic" requires some thought in how you handle 3D.

 

I believe tests showed that 60 fps was the best balance for motion effect and costs.

[Seung Han]

I agree some of the images look a little vidoey especially in the highlights, but they also look epic, like this a large formidable canvas, I think that's exciting. And, like David Mullen is saying, Directors and DPs should approach these two mediums as different tools to tell different stories. I personally don't want my digital images to look filmic from an aesthetic point of view. I would be lying if I said I didn't worry about it though because of distribution and market forces, but as a visually creative person, I have seen many many beautiful images shot on digital. That is reality today. Many artists are making fantastic work in this format. A very small minority of them are Hollywood filmmakers, but just the fact some of the biggest Hollywood directors are adopting digital formats and workflows speaks volumes about how malleable digital is and will continue to advance in this manner. I think that's fantastic. I do understand why some people are getting hung up on the # of pixels, Bayering, Demosaic, etc...etc...but when I look at the footage coming out I can't complain.

 

RED is providing indinstinguishable resolution, similar DOF, backwards compatibility with 35mm and 16mm lenses and equipment, a very wide dynamic range for digital imaging, free firmware updates, hardware modularity and easier and more creative control in post at a much lower price point. This camera as a digital image capturing device is only going to get better with time again as a digital image capturing device. It will never one day turn into a 35mm film camera, and I personally don't want it to. And what can I say about other posters bringing up movies shot on film to patronize digital films, we have a hundred years of film movies and a handful of digital movies. I think that type of thinking is lazy and a little depressing.

 

Sometimes I wish shooting film was more inorganic :lol:

[Evan Owen]

I must admit, in this case, I'm not a fan. The image looks like the edges are too sharp and the lead singer has that weird 'I'm-standing-in-front-of-green-screened-footage' look that sometimes happens in video-land. The colors also seem to stand apart from one another too distinctly, whereas, in film they seem to bleed together in a more visually appealing manner. The depth of field (admittedly this is a composition thing and has nothing to do with Red) is not shallow enough for the shot nor deep enough - the drummer is distractingly there but annoyingly out of focus. What's more, the elements that are out of focus, for whatever reason, feel like photoshopped lens blur as opposed to the in-lens OOF feel. Finally, there is something that I can't quite put my finger on but that something seems to take away from the 'romantic' look that film tends to have. I know that's a virtually uselessly abstract statement so I'll try to make it more concrete:

 

Uhm... As sad as this is to say (and it's counter to a previous argument of mine), the elements that are in full focus (e.g., the microphone) seem to be too much in focus...they feel too sharp in a way that nothing is in film. This should, in theory, be a good thing but it reduces the world that was captured into a less attractive place; everything stands out in too much relief from everything else. It feels like the image doesn't exist as one.

 

I've been thinking about this whole "film vs. video" thing, because I know what you mean. Even with RED footage, as nice as it is, there's a definite difference (some would say lack) compared with film. I think your description pretty much nails it on the head. At the same time, I'm not sure it's such a bad thing. Hear me out.

 

At this point, the main quantifiable difference between RED footage and film is grain. There are other differences, but not as obvious. If you think about it, film grain has a tendency to pull a scene together. Grain is visible whether the image is in focus or not, so it's the only element that's always present in the image no matter the content of the shot. It smooths the edges between the in-focus elements of the image and the out-of-focus elements. When there's no grain, there's no common denominator to pull the image together in the same way. If it's out of focus, it's completely out of focus with no detail at all, grain or otherwise, hence your feeling that it looked photoshopped. The borders between in focus portions and out-of-focus portions will be just as sharp and defined as they are in real-life (ie. the light coming into the lens), with no grain to soften the edges.

 

I don't think there's anything else "inherent" to an image captured on film that's exclusive to the film realm. For instance, by the time a digital scan has been made, it's already been divided up into square pixels, so the "infinitely variable" argument is gone.

 

It seems to me it's the grain that people are missing in all these digital images. While I can definitely see and understand the positive affect grain can have on an image, I DON'T see why starting with a clean image is a problem. Grain is a subtle element, and one that CAN be effectively introduced in post, if that's what you want. It's being done all the time, and no one has been noticing or complaining. A clean image just gives the artist more room to work, and in my opinion, that's never a bad thing.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Evan Owen

[John Sprung]

I believe tests showed that 60 fps was the best balance for motion effect and costs.

60 fps is what Doug Trumbull used, mainly because that was as fast as he could run an intermittent sprocket film projector without trashing the prints. Gary Demos took a look at high frame rates for HD about ten years ago. His conclusion was that 72 was much better than 60, and that there might well be advantages to going even faster. Even at those rates, though, motion blur is still an absolute necessity. Without it, there is no illusion of motion.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michel Hafner]

I think that digital has its own look, and if you don't like it, then you probably shouldn't shoot it. I'm not talking about bad digital with obvious artifacts, I'm talking about high-quality digital images.

