Jump to content

Digital vs Film as it stands right now


Jason Anderson

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Karl just to keep you happy i am sure Fuji will have a race horse up and running . :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

 

These emoticons are addictive!

 

Sorry to hijack this thread, but does anyone know how Dark Knight will be released in regular theatres? Did they do the opposite thing and contact-print all the 35mm and scan the 65mm? Or is it a down-resed version of the whole thing scanned?

 

Let me weigh in as a still photographer. Portra 400 35mm 8 perf. resolves between 12-24 megapixels, depending on what you're talking about. In terms of spatial resolution, it's near let's say 12 MP. In terms of color resolution, it is near the top end, probably double of what digital can do in terms of bit-depth.

 

So that'd make 4-perf 35mm 5218 somewhere in the realm of 3 or 4 K. 5201 is easily a 4K resolving stock, or more. You're lucky that you can get a negative film slower than 160 ASA in the film industry. We're stuck with 160 "slow" pro films and 100 "slow" amateur films that were still being referred to as "fast" 30 years ago.

 

You have to keep in mind that a 2K scan is NOT getting a true 2K worth of information, maybe 1.5K with the best scanner, and then there are three generations of optical duplication on top of that, which totally eats up your image resolution. Scanners have the same sort of resolution loss inherent as with lens-based optical printing, because THEY HAVE LENSES TOO. So sure, 5218 is under 4K of spatial resolution, but you need a 6- or 8K scan to truly get at 4K of true scan and not just scanner noise.

 

The digital camp shouldn't be holding the fact that scanner resolutions are still doing a bad job with film against film. The digital camera companies are the same guys making the scanners.

 

The target they should be aiming for is a straight optical print, or a "0th generation" print from a film recorder from a 4- or 6K scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
"Soon, I'm not going to be answering questions about film because I won't know. It will be too small for me to get involved."

Antonio Perez

CEO

Kodak

 

Kodak is, since years, heading towards to digital and away from film.

Financial Times:

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?ne...520061604394761

 

Hi Jan,

 

Even their film emulsions are looking boring just trying to be like grain-less video, luckily Fuji has some interesting stocks for those of us who are interested & can see the difference.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the exact number, but my point is that for such a big number of cameras available the amount that is actually used on proper budgeted projects (i.e. anything that has enough money to shoot on whatever format they like) is still small.

No matter if A-budget fullfeature or commercial - the reds are since they became available

The Red is mostly replacing HVX and the likes, not 35mm cameras.

Really, the only digital camera that is established on Hollywood films as a main camera is the Genesis, with the Arri D21 probably getting there also.

Viper is not really used (only by Mann and Fincher it seems), same for the Red and the Dalsa.

Max, it seems you are missing 2 points here:

 

1st: All the digital cinematoraphy cameras see plenty of use - i.e. Michael Mann and David Fincher are using Viper, Doug Liman and Steven Soderbergh are using red, Marc Foster is using 8 Dalsas for the VFX parts in the next James Bond "Quantum Solace", Abrams/Matt Reeves do wild stuff as mixed as Viper & HDCAM for "Cloverfield", other combine SI:2K and Red for 3D as Thomas Jane for "Dark Country", Syndey Lumed or F.F. Coppola use HDCAM (SR) - just to name a few.

Also several forum members, as David Mullen, are shooting digitally right now, Mr. Mullen is using the Red iirc.

The Genesis is pretty popular as well.

 

The discontinued D20 and its successor, the D21, however have shot less features, in all the years since Arri started them, than red in its first months - and the first movie shot with red (side by side with film), Jumper, directly went to #1 in the boxoffice. I am highly sceptical if ARRI will have success with the D21. Red is making $$$.$$$.$$$ revenues on its cameras and is selling thousands of cameras, Arri, has only produced dozens of the D20 and *hopefully* will be able to produce & sell more of the D21. I still however have to meet a single company who intends to buy one. fingers crossed - but i am afraid that Arri needs rather a better and more competetive product to get back its market share.

