The cheap RED aesthetic.

[georg lamshöft]

From an audience's point of view I see this specific "RED"-look as well. I think all digital cameras have a specific look, which doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, but it isn't really a valid criteria when judging these systems, IMHO.

You could compare it to still photography: A simple Canon Rebel with a good lens in the hands of a good photographyer and well lit will generate exzellent results - but it doesn't make it a professional tool, although it would be hard to tell prints apart from a professional camera under the very same, ideal circumstances. But the more difficult, uncontrolled these circumstances become and the more you want to manipulate the "native look" of the camera, the more differences in the quality of the cameras/technologies become apparent. That's why professional still-photographers use rather unconvinient MFDBs instead of smaller DSLRs, mostly not because of more megapixels but the more flexible files. They have big reserves to adjust them to the artists wishes.

In the cinematography-world, this flexible medium is film. The tonal reproduction, DR or resolution might not be visible within every project/ scene but it gives flexible "RAW-data" that can look natural, contrasty, classic, flat or even digital - whatever the artists wants.

Digital cine-cameras don't seem to have this variety and the more you push the outside it's natural look or capabilities, the more the "artificial/plasticy"-look becomes visible.

 

 

 

Just my two cents.

[Scott Bullock]

From a completely subjective point of view, I thought MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D looked pretty good projected on the big screen. At least, good enough that I wasn't taken out of the narrative (what little there was) by the fact that it was originated digitally. On the other hand, I've seen a couple of less-than-million dollar features recently that were shot on Red (I won't mention titles, since I know the filmmakers) and they looked really bad. From my view, they may as well have been shot on a cheap DV camera, and the second of these features was shot with the MX sensor. I think don't think it's possible to put too much emphasis on the DP behind the camera because that's the person, in theory, who's going to maximize the camera's strengths and minimize its weaknesses. I know that last comment is sort of a "duh" kind of statement but there's something to be said for it nevertheless. I know a local Red owner who calls himself a DP because he owns the camera, but he's simply not getting images out of the camera that are as good as the images that an experienced cinematographer is getting with the same camera.

 

Anyway, having said all the above, there are definitely differences between digital images and film images that I don't think will ever be reconciled, which, from my view, is perfectly fine.

[Phil Rhodes]

Red MX has more dynamic range than a top-tier DSRL shooting RAW, but it does.

I clocked the 5D at eleven, maybe eleven and a half stops in raw mode. This is the sort of figure that most very good digital camera systems have been claiming for a while, and I've seen similar claims for Red. Am I misinformed?

P

[David Mullen ASC]

Didn't think Baraka was soft and grainy!

 

Nor do I, my point is just that people carry certain cliche reactions or complaints to certain processes based on their personal taste or frame of reference. I think the "plastic-y" look of digital is a combination of limited overexposure latitude (so highlights go hotter faster, making surfaces look shinier) and a lack of grain, the very clean look. So as dynamic range improves, some of that will go away but I don't think the clean look is going to go away.

 

You have to wonder though if we had been looking at clean digital images for 100 years whether we'd find fault with film images if it were a newly introduced technology.

[Mathew Rudenberg]

I feel like what some energetic chef may go through when walking into a new restaurant to work when he finds out that all the meat he will be working with that day comes from the freezer. He takes out that frozen meat and does what he can with it but in the back of his head he knows he can't go but so far. I was just hoping for some opinions on how to store and thaw that might help reduce the taste problem that I find such a turn-off. Seasoning tricks? Best freezing temp? New thawing techniques? A unique marinade perhaps?!

 

That reminds of the story of a conversation at a dinner party:

 

The cook tells the photographer 'My, your photographs are quite beautiful, you must have a really expensive camera'

 

The photographer responds, 'Well, your meal is delicious, you must have really expensive pans.'

 

zing.

[Tom Lowe]

Nor do I, my point is just that people carry certain cliche reactions or complaints to certain processes based on their personal taste or frame of reference. I think the "plastic-y" look of digital is a combination of limited overexposure latitude (so highlights go hotter faster, making surfaces look shinier) and a lack of grain, the very clean look. So as dynamic range improves, some of that will go away but I don't think the clean look is going to go away.

 

You have to wonder though if we had been looking at clean digital images for 100 years whether we'd find fault with film images if it were a newly introduced technology.