But what is that look? And what has it got to do with the digital nature of the image? If you make a 4K DI from 35mm or 70mm negative, does the data have the/a digital look or the/a film look? Both? Neither? And why?

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Hi.

 

With all respect Mr Mullen, I have to disagree with the statement "Here is the confusion -- that somehow the goal of imagemaking is to "imitate life"" I am not confused, and it does not adress the sentiment behind my post. There are many opinions, views, perspectives, etc. on what is and is not art. I'm not entering into that debate here, because it is not relevant to this discussion at this point.

 

I do understand that perhaps my post had some degree of vagueness but I was inviting dialogue, since it seems everyone else was going off on a tangent and I wanted to bring the discussion back to something more pertinent.

 

Maybe I should have said, "Cinema is about expressing something about the human condition in a visual way, where the intimate or unobvious becomes exterior or obvious," but, I was not trying to get this thread off course again.

 

I am merely trying to ask what can be done to emulate what is the standard - the convention, at present in terms of cinematic storytelling is film - with the Red understanding that is is not the same as film and it does have its own unique strengths and weaknesses, among them its look, resolution, etc.

 

A lot of what Mr. Mullen says I agree with, in terms of the qualities of the images, but how can we see great digital art which rival paintings and are accepted but yet the HD video we see so far, does not truly capture our imaginations quite so easily?

 

Evan mentions grain. Perhaps this is a fundamental difference which may not be ever totally bridged, but what can we do now? Are there any options aside from prime lenses, production value, lighting, etc.?

 

Organic is a term often used and misused, perhaps I should have added in my usage I am mostly referring to the fact that film renders images in a more graduated and appealing way, with less sharply delineated lines and is therefore more pleasing to the eye. Straight lines do not naturally occur in nature, or that's what I've learnt in some of my classes; things are more or less curved in nature.

 

So, we have somethign going here, maybe some others can weigh in? I'd like to learn some more what everyone thinks?

 

K.

[John Sprung]

I am merely trying to ask what can be done to emulate what is the standard - the convention, at present in terms of cinematic storytelling is film - with the Red

The way to approach this is to start with production design, actors, makeup, hair, wardrobe -- the whole nine yards of putting marvelous things in front of the camera -- much like the STEM tests. Light the scene for film, and put a Red side by side with a film camera. Look at the lighting, and see what you might want to adjust for the Red. Shoot a side by side test, scan the film, and look at them side by side in the DI world. See in timing how far you can take them both in various directions. That sort of experience is probably the fastest way for people to get comfortable with this new tool -- kinda like driving a new car and getting used to its limits and strengths.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tim Brown]

I've always felt the difference between electronic imagery and those created on film was the lack of depth in the former. To me it seems that the suspended salts, when exposed to light, create a sense of depth that is yet to be replicated with electronic capture. Digitally captured images seem to lack the inherent 'shading' created by exposure and the interaction of the individual salts and their interaction with their adjacent crystals. Perhaps this also lends itself to the more pleasing roll-off that is credited for making film seem more organic.

[Seung Han]

The main argument opponents of digital imagery always settle back on is that the harshness or 'inorganic' quality of digital images disspells the illusion necessary to stitch the viewer to the narrative. Like many cinematic techniques that cause the audience to become self aware like narrative devices of voice overs or editing techniques such as an unusually long shot without a reverse cut, digital images cause viewers to become self-conscious of their act of viewing creating a sense of crisis as they consciously identify themselves as voyeurs. To me, this level of dramatic irony where the viewer sees the line between themselves and the narrative fits with the aesthetics of today's audience. Even the younger generation is over-educated in movie viewing in terms of genres, plot points, visual techniques, music cues, etc...etc...to the point of being jaded.

 

I mean I just watched Bourne Ultimatum and it was two hours of jittery hand-held ad nauseum making me always aware that I was watching a technique but strangely enough I grew accustomed to it and somehow enjoyed the story. Still, my eyes have never felt so tired.

 

I think when digital films first came on the scene, it challenged many viewers to overcome this feeling of format alienation to actually make the leap of faith and lose oneself in the story, films like The Celebration or The Blair Witch Project. If these films successfully captured the audience's imagination then they were propped up and lionized as examples of why digital films were legitimate. Still, there was that process of the viewer actively reaching beyond the 'inorganic' format to lose oneself in a fantasy. Again, filmmakers were challenged to prove their content could either trump the poorer format or use it to situate the viewer in new areas of aesthetic pleasure the film aesthetic could never create, digital films like Visitor Q or Love Pop.

