Red One - a review from a jobbing DP.

[Jim Exton]

I'm guessing that you didn't look at the specs of the new cameras. From the Scarlett up to the the 617 (28k RED), the data rates have been widened--drastically. Heck, going from the 4k RED, to the 5k Epic-X, the data rate has been widened 6.94 times (36 for R1 vs 250 for Epic-X).

 

 

Matthew

 

I am pretty sure this is not accurate. From my understanding, the new Redcode numbers don't reflect the actual data rate, it is just an arbitrary number. There has been to my knowledge no mention of the actual data rates of the new Redcodes.

[Matthew Rogers]

I don't think anybody here has made such a statement, if you look in the archives many people here were very unimpressed with the HVX 200. Many of the HVX Fanboys have since bought Red Ones, some will go on to buy an Epic as they have yet to exceed the holy grail of 35mm film. Sadly many of these people to not have any talent & can't light, which is where there problem lies.

 

Very, very true Stephen. I actually think that Epic will not quite be like the the RED. Many HVX fanboys who bought the RED could BARELY afford it and won't be able to afford another $15,000 to upgrade to Epic (I know that the upgrade would be $10k, but I figure an extra 5k for other accessories.) It the way things are said. If Adam had said that the RED probably wouldn't be useful for whip pan type handheld stuff, I might have agreed. However, just saying that it wouldn't be useful for handheld work (which sounds like all handheld work), I object to that.

 

I am pretty sure this is not accurate. From my understanding, the new Redcode numbers don't reflect the actual data rate, it is just an arbitrary number. There has been to my knowledge no mention of the actual data rates of the new Redcodes.

 

From my experience, those numbers seem to be pretty consistent apart. RC36 seems to always been about 6-10MB's more per second than RC28. Jim has said that the difference between 28 and 36 is the amount of compression--so it seems odd that those numbers wouldn't mean something (instead of having a totally difference codec.) He's also talked about needing much more bandwidth for the new cameras because of the increased resolution and less compressed image. If those numbers don't mean anything, I wish they would say so. It seems silly to have numbers in a codec name when it doesn't apply to the bitrate--especially when codecs like Avid's DNxHD DO use numbers that way (which makes a ton of sense.)

 

Matthew

[Keith Walters]

If there is anything good that comes out of these boring Red debates.....its the comedy! :lol:

 

Tim....any chance?

The very best of which comes from people who were not actually trying to be funny...

By way whatever happened to-

No, best not go there... :lol:

 

I would like to see a folder along the lines of:

"Visciously Anti-Red statements People Are Supposed to Have Made on Cinematography.com, that Have Thus Far Managed to Escape the Most Diligent Application of the Search Function" :rolleyes:

[Keith Walters]

Sadly many of these people to not have any talent & can't light, which is where there problem lies.

Huh? What's that got to do with anything? :blink:

Lighting, direction, scripts, focus pulling, framing, editing, acting, sound, continuity, wardrobe, makeup, hair, set dressing, grip, transport, catering, location scouting, etc etc; details, details ...

 

Nice try, but everybody knows freeware algorithms for all that stuff are readily available on the Internet :lol:

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I do admit that the "good enough" mentality that's engulfing our tech side is driving me crazy, but maybe that's the way things has to go before they get better.

 

To answer some of the questions posed:

 

As for reading up on the Red about its IR problems, no, that wasn't something I'd come across. Maybe I should have researched more and trawled forums before I took out a professional camera into the field, but I actually don't think I should have to do that. If this is a often encountered problem with the Red, then the IR filters should either be built in or come with the kit. Or, one could perhaps even more cheekily demand that such things simply should not be prevalent in a professional camera.

 

It overheated in a hot studio. Or at least it started to color shift again after we'd gotten the IR filters in, so we shut it down and blew a fan on it. That seemed to help. Don't know exactly if that was overheating, but it seemed likely.

 

I didn't overexpose the exterior - I exposed it right for all the other elements. But the white linen clipped. But apparently with all video (not just Red), one has to expose for the brightest thing in frame, which is insane. What's the worst of two evils - non recoverable, grainy blacks or clipped whites? It's just not how it's supposed to be done and very stifling creatively.

[Saul Rodgar]

Huh? What's that got to do with anything? :blink:

Lighting, direction, scripts, focus pulling, framing, editing, acting, sound, continuity, wardrobe, makeup, hair, set dressing, grip, transport, catering, location scouting, etc etc; details, details ...

