RED ONE footage

[Max Jacoby]

Ok I found it. It's in ArriNews 04/2002.

 

They showed the Arri comparison test film 'Circle of Love' (which has the same scenes shot on 35mm and on the F900) to a test audience. About a third of the people were filmmakers, the other two-thirds not. They were asked to judge specific criteria and in 38 out of 55 instances people prefered film.

 

Anyone interested in reading the whole article can find it on the Arri website in the downloads section.

[Jamie Lewis]

Ok I found it. It's in ArriNews 04/2002.

 

They showed the Arri comparison test film 'Circle of Love' (which has the same scenes shot on 35mm and on the F900) to a test audience. About a third of the people were filmmakers, the other two-thirds not. They were asked to judge specific criteria and in 38 out of 55 instances people prefered film.

 

Anyone interested in reading the whole article can find it on the Arri website in the downloads section.

 

There is no listing for 04/2002 on Arri's website.

http://www.arri.com/entry/newsletter.htm

[Toby L Edwards]

(Quote)

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.)

 

Yes most people can't tell you the difference. But they say it looked fake or the people looked plastic. They don't know why or care.

So if a person is sitting in the theater thinking something looks different or fake then as a filmmaker you just lost them.

I made it about half way through "Apocolipto" befor I noticed it looked a bit flat. Sure enough it's Digital.

Toby

[John Holland]

I am afraid most movies shot on film and go through the [ seems] standard 2k DI look plastic and like cheap video ,what a waste of 35mm film . I think labs have realised that they will be going out of business in the not to distance future and push DI as cure all wonderful system ,which makes them loads of dosh , it stinks.

[Max Jacoby]

There is no listing for 04/2002 on Arri's website.

http://www.arri.com/entry/newsletter.htm

That's the wrong link, you have to go to the Products - Downloads section.

[Patrick Neary]

I am afraid most movies shot on film and go through the [ seems] standard 2k DI look plastic and like cheap video ,what a waste of 35mm film . I think labs have realised that they will be going out of business in the not to distance future and push DI as cure all wonderful system ,which makes them loads of dosh , it stinks.

 

Although I wonder how much of that is because of the process of going back to a film print for exhibition.

 

I saw Superman (the Genesis one) digitally projected, and sure enough, plastic skin- but the previews, most of which had been shot on film, scanned, and now were being digitally projected, looked great. They kept the very organic nature of the stocks they shot on, color was great, but lost all of the crappy elements of film-print projection, the dirt, scratches, jumpiness, etc.

[Evan Winter]

Hey Jamie,

 

This is just one example, so take it with a large grain of salt, but my mom saw Miami Vice in theaters and when I asked her if she liked it she said, "Well, it was pretty good. But it looked different from most movies". Not saying she preferred the look or anything but in this day and age I believe the average moviegoer can sense something 'different' when watching digitally originated films.

 

Evan W

Edited September 20, 2007 by Evan Winter

[Evan Owen]

That's the wrong link, you have to go to the Products - Downloads section.

 

Max, that's a very interesting article. Thanks for the info.

 

I have to wonder though (since this is the RED forum) how much a comparison of the F900 versus 35mm will tell us about how RED will perform under similar scrutiny.

 

While the vast majority of the problems with 24p footage that the article was citing were rather subjective, it was quite obvious from the blow-ups that the F900 footage was soft, flat and noisy. These problems are quite common with modern digital cinema cameras. Yes, in the past digital hasn't stood up to film very well in any way except MAYBE workflow. However, what I've seen so far from RED tells me they've overcome most of the remaining limitations.

 

I'd love to see a side-by-side of 35mm and RED.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Evan Owen

[John Holland]

Patrick , until all or most cinemas have digital projection we are going to see film prints put through a DI , which really isnt needed most of the time .

[Jamie Lewis]

That's the wrong link, you have to go to the Products - Downloads section.

 

If the digital river shot is what they showed, no wonder why people didn't like it. The red is so incredibly off it's ridiculous.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

I think it would be great to see a properly staged comparison of the Red versus all of the other HD Cameras available, and also 16mm, Super16mm, 35mm, Super 35mm. This would allow each of us to make a subjective decision about how we can use the Red, and I think would go a long way to showing what to expect from it.

 

Although I also am of the opinion that at present Film Origination has an edge, I'm not going to lose any sleep if Digital acquisition advances beyond film and then becomes the standard. I'm a filmmaker, all I want are the tools which can help me tell my story in the best way possible.

 

K.

[Brian Drysdale]

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...

 

I don't know why HVX was bought up other than a filmic look for the price. My response was that the JVCs were regarded by many to be the most filmic looking in that price bracket.

 

It's nothing to do with how RED looks.

[Evan Owen]

I don't know why HVX was bought up other than a filmic look for the price. My response was that the JVCs were regarded by many to be the most filmic looking in that price bracket.