 

2nd:

The reds are in use from academy-award winning directors and A-Budget, *lots* of top-end commercials, low budget shorts, student movies and yes, even private. Pretty much everywhere. Some replace 35mm cameras, other HDCAM, others 16mm, others HVX and some folks even shoot imax on it

(http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/3raj-5-jpg.html).

 

Right now the RED has a higher rental price than a classic 435 or new 235, but is below an Arricam Studio/LT. Once red has deliverd the additional outstanding 2~3.000 cameras and producers can *buy* instead of renting the cameras, the rental prices will begin to adapt. I wouldnt be suprised to see thousands of red in the 100-300?/day bracket starting Q2/Q3-2009. Which is great, as all the 5 cameras here then will be fully earned back - a breakeven which was much slower on 35mm mechanical or hdcam.

 

And thats where a standard process when markets translate from mechanical->digital starts. The exciting rental devices (as CD-Recorders were once), which costed >10.000? become are common goods. Rental prices have to match to justify rent instead of buy. That wont be very different once Nikons, Canons or Olympus 35mm cameras start to offer 24P (and higher) continuos video as well and join the party - which is not to long ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jan,

 

Even their film emulsions are looking boring just trying to be like grain-less video, luckily Fuji has some interesting stocks for those of us who are interested & can see the difference.

 

Stephen

I have to admit that we are moving towards fuji more and more as well here - but with the meanwhile heavily reduced amount of film we buy i dont look at the film characteristic as much as i did in the 90ties, so it could also be just us.

 

*edit*

maybe the Kodak logo should be replaced by fujis to be more realistic....

Edited by jan von krogh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I have to admit that we are moving towards fuji more and more as well here - but with the meanwhile heavily reduced amount of film we buy i dont look at the film characteristic as much as i did in the 90ties, so it could also be just us.

 

*edit*

maybe the Kodak logo should be replaced by fujis to be more realistic....

 

Hi Jan,

 

Just noticed Kodaks share price is half what I sold for last year, the market believes there is a possibility that Kodak may not be around in 2 years time. Time to buy Fuji!

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1st: All the digital cinematoraphy cameras see plenty of use - i.e. Michael Mann and David Fincher are using Viper, Doug Liman and Steven Soderbergh are using red, Marc Foster is using 8 Dalsas for the VFX parts in the next James Bond "Quantum Solace", Abrams/Matt Reeves do wild stuff as mixed as Viper & HDCAM for "Cloverfield", other combine SI:2K and Red for 3D as Thomas Jane for "Dark Country", Syndey Lumed or F.F. Coppola use HDCAM (SR) - just to name a few.

Also several forum members, as David Mullen, are shooting digitally right now, Mr. Mullen is using the Red iirc.

The Genesis is pretty popular as well.

Considering that the studios and independent distributors release over 500 films each year in the US, the number shooting digitally (and on your beloved Red specifically) is still very small I'm afraid. It's simple math really.

 

 

and the first movie shot with red (side by side with film), Jumper, directly went to #1 in the boxoffice.

Side by side? Pardon me, but the amount of Red footage actually in Jumper is very small. Of course we all know that you have a vested interest in Red and keep on pushing it, but don't think that people here are stupid enough to believe the numbers you like to quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Glen Alexander
I forgive you.

 

Keep in mind... every DP who has worked with Malick since the late 1970s has been at least nominated for an Oscar. Coincidence? ;)

 

The Thin Red Line was the most boring piece of work since Manos: Hands of Fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that the studios and independent distributors release over 500 films each year in the US, the number shooting digitally (and on your beloved Red specifically) is still very small I'm afraid. It's simple math really.

My Reds are certainly no "love" - they are one model among of my cameras, a tool.

I prefer my HDCAM camera for certain situations, as would i prefer film for others, on some even on my vintage 35mm arri and for others (as ultra-high speed) i even might rent (a Weiss II or a phantom).