 

Nice try, but everybody knows freeware algorithms for all that stuff are readily available on the Internet :lol:

 

Hey, whatever happened to the democratization of the arts? No talent, no problem!!!

 

ANYONE CAN BE A FILMMAKER and take on Hollywood too. One just needs one of those newfangled digital cameras, no need to learn all that boring physical-film stuff. Sooo 20th century! What the hell anyone think they made auto exposure and auto focus for, dammit?

Edited January 24, 2009 by Saul Rodgar

[Dan Goulder]

What the hell anyone think they made auto exposure and auto focus for, dammit?

auto commercials?

[David Mullen ASC]

Everyone's experiences with the RED ONE has varied somewhat, providing a situation reminiscent of "Rashomon" to some extent...

 

I was talking to someone from a rental house that has a number of RED ONE's, and his report was that the cameras vary somewhat when they first arrive -- for example, he's had two side-by-side RED's working on a hot set and had one overheat while the other was fine. This variation may account for some different responses by RED shooters.

 

The other BIG variable is how the footage is posted, which is an area that can, unfortunately, fall out of the cinematographer's control.

 

Just doing a D.I. on my two RED features, I had to go through how the footage was being converted from the R3D RAW files because they were using certain metadata information (ASA, color temp, saturation, etc.) that I wanted them to ignore, because I wanted something as close to the original RAW image as possible. I've noticed RED footage at a number of efx and post houses that are being processed to look WAY too dark and contrasty as the "base" from which to begin color-correction.

 

In regards to Adam's experiences, all I can say is:

 

I never had overheating problems, and I shot the two RED features in the middle of summer here in Los Angeles, the first on stages with a ton of lights, the second on location in full sun in July/August. We took basic precautions of course, like putting a shade over the camera outside, just like on any shoot.

 

I noticed some mild IR problems outside when shooting into the sun -- lens flares that would go purple, etc. Some colors weren't always reproduced accurately either. I agree that the internal IR filtering in the camera should be high enough to minimize this problem -- I don't know the reasons why that wasn't addressed in the camera design. Maybe a heavier IR filter reduced the sensitivity or maybe it increased the cost, I don't know. However, I will say that for the most part, we didn't use IR filters outside and the footage looked fine.

 

I didn't have much clipping problem. Maybe I just tend to underexpose bright highlights, I don't know, but I had more problem with a few shots exposed too dark than ones exposed too brightly. In fact, I increased the contrast in post when I timed "Manure" to cause more clipping by use of a diffused luminence overlay to create a somewhat halated look. My general impression was that the RED has about a stop more dynamic range than the F900, the other digital camera I was most used to at the time. And that the Genesis might have a stop more range than the RED, maybe (this is all just a crude impression, not based on actual tests of dynamic range.) And that film has another two stops more range than the Genesis...

 

I'd also say that at 320 ASA, the blue noise level when shooting under tungsten light was minimal unless you were going to try and push the image to look much bluer.

 

Here are some areas where I think there can be some improvement:

 

Resolution / sharpness / detail. To my eyes, looking at the image in a D.I. theater, my general impression is that the RED image could use a little post sharpening. Once converted from RAW, it seems not much different, sharpness-wise, than a decent HD image or a 2K scan of 35mm -- which is not necessarily a knock because a lot of HD photography can rival some 35mm photography for sharpness. But I was expecting something a little more detailed from a 4K RAW sensor camera. I also have to admit that after recently looking at some Super-35 footage I shot go through a D.I. that I was also somewhat disappointed with that level of sharpness too, so maybe my expectations are just too high -- I guess I want everything to look as good as 35mm anamorphic photography does.

 

As the picture got underexposed a little or was shot in really soft lighting, there was some tendency for the image to get a bit muddy and lack snap, something that happens with film too but generally isn't a problem with digital cameras.

 

Dynamic range. More would be nice, of course... would make color-correction easier, give one more latitude. Like I said, I felt I was getting about a stop more information than I would with an F900.

 

Color. The post people at two houses, one doing the D.I. and the other doing the efx, complained to me about a certain lack of color range, that it seemed more like Rec 709 if not evenly slightly more limited than that. Now some of this may be due to how the footage was processed -- again this issue of settings for conversion is somewhat of a wild card: the efx company said they did NO color-correction to the efx shots after they were converted from RAW, but when they were cut into the master, they were consistently a stop or so darker.