 

It's nothing to do with how RED looks.

 

OK, got it.

 

I was responding to this:

 

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.

...

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.

 

.. but I guess I missed "for the money", and I'm still not sure I agree with that anyway...

[John Sprung]

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.

Actually, both silicon and silver halides are inorganic. Cellulose acetate and gelatin are organic. The dyes and couplers I think are mostly organic, John Pytlak would have known for sure. You're right, that's not the important thing.

 

The difference that really matters is that film grains are random in size, shape, and distribution. Photosites on a chip are arranged in regular patterns. Compare really big negatives with really big chips -- say Imax with Lockheed-Martin -- and that difference loses significance.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

Rather than using the words natural or organic looking I think we need something that looks more anthropomorphic.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Something that looks more human? What's your context? Or in what way?

[Guest]

"Although I also am of the opinion that at present Film Origination has an edge, I'm not going to lose any sleep if Digital acquisition advances beyond film and then becomes the standard. I'm a filmmaker, all I want are the tools which can help me tell my story in the best way possible."

 

Isn't the medium the message?

 

R,

[David Sweetman]

Isn't the medium the message?

 

R,

... maybe you could make that argument within some avant-garde application of the motion image where the image itself (without symbols or narrative) comprises the extent of the content. Otherwise while the film cannot get away from it's own thingliness, it must be something beyond or above this thingliness which causes us to call it art or to recognize its message. Maybe I misunderstand your statement, but it seems to me that even when the image is of primary importance, the medium is still just a means to get to that image (supposing that the image is designed to convey an idea). So it wouldn't be the medium, but the image and how we interpret it that conveys the message.

 

Also if cinema is a kind of communication, then the filmmaker encodes and the audience decodes through various levels of noise. If this is so, then just as in other types of communication (i.e. written word), communication can be successfully completed by any means which allow the idea to be encoded and decoded, even if the medium with which it is encoded introduces (either purposefully or accidentally) extra amounts of noise (that is, abstraction and confusion).

 

Don't get me wrong, medium is huge, after all, you can't ever get away from it. But that's why I think I could cope with fewer options. (erm, that's why I DO cope with fewer options. Sure I'd love to shoot 35, but not for 4x the cost of 16 at this point!)

Edited September 21, 2007 by David Sweetman

[Mark Williams]

Actually, both silicon and silver halides are inorganic. Cellulose acetate and gelatin are organic. The dyes and couplers I think are mostly organic, John Pytlak would have known for sure. You're right, that's not the important thing.

 

The difference that really matters is that film grains are random in size, shape, and distribution. Photosites on a chip are arranged in regular patterns. Compare really big negatives with really big chips -- say Imax with Lockheed-Martin -- and that difference loses significance.

-- J.S.

The difference is the way light is measured and represented and thats what makes your picture Digital uses rectangular boxes millions of them with everyone being the exact same size and every box only able to represent one colour In Film every silver halide is a different size and shape able to have gradations in colour. This means every frame can have an infinate combination of building block IE Pixel or Grain.

 

This we all know and yet some try to play this fact down as meaningless undermining words used to describe it. The fact is the way film is represented is so far more complicated and different DIGITAL WILL NEVER EVER be able to imitate it. So the film look from digital is not an option. Transferring film to digital is a great way to represent film for new media like HD TV etc. Even for FX films It does convey the Filmic image.

 

Scanning an already made image is different to capturing that image from the real world.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Mark Collins

[Michel Hafner]

The difference is the way light is measured and represented and thats what makes your picture Digital uses rectangular boxes millions of them with everyone being the exact same size and every box only able to represent one colour In Film every silver halide is a different size and shape able to have gradations in colour. This means every frame can have an infinate combination of building block IE Pixel or Grain.

Every 'box' is able to represent one color out of millions or even billions. Not so every grain. Grains must work together to create the image with density variations. Another principle, sure, but not superior by design. You use more picture elements with lower variability when you use grain, hoping the large number makes up for the lack of possibilities within one grain. It's a dithering approach with stochastic properties, a noise level (we all see every day watching film), a usable dynamic range and resolving power. And there is a fixed pixel grid digital equivalent with the same noise level, dynamic range and resolving power. The interesting part is only what the technical parameters must be for that digital equivalent, or for something that is better.

This we all know and yet some try to play this fact down as meaningless undermining words used to describe it. The fact is the way film is represented is so far more complicated and different DIGITAL WILL NEVER EVER be able to imitate it.

Here you err. Digital does not have to imitate film by simulating grain down to individual grains. It's enough to capture the overall effect of all these grains to the extent that it looks the same to the human visual system. Not more, not less. And technically it seems quite clear these days that 4K digital with at most 16 bit sample depth has all the relevant information to do exactly that for 35mm negative. Differences remain color wise since film is subtractive and digital data and projection is using an additive model. But that is not a grain or digital issue per se.