 

Digital top-end cinematography is a normal thing meanwhile, is used by excellent artists, and its marketshare is getting bigger every year (in production) or already is the mayority (as in new cameras sold, build & delivered).

 

Side by side? Pardon me, but the amount of Red footage actually in Jumper is very small. Of course we all know that you have a vested interest in Red and keep on pushing it, but don't think that people here are stupid enough to believe the numbers you like to quote.

Its nice of you to care about my investments, but in the case of the reds that was easy money to earn back - especially with the rental price in Q1/Q2 2008. Btw - i thought you invested in red yourself?

 

Furthermore, i also have my HDCAMs camera/vtr/mons etc... so i am not all to biased regarding red i suppose - they are doing different jobs or work side by side - just as red and 35mm film do in "Jumper". Have you heard what Doug Liman said regarding his use of red?

 

And to be precise: What numbers you have problems to understand? 4.000-5.000 red cameras sold? Some dozens of Arri D20/D21 manufactured? Jumper #1 in the boxoffice? Thousand(s) red one delivered this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, this thread never had a fair chance of getting somewhere interesting from the outset (which is why I attempted to expand its premise), but this has no decended into something truly bizarre, where business discourses are lead that are so obviously devoid of any sense for mature arguments for a business case, it's truly painful to get those mail notifiers in my mailbox (let alone read them)... if what is said here were to be into any other industry, say, the automobile industry, or agroindustrial or construction-machinery rentals, then everyone would laugh oneself to death.

 

But hey, yeah, stock is falling, so obviously, the company will go bankrupt, because investors never care about their money; consumer adoption of one technology is economically utterly representative of product/price economies in the professional broadcasting and cinematic industry (after all, APS really killed large-format advert photocams, ain't it so?!); $17K cameras will inevitably lead to the democratisation of filmmaking as that is sooo dirt cheap and soo futureproof because JarJar says so, and he has no other vested interest but to see guaranteed cinematic quality for everyone, plus get an OSCAR ® for free with your second RED order; and YouTube podcasting - where the majority of the content ends up according to Nielsen - is in desperate need of UltraHighDefinition source material due to its nature; while those stating that actually what "democratisation" needs is LowDef which I am sure will be the next big thing in form of the RED 1/2 as it gives you Hi8 quality for half the price of a HDV camera; or is that a twisted argument... after all, the Flip camcorder is outselling RED by 1000:1, so digital really is better than cine-film... or so... or not!?!

 

But it could be worse: some people could start "authority-quoting" newspapers or bloggers whiches content was so obviously marketing-seeded that it is frightening to realise that those who planted those seeds are in turn refering to that for their own arguments... that truly is a logical loop that would make a HAL 9000 shut down from overload -- oh hold on, that quoting thing really happened, just a few posts above...

 

Max, why don't you even bother? As I said in my first post here, cine-film has lost the arguments long ago and is rightly believed to be outgoing due to that. If that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, then so be it. Let's hope that as many people invest in RED as possible and make great films with it... in the end, quality will prevail, as those people who matter will not be fooled, while the others end up with credit card debt and business foreclosures (and I am not talking about rental houses but independent filmmaker investors who are the main target group of RED, which is often forgotten).

 

I for one retire from this thread and return to the Super 8 subforum here as there is an ever increasing stream of folks who skip their $14K HDV gear for Super 8 camera as they want to shoot "on film" and try to figure out . Assisting them is at least something worthwhile to do, with positive effects..: to see the first (and very good) S8 short of someone who 2 months ago thought he could erase Super 8 videotape and had no idea of the optomechanical working of f-stops, focal range, focal depth, film speed, filming speed and exposure indices (as few video cameras provide the autodidactic means that even the cheapest "vintage gear" came with) and who is no setting out to buy a Super 16 cam in order to shoot for HD telecine, well, at least that learning curve is gratifying to see. And for that, this forum was originally created, I believe...