 

I would suggest that what RED needs to do is hire someone to spend all their time visiting every D.I., efx, and post facility and get them to start coming up with proper, standardized procedures for R3D file conversion that preserves all the information on the RAW image. I feel the weakest link in the RED chain has been the post side of things because some people are getting amazing results from their RED cameras while others aren't, and it can't ALL be due to the skill of the camera person.

 

I still think it's incredible what a $17,500 (body only) camera can due compared to cameras that cost three-times that, but there is always room for improvement, as with anything.

[John Sprung]

Once converted from RAW, it seems not much different, sharpness-wise, than a decent HD image or a 2K scan of 35mm .... But I was expecting something a little more detailed from a 4K RAW sensor camera.

 

That's because we have an apples-and-oranges comparison built into this. When the Red guys say "4K", they're counting Bayer masked photosites, or the raw data from them. That's one sample per physical location of one of the three primary colors. When the DI guys scan film, they're generating data in the form of pixels. HD also works in pixels. A pixel is a set of three samples from the same physical location, one for each of the primary colors.

 

How many K worth of Bayer masked photosites equals how many K worth of tri-color pixels? Oy, don't ask. In that direction lies pointless controversy and lengthy arguement. It's highly dependent on the quality of the de-Bayering algorithm used. Suffice it to say that three samples per location gives you more than one sample per location, though not three times more.

 

As for the IR thing, it's one of the strange results that happen when people with no prior knowledge of a field start from scratch to do something. You get some glaring omissions along with some fresh ideas. I look at it as a feature, not a bug: Hang a whole bunch of conventional ND, and you have a digital IR camera at no extra cost. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

As for the IR thing, it's one of the strange results that happen when people with no prior knowledge of a field start from scratch to do something. You get some glaring omissions along with some fresh ideas. I look at it as a feature, not a bug: Hang a whole bunch of conventional ND, and you have a digital IR camera at no extra cost. ;-)

 

-- J.S.

There's no mystery to this.

The simple fact is that up until now, most ND filters were carefully engineered to give a Neutral response only across the part of the spectrum that human eyes, colour film and 3-chip (or tube) cameras actually respond to. IR absorption was non-existent or at best ill-defined because it was irrelevant, and implementing it in a controlled manner would have involved extra complexity and cost, to no apparent benefit. Colour Film and tube-based video cameras ignore IR, simply because it would have actually required extra engineering to make them IR responsive. In fact with both technologies there was initially quite a struggle to get them to even respond to visible red light.

 

Silicon sensors are much more of a problem because their response is the other way round, they are far more sensitive to longer wavelengths, particularly infrared. In a camera that uses dichroic colour separation prisms, this is manageable, because the red and blue mirrors can be specifically "tuned" not to reflect IR onto the red and blue chips, and the green chip (which normally gets what is left over) can be heavily IR filtered, because an IR filter will not impact significantly on the green response.

 

Unfortunately, this is not possible with single-chip silicon sensors. The best that can be done is to put an overall IR filter in and hope it doesn't cut into the visible red response too much.

 

So, this problem is simply due to the fact that most NDs are only "N" over the visible part of the spectrum. You just need better filters...

 

A stunning example of this is a piece of blackened and processed colour film. To the naked eye and to most visible-light video cameras, it looks totally opaque. Put it in front of an IR sensitive camera and it looks totally transparent!

[Mike Thorn]

Adam and Stephen,

 

Please don't think for a moment that I was doubting Adam's reputation or experience. I have a high respect for his work experience and do not want to insinuate that he was working ignorantly. I merely wanted to suggest that seemingly identical cameras can, for no apparent reason, produce different results (as David confirmed).

 

I have kind regards for everyone here and I hope that should I ever even begin to slander a fellow artist's reputation, one of you would promptly put me in my place. :)

 

Best,

 

Mike

[Dan Goulder]

You remind me of Rush Limbaugh.

Whoa there, Joe. There's no obscenity or scatalogical references allowed on this forum.

[DJ Joofa]

Come on, DJ. You can't just leave that hanging there. ;-) What movie? Who did you play?