 

Of course, the images are going to continue to get cleaner and cleaner and more pristine, just as a natural progression of technology. I happen to really LOVE this super-clean digital look you can get from RAW 4K+ cameras. It's breathtaking. And as you said, dynamic range is going nowhere but up, so there can be no doubt in my mind that this type of look will soon be the new normal.

[georg lamshöft]

At least on HD-level, grain is nowadays a non-issue with 35mm - it's clean when you want it to - but it still looks entirely different than RED (or Genesis or D21) - the "Inglorious Basterds" Blu-Ray for example - hardly any scene could have been shot with digital despite the lack of grain in most scenes.

To my eyes, they "cover" the aesthetic the cinematographer was looking for always with their very own, I barely see a trailer (720p Quicktime!) that doesn't scream "digital but wants to look like film" made with these so-called cine-cameras.

Sure, we must not forget that the majority of the look is created by the cinematographer himself and his ability to use the specific strengths/weaknesses of his equipment - but technology should give him more and not less freedom to do so, especially when it's sold as "revolution" or "celluloid-killer". Many RED-movies are poorly done (budget?) but many 16/35mm-movies are as well (90% are propably done from an DI of a 2k-telecine adding "digital" look).

I think it's a bad sign that we (as an audience) can still distinguish camera systems from the final product - in still-photography you barely can, when seeing just final prints (derived from an unknown process from RAW-files) - the dfference in source-IQ must be huge.

 

Use RED or Genesis or whatever when the look is really what you want - but please don't make it appear like something that it simply isn't.

I think it's insulting to the craft of the artist that producers can decide which tool is the right one and certain companies profit (and enhance) this hype - it's a shame and worth discussing. I bet that - while not consciously - many audiences appreciate the IQ of a well-made film, I bet "Inception" will make lot's of money in our IMAX despite the ticket-prices and the lack of 3D - just like TDK did. The more of this "looks nearly as film most of the time"-aesthetic of digital cine-cameras becomes standard, even more audiences will appreciate a more natural look.

[Brian Drysdale]

Of course, the images are going to continue to get cleaner and cleaner and more pristine, just as a natural progression of technology. I happen to really LOVE this super-clean digital look you can get from RAW 4K+ cameras. It's breathtaking. And as you said, dynamic range is going nowhere but up, so there can be no doubt in my mind that this type of look will soon be the new normal.

 

Unfortunately actors tend not to, seeing every pore and skin flaw is something that causes a problem for them - quite understandable given how looks are a large part of some actors' appeal in the market and therefore the industry. Going for total skin perfection with make up and post processing I suspect will add (and perhaps even currently adds) to a plastic skin look. Plus, the lack of detail in the forehead or side of face highlight reinforcing this effect.

[Vincent Sweeney]

Of course, the images are going to continue to get cleaner and cleaner and more pristine, just as a natural progression of technology. I happen to really LOVE this super-clean digital look you can get from RAW 4K+ cameras. It's breathtaking. And as you said, dynamic range is going nowhere but up, so there can be no doubt in my mind that this type of look will soon be the new normal.

 

Do you like ketchup on your hotdog too? ;) So to you, and to use some modern examples, would "There Will be Blood" or "The New World" be the same if shot with a new Whatevercam?

 

"...the new normal" -That's another issue to add to my problem. Did it occur to anyone in favor of this sterile look that soon/now most shorts, commercials and TV shows will often look the same way features do?

 

Everything from "Superman Returns" to "Knowing" to the new Genesis shot movie "Grown Ups" all simply look weird to me and I'm not alone there, by far. It is not the fault of who worked on it because they are all clearly talented people so no use in regurgitating that old argument (Mathew).

 

And what precisely is so "breathtaking" Tom? Does it have anything to do with the fact that you can get into the ballpark by pushing a button? Or does that bonding which comes with riding that trendy tech wave helping with your impression? Our generation really love buttons with screens attached to them, don't we?

 

Thanks Paul. I really wish I could on this one but its locked-in already. I keep meaning to stop by... soon!

And anyone wanting to see some damn nice work coming from Paul's shop/team, check this ad out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9biUJ2AbcM (SD version!) or http://vimeo.com/9315718 or http://vimeo.com/12429314

(Note: All looks not possible with a new Whatevercam) Steve is a master!