 

Oh, and Keith... your post about getting historical information solely from contemporary sources, well, that was a joke, wasn't it? I hope you are not an academic historian...

 

If the moderator need a voice to argue for closing this thread down, I put my voice forward... it is now down to the quality of a REDuser one, and won't get better. At least the moderators here don't rewrite post to fist the content into the service of their corporate communications.

 

When RED powers up in 5 sec and has a more fidel viewfinder, I will have another look at it. So far, it isn't better suited for the practicals of shooting as a digital still camera is to capture the picture you want it to take, and not the moment 1 to 2 seconds later... even hapless consumers got tired of that, and two of my neighbours have just bought "vintage" Nikons and Hasselblads for their family pics (dirt cheap as they are now)... how antidemocratic of them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
If the moderator need a voice to argue for closing this thread down, I put my voice forward... it is now down to the quality of a REDuser one, and won't get better. At least the moderators here don't rewrite post to fist the content into the service of their corporate communications.

 

I second that...this thread is pointless. Bring er' down! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
HA!

 

Im ready to empty this 33 round AK clip into this thread....

 

 

-Rob-

Wait a minute! Why use such an obsolete weapon? RED has a new 35 round clip with greater resolution (to help resolve things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
Wait a minute! Why use such an obsolete weapon? RED has a new 35 round clip with greater resolution (to help resolve things).

 

 

The cruder the better I don't think anybody has ever accused the AK-47 of being obsolete.

 

Also maybe I have a few of these 100 round drum mags in back of me on the dolly for after I am done with the thread. Almost looks like a film magazine doesn't it?

post-15580-1214195497.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I'm slightly amused at the length of this argument (that will never be resolved).

 

I have come to find that to the lay person, no one will even notice the difference between film and digital. I have tried to explain to my friends over and over why I think film is better. None of them understand or really even care. If, in general, the audience doesn't care then should we care that much about the way we express our ideas and thoughts to the audience? I say yes because personally I think there is something incredible about film. At the same time I acknowledge the usefulness of digital.

 

Ultimately these are very similar formats like comparing oil to acrylic. The end result is a painting. You can't really call a digital production a "film" but you are communicating thoughts in a very similar manner. It is like there is an asymptote between film and digital. They get infinitely close but never touch. And to that is left the decision of the film maker. You have to chose depending on your project. I know PTA isn't the end all say all of film making (or even close) but I really enjoy this quote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The above link has been FUBARed by the Forum editor. This will work:

 

http://www.nysun.com/arts/new-camera-poise...lmmaking/80357/

Wow, a lot of that article is just plain wrong. It says 5000 units have been shipped, but the number I read in this thread was 2000. Which is it?

The article also says that all of the sequences in the "Wanted" trailer were shot with a RedOne, but Jim Jannard has said that none of the Red footage made it into the movie.

It also says that Mark Pederson bought two of the first Red's and has since bought several more. I worked with Mark on a commercial last month and it was the first job they'd ever done with the Red because they had just gotten it days before our shoot. I guess there could be another Mark Pederson that owns a Red camera, but that seems unlikely at best.

Where did the writer of this article (S. JAMES SNYDER) get his information? It would seem it wasn't from anyone who knows anything about the Red or the people using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And to be precise: What numbers you have problems to understand? 4.000-5.000 red cameras sold? Some dozens of Arri D20/D21 manufactured? Jumper #1 in the boxoffice? Thousand(s) red one delivered this year?

And what does 4000-5000 cameras sold actually mean? For one that number is way too high (as Red themselves say), but then again you never seemed to care about accuracy. Furthermore even if there are a around 2000 Reds sold, that does not mean that everyone is shooting on them now and 2000 film cameras are suddenly out of a job, now does it? It is not the sheer number sold that should be indicative of its acceptance by the industry, but the percentage of film jobs that it replaces. I hope that it is not too hard for you to get your head around that.

 

Well if there are only a dozen D20/D21s made, they seem to get used all the time, on proper budgeted productions. I've certainly read more in the trade papers and magazines about the D20 being used than the Red.