 

Hi John,

 

I am not too pleased with my performance so we shall leave it unidentified :rolleyes:

 

 

... a lot of HD photography can rival some 35mm photography for sharpness. But I was expecting something a little more detailed from a 4K RAW sensor camera. I also have to admit that after recently looking at some Super-35 footage I shot go through a D.I. that I was also somewhat disappointed with that level of sharpness too, so maybe my expectations are just too high -- I guess I want everything to look as good as 35mm anamorphic photography does.

 

 

David, digital frequency and analog frequency are two different things, and are related by the sampling interval. The notion of detail when data is in digitized form (just a time series) must be interpreted carefully, as HD/2K/4K have little meaning unless sampling density and scene framing are considered. When you have data in computer it is just an array of numbers and the notion of sampling interval is not directly apparent. For e.g., a 1920x1080 grid with alternate dark and white pixels give the same max digital frequency of 0.5 and a 4K sized grid with alternate dark and white also gives the digital frequency of 0.5. Which one has more detail?

 

I think Red has a pixel size of a little over 5 microns, so it sampling density is more or less the same as about any reasonable HD camera out there. On the surface it appears like a conundrum? How can Red claim being a "higher detail" camera than HD when it sampling density is more or less the same. The answer lies in the framing of the shot. Supposed an HD camera and a Red camera are identically framing a shot, as it would perhaps be a case with any cinematographer, as they would like to frame a shot considering scene objects, and independent of the resolution of the camera. Under identical scene framing, which would mean that one would have to use a longer lens on a larger sensor sized camera (Red), the scene is "magnified" in terms of sampling grid, since the sampling density has not changed. The result is tantamount to saying that as if Red's sampling density has increased, though physically it has not. Therefore, the same max digital frequency represents a higher analog frequency now, and hence, sampling of higher detail.

 

Therefore, the perception of detail is also relative, and unless sampling density and scene framing are known, no direct comparison of higher detail in terms of analog frequency can be made from just looking at digital data.

Edited January 24, 2009 by DJ Joofa

[Chi Ying Chan]

Once converted from RAW, it seems not much different, sharpness-wise, than a decent HD image or a 2K scan of 35mm -- which is not necessarily a knock because a lot of HD photography can rival some 35mm photography for sharpness. But I was expecting something a little more detailed from a 4K RAW sensor camera.

 

May i ask is it down convert to 2K for DI?

 

Regards

Chan Chi Ying

DP HK

[Oron Cohen]

So..

 

I've now used the Red One with build 17 and build 18 quite a few times on both commercials and music videos, big and small. I've shot with it in both Los Angeles and London.

 

What I like about the Red is its friendly user interface and the clear way everything is labelled and displayed in film terms, not ENG-style crap like the Sony's insist on. It also looks pretty sturdy and by all accounts seems so too.

 

Unfortunately a nice interface does not a camera make.

 

First of all - image quality. Irrespective of resolution, the Red does not produce very nice images. It's something about the clippy whites that screams video a mile away. And no matter how much you protect for the highlights, they'll come bite you at some point. Just look at Che - all the shots in the jungle show really ugly clipped highlights in the dappled lighter bits. Check out the trailer. It's almost worse than on most other cameras.

 

In other parts of Che, fires blow unrecoverably out in daylight - that's some accomplishment. Nothing you can do, even if you had an armada of fill lights, is ever gonna get you out of that one. Well, you could underexpose of course, but that gives you low signal to noise ratio and - tata - grain. And the reality of shooting explosions is also that you don't exactly know how bright the flames are gonna get, so you need a camera that can handle hightlights. This is where film excels and destroys all video formats. But we've been to the moon, people, why can't this be sorted out? Simply don't get it.

 

On another project I shot a shot of a woman hanging up her white washing on an exterior. The director wanted to bring it down slightly - white linen clipped. Nothing there. We had to leave it as it was. Same with the curtains on the exterior.

 

And the other day I was in a studio with tungsten lights. I gelled them full CTB as I know the Red likes daylight. All of a sudden massive color shifts were taking place - the lead singer was yellow, then green and finally purple in her face. Apparently they can't handle ND filters somehow. We had to special order and send out some IR filters and the whole production had to shut down for hours. First I've ever heard of IR filters in my life - and if it's that bloody sensitive it should be a part of the standard kit, I think.

 

It also overheated and needed to be cooled down with a fan intermittently.

 

Handheld looks crap with the rolling shutter. In fact, pretty much any faster motion looks weird.