 

I think this line of irony is slipping as digital becomes easier to manipulate for certain visual artists to approximate the images in their mind's eye and as the format becomes another been there done that aspect of films for today's jaded audience.

 

For me, some of my favorite films are the ones that challenge the viewer to actively participate in the narrative, leaving room for me to formulate theories outside of what the plot points might dictate. I think the great storytellers always give the audience a 'little room' or a 'little distance' to make them actively take that 'leap of faith.' Sometimes they do this by narrative devices, but many times they do it with technical elements of filmmaking...

[Michel Hafner]

I've always felt the difference between electronic imagery and those created on film was the lack of depth in the former. To me it seems that the suspended salts, when exposed to light, create a sense of depth that is yet to be replicated with electronic capture. Digitally captured images seem to lack the inherent 'shading' created by exposure and the interaction of the individual salts and their interaction with their adjacent crystals. Perhaps this also lends itself to the more pleasing roll-off that is credited for making film seem more organic.

If that 'organic' look survives scanning then data can have the same look. So the problem comes down to finding the processing necessary to turn clean digitally captured footage in less clean 'organic' looking footage of the scanned from film variety. So, does the organic look survive scanning at 2K? 3K? 4K? XK? If not the conclusion is that any DI process is inherently damaging to the film look and we better turn the wheel of time back 10 years to save 'film'.

We have people here working at post houses who do DI daily. They must have an (informed) opinion. What is it???

[Robin Buday]

If that 'organic' look survives scanning then data can have the same look. So the problem comes down to finding the processing necessary to turn clean digitally captured footage in less clean 'organic' looking footage of the scanned from film variety. So, does the organic look survive scanning at 2K? 3K? 4K? XK? If not the conclusion is that any DI process is inherently damaging to the film look and we better turn the wheel of time back 10 years to save 'film'.

We have people here working at post houses who do DI daily. They must have an (informed) opinion. What is it???

 

The film's "organic" look IS preserved with DI because it originated on film. If it originates on film it will always look like film. You are correct though in suggesting that data will eventually be able to achieve the same look. There are people here that will doubt this till their deaths and given the history of film and digital, they are right in assuming so. I can tell you from working with all sort of material every day that it is impossible to deny that with each passing year we get closer and closer to emulating the look and it is my opinion that eventually the two won't be able to be told apart.

[Evan Owen]

The film's "organic" look IS preserved with DI because it originated on film. If it originates on film it will always look like film.

 

Great point Robin. I expected someone to bring this up eventually, and it proves a very good point. If the film look IS preserved through a DI, then the look is most definitely an addition made by the film process and isn't somehow just a more lifelike representation of reality. If a digital scan can accurately preserve the look of film, there's no reason a digital sensor can't accurately preserve the 'look' of reality when focused through a camera lens.

 

Logically then, as long as the 'look' of film can be accurately added in post, there isn't any disadvantage to shooting digitally in the first place.

 

[EDIT] Sorry, that's exactly what you and Michel were saying. Missed that.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Evan Owen

[Robin Buday]

Logically then, as long as the 'look' of film can be accurately added in post, there isn't any disadvantage to shooting digitally in the first place.

 

Well, I would disagree here. Depending on the type of shooting you are doing film still has many advantages in terms of sheer image quality. There are digital solutions that achieve a more filmic looking image then most generic video cameras but if you want the look of film shoot with film. No amount of post processing will get you the same image as a clean 35mm negative. That being said, we are nearing the point where this won't be the case but we are not there yet. In my best estimation I would give it 2-5 years but I've been wrong before. My personal favorite of these solutions is the HVX. There are people on this board who will disagree with me (e.g. Adam Thompson) but there is no argument that for the money the HVX produces the most filmic looking video images you can get. If money is no option I would look into the Phantom series of cameras. They look very promising in this regard. Also, keep your eye on RED. I estimate within a year we will start seeing some very "filmic" looking images from that camera.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Robin Buday

[Brian Drysdale]

My personal favorite of these solutions is the HVX. There are people on this board who will disagree with me (e.g. Adam Thompson) but there is no argument that for the money the HVX produces the most filmic looking video images you can get.

 

There are many who say the JVC HD100/200/250 series produces the most filmic images of the small cameras. However, everyone is entiltled to their own opinion.

[Robin Buday]

There are many who say the JVC HD100/200/250 series produces the most filmic images of the small cameras. However, everyone is entiltled to their own opinion.

 

Note the "for the money" line in there...

[Brian Drysdale]

Note the "for the money" line in there...

 

Not much difference cost wise between a HVX 200 and the JVC cameras (except the HD 250), especially once you add the P2 cards.

[Evan Owen]

Not much difference cost wise between a HVX 200 and the JVC cameras (except the HD 250), especially once you add the P2 cards.

 

And these are more 'filmic' than what we're seeing from RED?