 

And sorry Admin., about the post, I know it's spiraling down into the 10000th digital vs. film argument again which was inevitable I suppose so by all means, lock it up if needed.

[Thomas James]

I have said it once and I will say it again. It is impossible to capture natural looking images with digital sensors that incorporate pixels that are arranged in a tile mosaic pattern of square boxes. Film with its random grain pattern more closely approximates they way that the human eye sees reality. Yet when I told Jim of this inconvenient fact he gets very defensive. It seems that Jim would rather market a camera that was thrown together using existing technology rather than spend the millions of dollars on research and development that it would take to design a truely revolutionary camera with an electronic humanoid retinal sensor that incorporates an exotic mosaic tile pattern of pixels that closely resembles the human eye.

[David Mullen ASC]

 

 

And what precisely is so "breathtaking" Tom?

 

Tom's own work, for one thing!

[Scott Bullock]

You have to wonder though if we had been looking at clean digital images for 100 years whether we'd find fault with film images if it were a newly introduced technology.

 

That's a very interesting thought. I don't know what the answer is but that is something worth pondering. My guess is that we would find fault with the film images, especially in grain and softness.

 

Regarding Red, are these cameras capable of doing live broadcasts? I'm wondering because, the other night, I went to see a concert that was being simulcast into theaters. They weren't using Red cameras but they were using HD cameras; I couldn't really tell which ones though. Anyway, this confirmed for me that HD technology still has a long ways to go. It was evident that there's no real way of accounting for all of the variables involved in shooting this type of production since there are times when everything is in total black and other times when the image is being blown out by things like strobes and pyrotechnics. The chroma tearing was simply ghastly at times, for example. I don't know if this was because of the cameras, the way in which the images were being projected, or a combination of both, but there were times when I was thinking to myself - wow, this looks really bad. Of course, film isn't a solution when it comes to live broadcasts, but if you want to see an example of a situation where dynamic range is sorely lacking, watch a live concert where the lighting is constantly fluctuating.

[Scott Bullock]

I know that Vincent didn't mean for this to become an HD vs. film thread and I'm not trying to turn it into that, but I was wondering how many people have seen THE LOVELY BONES. There's a movie where both Red and 35mm were being utilized. All in all, I felt the images blended fairly seamlessly, although it is possible to nitpick the differences. Is anyone familiar with the back story of this production and why they chose to use both formats as opposed to just sticking to one?

[Mathew Rudenberg]

 

Everything from "Superman Returns" to "Knowing" to the new Genesis shot movie "Grown Ups" all simply look weird to me and I'm not alone there, by far. It is not the fault of who worked on it because they are all clearly talented people so no use in regurgitating that old argument (Mathew).

 

 

I was meaning less to vomit the old argument than to highlight the hilarity of using food metaphors to refer to filming, is the camera the meat, or is it the pans? maybe it's the ketchup or the dishes :)

 

As a creative your personal tastes define the flavor of your work, maybe some people like natural salt while others want a dose of MSG.

 

Per your original question - there's a very simple answer. If you feel so strongly that Red (and Genesis) shot films 'simply look weird' regardless of the budget and talent involved, simply don't use those cameras, as nothing will make them work for you.

 

It's a creative choice that effects all aspects of your project, from budgeting to the final image, just like choosing to shoot anamorphic 35 or 16mm.

[Mei Lewis]

You have to wonder though if we had been looking at clean digital images for 100 years whether we'd find fault with film images if it were a newly introduced technology.

 

If we'd had digital for 100 years before film was invented, no one would have even considered using film to make movies.

 

 

----

 

 

The reason film results in better looking movies right now is because that's what the better film makers tend to use when they have the budget.

 

People starting out today don't have an emotional or time investment in film. They'll use digital because it's cheap, versatile and it lets them do what they want. If currently digital has lower resolution or dynamic range it doesn't matter to them - the effect is small and dwarfed by other considerations.

 

In 10 years digital will be objectively better than film in every measurable way. In twenty years we'll have maturing film makers who've grown up with the constant freedom to shoot and experiment that cheap digital technology brings, and access to all the information and expert advice they could ask for.