 

So from being quite positive the first times I've used it, it's now come to the point where I try to avoid it if I can. I try to push for the D21 or the Phantom if there's any room in the budget. They both look great compared to the Red. I wouldn't mind the IR stuff and all that, but what really puts a damper on it for me is that it just doesn't look very good. Can't put my finger on it, but i suspect it's the clippiness and "no information" highlights. I can't say I've seen one film or project that's looked good shot with it.

 

I am rooting for the Red, however. I just love that it's kicking the poop out of Sony and that it's a real grassroots kind of camera that's changing the industry. But they're gonna have to come up with some solutions to these problems, or people will go elsewhere.

Hey Adam,

 

It was great to read your post and the thread that it has created.

recently I did a test on the Red for a Short film, I tested the camera under all kinds of lighting situations, in some point in the testing The director and me both looked at the monitor, then the director approach me and whisper:

"I can't understand it,the picture doesn't look good, it's not supposed to be a camera with 4K, a camera that competes with 35mm film?" I answered: "you just read my mind...".

 

So yes, I'm very unimpressed by the camera, further more, after doing some checking, we saw that if not going for DI, it will probably be the same price or cheaper to get an optical print in 35mm if you use a cheap camera( BL evolution for example).

 

For me all the issues Adam addressed were spot on: the white clipping, the way it doesn't look good on hand held shots and everything else...

 

I think that if one needs to shoot a classic drama short or feature without any SFX, I will definitely will push for film... 100 years of amazing film making proves it works and I never heard cinematographers complains film is not good... so why I need to change it???

 

Adam also talked about the fact he like the simple interface of the Red more than the Sony pro camera, I totally agree! But again I was thinking:

“hey, I like it when I don't have 100 menus to mess around with... Oh god how I miss film! just push a button for it to run and be happy to know from the start that it will look good.”

 

It reminds me that a few years ago I saw in the cinema the new version of “Apocalypse now” and was thinking: “this cinematography is amazing, it looks amazing, why we are trying so hard to change this format?? hell, it looks better from 95% of the film I see today in the cinema and it was made in the late 70s' ”.

 

So to conclude, I Wish filmmakers(directors, cinematographers, producers)will stop being concerned by the format and try to be more into making a great master peace.

And if a good camera will come along that they want to use because it will better there film, please use it.

 

And one last point: everyone is doing DI's this days and are comparing them to the Red footage. I think 50% of the films doing a DI are not really gaining anything... Have to admit I most like the cinematography from an era that no one knew what is DI, and still the films looked great on the big screen.

The last film I saw that has prove to me that point is “The diving bell and the butterfly”.

 

So I'm asking the ones that shoots lots of features, why to use a DI in every film? Why not to keep it simple? And to bring our abilities through good film making, are you not agree that system that we chose to work in are changing the way the film will be?

 

Cheers,

 

Oron.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Oron Cohen

[Matthew Rogers]

Hey Adam,

 

It was great to read your post and the thread that it has created.

recently I did a test on the Red for a Short film, I tested the camera under all kinds of lighting situations, in some point in the testing The director and me both looked at the monitor, then the director approach me and whisper:

"I can't understand it,the picture doesn't look good, it's not supposed to be a camera with 4K, a camera that competes with 35mm film?" I answered: "you just read my mind...".

 

I have a question.... is everybody judging the RED by a 720P monitor on set, or are they looking at the 4k image downscaled to 1080p on a calibrated monitor in post?

 

Matthew

[David Mullen ASC]

I was basing my observations on the 4K RGB files being downconverted live for 2K DLP projection in a D.I. theater.

 

Yes, the 720P live debayered image from the camera is for monitoring purposes only and has some artifacts that will not be in the final product.

 

As for why go through a D.I. for something shot on film, there are lots of reasons. For one thing, these days editors use a lot of transitional effects that require either optical printing, and thus dupes, or digital work to create. I shot a movie once that wasn't supposed to go through a D.I. but once I saw the final cut, which had some 35 minutes of "opticals" in a 90 minute movie, I told them that they should do a D.I. because I wasn't going to put up with 35 minutes of duped footage in the movie. Even when the "opticals" are done digitally, they can be hard to time to match the surrounding footage.

 

Combine that with the need to deliver digital masters for home video. On another movie I shot where we didn't do a D.I., I was in the middle of answer printing when the marketing department ordered an IP made of the entire movie, only partially timed, so they could start cutting the trailers digitally (they scanned the IP for a D.I.) That was a major waste of money.