 

And Jumper being Number 1 at the Box office what please does that have to do with anything? The film wasn't a success by the way, it did not even 80M in North America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm interested in hearing more about this recording 8K to 35mm anamorphic bit that came and went in the thread. I've been trying to get Win 2K to multi-boot on my scan/record-bot so I can hook up this Lasergraphics LFR Mark V. It was originally an 8K slide film recorder. But, I'll marry it up to an NC with single frame motor. One of the nifty things about dig-to-film is that you can do the squeeze digitally and shoot it with sphericals.

 

So, is it really better to go 8K out to film? With a little time to spare, it seems one could shoot directly to print stock and have a first generation, 8K res, scope print for projection (assuming one wanted to spend that kind of cheese and wait that long to get it). I wonder just how good it might actually look.

 

Okay. Back to REDTHREADDEADHEADSPREADBLEDRED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
... does anyone know how Dark Knight will be released in regular theatres? Did they do the opposite thing and contact-print all the 35mm and scan the 65mm? Or is it a down-resed version of the whole thing scanned?

Wally Pfister did not specify how the 35mm anamorphically lensed portions of the film were going to be printed for the regular scope prints. However, he did say that a 35mm IP was made before the 35mm was scanned for IMAX, so he probably had the ability to make dupe negs from that IP before or after the scanning took place. The IMAX portions were scanned and then cropped and repositioned into the 2.39 aspect ratio in the DI, so if you see "Dark Knight" in a regular 35mm scope print, there will be no change in aspect ratio. In the IMAX version, the 2.39 letterbox will open up, revealing the full 1.43 15 perf IMAX frame. He also said that every action and fight sequence was an IMAX sequence, for those who wanted to know which was which. Pfister recommended the The Bridge as the best theater in Hollywood to see the film when it's released, so I suspect that the IMAX portions of the print there will be contact printed from the IMAX o-neg, as opposed to IP/dupe neg/release print.

 

BTW, apparently they had 2.39 ground glasses in the IMAX cameras, but it was too hard to frame well for both formats so Nolan and the editor had to reposition many of the shots in post for the scope version. Pfister mentioned that in framing for IMAX (he also served as "A" cam operator), he gave a lot of extra headroom for singles, effectively centering faces in the frame. In IMAX, many audience members would not be able to see the actors' eyes if they were too high up in the frame.

 

Paul, Pfister's stated reason for scanning at 8K was because he felt that 4K was not enough for 35mm scope originated photography, and because the production could afford the best so why not. He believes that photochemical contact printing done properly still produces the best quality print, but then he takes the time and care on set to get the best image possible in camera so he doesn't feel he needs the color correction benefits of DI under most circumstances. He says he prefers timing with printer points. He admits that in this film he did get a bit sloppy with his exposures, and that some IMAX shots are a bit underexposed as a result. This was because he generally lights to a T2/2.8 for scope but the IMAX lenses were T2.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Where did the writer of this article (S. JAMES SNYDER) get his information? It would seem it wasn't from anyone who knows anything about the Red or the people using it.

 

Well....

 

"They actually had to add in noise and grain so it would blend more seamlessly with the scenes shot on film," a spokesman for Red Digital Cinema, Jon Sagud, said.

 

And this is who Jon Sagud is: http://www.reduser.net/forum/member.php?u=6484

 

Don't ask me what this means; I only deal in information. I gave up trying to understand Reduser sometime around 27 Dec 2006 :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of story, Thin Red Line was average at best.

 

In terms of cinematography, it has some of the most breathtaking shots I have ever seen. . .

 

To each his own though, I guess. Seriously though, who can say this film isn't stunning visually???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I for one retire from this thread and return to the Super 8 subforum here ...

I nominate this poster for the Emmanuel A Gueddes Incomprehensibility Award for June '08 :lol:

Does anybody want to second this, (or explain exactly what he was getting at?).

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

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...