 

I guess I need to reevaluate what I consider to be a film look...

Edited September 20, 2007 by Evan Owen

[Mike Brennan]

Can someone point me to the data/poll/survey that proves audiences prefer film acquired and projected images over digital?

Surely Kodak ASC Arri would have brought such a study to our attention by now?

 

 

A USA university ( I think MIT) conducted a study showing a narrative story on both film vs electronic and the audience actually prefered the electronic.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that digital cinemas in multiplexes have higher sales , despite less dynamic range.

 

 

 

I do understand that the term "organic look" is often used to describe the look of film, but it is hardly a descriptive term and is well past its sell by date.

These days "organic" conjurs up the "natural" and "chemical free" so the film process is hardly that!

 

Turning the tables, CMOS and CCDs are made of sand and effected like film by electrons so they too can be described as being organic.

 

 

The repeated use of the phrase obfuscates rather than illuminates.

 

Doug Slocombe prefers 60fps to reduce the flicker, we all prefer the tight grain and resolution of 65mm to 35mm, put the two together and you get a smooth flicker free image that is more like digital than 24fps 35mm film.

 

Film grain evokes a particular look and has its place in the same way a soft filter, noir lighting or fast editing has a role.

 

What I have seen of RED so far doesn't raise digital into a new plane of dynamic range, but the resolution and 12bit recording are impressive steps forward. A 14bit AD would help a little.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Max Jacoby]

Can someone point me to the data/poll/survey that proves audiences prefer film acquired and projected images over digital?

Surely Kodak ASC Arri would have brought such a study to our attention by now?

I seem to recall reading about such a survey. Maybe in an old edition of Arrinews. The result was that the majority of people preferred film images to digital ones.

[Michel Hafner]

Well, I would disagree here. Depending on the type of shooting you are doing film still has many advantages in terms of sheer image quality.

Can you be more specifc here? I understand film has still more dynamic range (or at least clips less easily) than Red, but Red has (far) cleaner shadow detail and an overall lack of noise typical 35mm motion picture negative used these days (not low ASA) does not have. So where is 35mm film ahead? I doubt concerning spatial resolution. Colorimetry, gamut? Motion rendition?

Let's say we have 16 bit demosaiced Red footage, exposed for maximal information content, no clipping. We grade and apply the film S curve to it and add some simulated grain typical of negative stock used these days. We shoot the same subject on film, scan at 4K and grade accordingly. We watch both on the Sony 4K projector and both on 35mm filmout. In what respect would the film be 'higher quality' or, put differently, what would look different on the film originated version justifying the term 'better'?

Edited September 20, 2007 by Michel Hafner

[Walter Graff]

I read a Canadian study that was made to determine which form of projection theatergoers preferred. If the projection was digital and they were told it was ?digital,? they preferred that to the film projection. And if the projection was film and they were told it was ?digital,? they preferred the film. So in the end they always preferred ?digital projection? regardless of what they were watching. But it's all a silly conversation as I see it. I go to the movies for a story. If that study showed folks a good movie and a bad movie, both in digital and in film projection, they'd always pick the better story regardless of the method. Bickering over minutia doesn't make a movie better or worse, just deflects from good movie making. Since most folks these days seem to be garage moviemakers, I understand their need to feel as if the tools they use and the technical side is as close to reel moviemaking as it can be. I mean who wants to wear a bad looking faux pa mink that doesn't look like the real thing? Manufactures have deflected reality for a bunch of specs and sadly most of you fall victim to it. Red offers more, no doubt. But in the end is that "more" really anything that will alter the experience? I don't think so. As filmmakers we always want to acquire as best we can, but at some point you just have to realize that you've hit a threshold and anything more is just for your own insecurity or badge of honor. When they broke the sound barrier they had a milestone. As some of those involved in the program said, after that, the goal simply became about more, but it meant little in reality.

[Mark Williams]

I think as a film maker you decide the format you want to shoot on because at the end of the day its the shirt on your back your gonna lose. You want to sell your film and create massive interest then youd better at least be able to see whats looking the best. People wont neccesarly know why they like a certain film. If they did then we'd all be rich?

 

I know one thing if I was making a film I certainly wouldnt risk my possible future. Even if it meant saving twenty grand. Some like Lucas are lucky enough to take risks whatever happens they will still get a loyal fan audience.

 

Will you?

[Jamie Lewis]

I seem to recall reading about such a survey. Maybe in an old edition of Arrinews. The result was that the majority of people preferred film images to digital ones.

 

I'm guessing that it was about off the shelf digital compared to film because I'll bet my entire life savings, and future earnings, that the "majority" cannot tell the difference between a film that was shot on film or one that was shot digitally (Miami Vice, Sin City, Once Upon a Time In Mexico, etc.)