 

Then there are all the home video deliverables -- after spending weeks timing the answer print, you have to spend weeks timing the home video transfer from an IP. It's nice to just time the movie once, with only a trim pass for other versions.

 

But I'd love to go back to finishing a movie photochemically again, but I'd hope that it would have been edited with that in mind and not be full of editing tricks that need efx work to accomplish.

[Chi Ying Chan]

As usual, David, you'r spot on. :-)

One more reason:artistic consideration.

A lot of directors and producers(DP too :-))wants to have more control of the images in post,as an art or product,so they can alter the final look in post,that gives them a safety.

 

Regards

Chan Chi Ying

DP HK

[Stephen Williams]

that gives them a safety.

 

Regards

Chan Chi Ying

DP HK

 

Hi,

 

Safety = Crap boring images, avoid at all cost.

 

Stephen

[Oron Cohen]

home video transfer from an IP. It's nice to just time the

 

But I'd love to go back to finishing a movie photochemically again, but I'd hope that it would have been edited with that in mind and not be full of editing tricks that need efx work to accomplish.

 

Hey David,

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

 

I totally understand all the things you point out in your post, but this last two lines grab my eye, I think it's because they verify what I'm trying to say, and I will try to explain:

 

The editors are cutting films differently this days using more and more effects, you say that because of that(not entirely of-course) you and others need to take the DI root, but I think it works both ways... editors, since being aware of Digital finishing are allowing them selfs to make more effects, that changes the way films are edited... then it like the chicken or the egg question all over again, who is it to blame??

 

So, what I'm trying to say is that technology is more then a tool like lots of film makers like to say, it's changes the Art that we make, and we need to ask our self difficult questions if we truly love Film making, like the great film makers of the past you also need to ask what kind of films do we want to see in the future.

 

And thanks again for this great thread :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Oron.

[Oron Cohen]

Hi,

 

Safety = Crap boring images, avoid at all cost.

 

Stephen

 

Thank you Stephen,

 

From my experience you are so right !

 

Oron.

[John Sprung]

But I'd love to go back to finishing a movie photochemically again, but I'd hope that it would have been edited with that in mind and not be full of editing tricks that need efx work to accomplish.

 

With DI in the studio pattern budgets now, that's also a source of money. The way to approach it is, we could do a conventional finish, and put the money saved into more equipment, a bigger crew, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it's a mistaken premise that doing a D.I. equals being less artistic. It's just a tool like anything else. How it is used makes it art or not. Finishing a movie photochemically is not some badge of artistic merit -- plenty of crappy movies have been finished photochemically. The level of technical difficulty in creating art does not equate to artistic merit either, otherwise a simply-lit shot could not be as artistic as a shot with complicated lighting.

[Saul Rodgar]

I think it's a mistaken premise that doing a D.I. equals being less artistic. It's just a tool like anything else. How it is used makes it art or not. Finishing a movie photochemically is not some badge of artistic merit -- plenty of crappy movies have been finished photochemically. The level of technical difficulty in creating art does not equate to artistic merit either, otherwise a simply-lit shot could not be as artistic as a shot with complicated lighting.

 

And the same would apply for originating on video, I suppose. I mean, if there is skill and talent poured on the project and care is taken framing and lighting, it could look very good within the limitations of the medium. ;)

[Oron Cohen]

I think it's a mistaken premise that doing a D.I. equals being less artistic. It's just a tool like anything else. How it is used makes it art or not. Finishing a movie photochemically is not some badge of artistic merit -- plenty of crappy movies have been finished photochemically. The level of technical difficulty in creating art does not equate to artistic merit either, otherwise a simply-lit shot could not be as artistic as a shot with complicated lighting.

 

I agree with you David, it's just a tool.

 

maybe we are just in a transition period, like in the 30s' when film makers just started to move into colour films, and a lot of film makers thought it's not good and others understood it will take time to learn this tool, and indeed it took some time...

 

I remember reading an interview with Tarkovsky saying that colour is not realistic enough, never the less after some time he's last films were mainly in colour, here is the link for it: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghi...s/On_Color.html .

 

What I was trying to say is that sometimes a new tool is introduced and people tend to use it more then it's needed, specially in the beginning, this was the point I was trying to make, not that you don't need to use it, just that you need to carefully use it.

 

Thanks again for the reply,

 

Oron.