So the film look from digital is not an option. Transferring film to digital is a great way to represent film for new media like HD TV etc. Even for FX films It does convey the Filmic image.

Scanning an already made image is different to capturing that image from the real world.

Actually not in principle. If you can scan it you can create it if you start with enough information. Whether somebody actually even wants to mimic film exactly once 4K footage from Red etc. is more common is another question altogether.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Michel Hafner

[Michel Hafner]

I'd love to see a side-by-side of 35mm and RED.

There was plenty of that at IBC 2007. Although from a 4K projector with ~2000:1 contrast which is limiting (in the contrast department). Let's just say that none of the 35mm stuff had the detail of Red or Dalsa footage or did blow the digitally originated footage away in any way I could see. On the other hand, we never saw any film natively there. And it was by no means a scientific comparison with strict procedures and a controlled environment. That kind of comparison will surely be made more and more though in the future, including simulating film looks with digital footage and the results will be 'interesting'. :)

[Alessandro Machi]

"Although I also am of the opinion that at present Film Origination has an edge, I'm not going to lose any sleep if Digital acquisition advances beyond film and then becomes the standard. I'm a filmmaker, all I want are the tools which can help me tell my story in the best way possible."

 

Isn't the medium the message?

 

R,

 

I like both.

[Mark Williams]

Every 'box' is able to represent one color out of millions or even billions. Not so every grain. Grains must work together to create the image with density variations. Another principle, sure, but not superior by design. You use more picture elements with lower variability when you use grain, hoping the large number makes up for the lack of possibilities within one grain. It's a dithering approach with stochastic properties, a noise level (we all see every day watching film), a usable dynamic range and resolving power. And there is a fixed pixel grid digital equivalent with the same noise level, dynamic range and resolving power. The interesting part is only what the technical parameters must be for that digital equivalent, or for something that is better.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Film is composed of microdots of silver or dye. In a color film, these dots are analog in density gradation, but in B&W are more 'digital'. The average image on a 35mm film can have details in the 1 - 10 micron range, and the dots can be as small as 1 micron.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Here you err. Digital does not have to imitate film by simulating grain down to individual grains. It's enough to capture the overall effect of all these grains to the extent that it looks the same to the human visual system. Not more, not less. And technically it seems quite clear these days that 4K digital with at most 16 bit sample depth has all the relevant information to do exactly that for 35mm negative.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scanning a Film image is a different process

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Actually not in principle. If you can scan it you can create it if you start with enough information. Whether somebody actually even wants to mimic film exactly once 4K footage from Red etc. is more common is another question altogether.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No its not the same at all Digital Film cameras capture film entirely different

[Krystian Ramlogan]

The medium is not the message, it is the means by which you get the message sent to your target. Certainly, you cannot always separate the message from the properties of its medium, but they are two distinct things.

 

Although the medium is very important, the content is still the critical element otherwise every movie shot on film would be a hit, and every movie shot on digital would suck. That is not the case, and I believe there is room for both to co-exist happily. More importantly, we should welcome and embrace anything that advances the art, the craft, and the language of cinema.

 

Yes, we should be critical and studied in our appraisal and evaluation of new technologies, but we should not be close minded or inflexible; BTW, I'm not saying anyone here is close-minded or inflexible.

 

For the moving image, we've seen many different mediums: everything from film to video (whether vhs or HD) each of which has its own aesthetic. Every individual likes a particular aesthetic, but generally certain mediums have become associated with specific things, like film for cinema and video for broadcast. That old delineation is now changing and we see a convergence where both film and video can exist in either industry; it now boils down to choice, which is itself predicated on many varying factors, whether cost, preference, style, aesthetic, etc.

 

I don't think anyone can argue the potential the Red possesses as an additional tool, but I'm also sure that it is too early to really ascertain what Red's aesthetic properties truly are, and where/how it/they will fit into our lexicon. It's only now coming out of its birthing period. Celluloid has had years of development and therefore a significant head start. At this point, I'm sure most if not all of us, remember that it took lots of personal experimentation, in addition to screening many films, multiple times, to really figure out how we react as individuals to certain film stocks, and to also be insightful enough to know why we chose one film stock over the other. I suggest that with HD, and the Red, such experimentation and introspection will lead to a wider and more appreciative understanding of how they can be used effectively. Of course, that implies we're going to use it and subject it to the rigors of production under best and worst case scenarios.

 

Debating Film vs Red or HD is not really going to get us anywhere, because it's just an analogy to analogue vs digital. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, it's up to us as rational and creative persons to utilize either medium in the best way possible to achieve our intended goal. With that said, my personal preference right now is still film. But, I'm open to changing that when I see something that appeals to me more.

 

K.

[Mark Williams]

Well its my belief many films shot on HD would have looked even better on 35mm Star wars for example.