[Chris Keth]

In 10 years digital will be objectively better than film in every measurable way. In twenty years we'll have maturing film makers who've grown up with the constant freedom to shoot and experiment that cheap digital technology brings, and access to all the information and expert advice they could ask for.

 

This is most likely completely true. The interesting question to me is whether or not that access to easy information and cheap digital shooting is a good thing. For a long time, people had to learn things through a system of working up through the ranks, experience, and trial and error. Now someone can easily know most of the theory there is to know without ever touching a camera. It will make very different films, for sure. I can't decide whether I think they will be better, worse, or just different.

[Mathew Rudenberg]

This is most likely completely true. The interesting question to me is whether or not that access to easy information and cheap digital shooting is a good thing. For a long time, people had to learn things through a system of working up through the ranks, experience, and trial and error. Now someone can easily know most of the theory there is to know without ever touching a camera. It will make very different films, for sure. I can't decide whether I think they will be better, worse, or just different.

 

I agree,

 

I often hear the argument that now that anyone can have access to the means to produce relatively high quality images it's all about the talent, and the people that are really skilled will rise to the top.

 

Two problems with that though.

 

One: What is talent, I mean really? Are we talking artistic fidelity or commercial success here?

 

Two: I think limited access was a good thing. If you really really wanted to be a filmmaker and the only way to do it was shoot on 35mm you would find away to do it. The Cohen Bro's did it. Tarentino did it. Pretty much every director I know and love found a way to make movies because they were passionate about what they did and wouldn't let any obstacle stand in their way of telling powerful and unique stories.

 

Now that anyone can spend a couple grand and pump out a movie there's just a lot more trash to sort through to find the good stuff. Same thing happened to the music industry.

 

Nothing to be done about it really, it's just the way things are now...

 

The people that will become the defining voices of the new generation are those who make things that stand out from the background noise of the internet for whatever reason.

 

That will be the new selection process, and think about the things that stand out on the internet... I forget who, but someone said the internet is proof that putting a billion monkeys on typewriters will NOT produce Shakespeare.

[XiaoSu Han]

Random quote from reduser: "A camera that shoots like video and has the ability to look like film. All you have to do is understand the basics of Cinematography. "

 

We've been shooting RED for our past features and it was mainly because of the budget of the whole production or the director who wanted more (unlimited?) takes. We started with doing as many takes as we wished, rolling every rehearsal, talking through takes etc. until the producers stepped in and didn't want to buy harddrives anymore. There goes the 'digital is free' argument.

 

We've been trying very hard to make the RED look as different as HD as possible. It was also because of the material, we just didn't need a hard edged plasticy look for those movies. I've seen a lot of bad stuff on 35mm as well and most of the time it's when people shoot 35 for 35mm's sake but forget that you have to light properly, so most of the bad stuff is from indoors actually.

 

For people like Roger Deakins digital at the moment is a no-go and there has to be a reason besides age and generations for that.

[Brian Drysdale]

 

In 10 years digital will be objectively better than film in every measurable way. In twenty years we'll have maturing film makers who've grown up with the constant freedom to shoot and experiment that cheap digital technology brings, and access to all the information and expert advice they could ask for.

 

Unfortunately we're not dealing with something that isn't totally objective, because there's some level of art (although arguably slight in many cases), that involves an aesthetic element. This, by it's very nature, is subjective and just so long as there's a visual difference between the two media, there can be a case for continuing both.

 

Film has always been expensive, so using it involves a commitment and perhaps a level thought and pre planning that is missing on some video productions.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Brian Drysdale

[Mei Lewis]

Unfortunately we're not dealing with something that isn't totally objective, because there's some level of art (although arguably slight in many cases), that involves an aesthetic element. This, by it's very nature, is subjective and just so long as there's a visual difference between the two media, there can be a case for continuing both.

 

True and that's why I specified objectively better not just better. There are still people who prefer the sound of crackly old mono '78 vinyl to pristine modern stereo recordings (analogue or digital), and the difference there is far more marked.

 

I think a lot of personal preference is familiarity, and what you grew up with, and nowadays people grow up surrounded by digital images. Many youngsters will spend far, far more time looking at computer or video game screens than they ever do at the movies + television combined.

 

The practicalities of film manufacture also weight against its continued use as a recording medium. There needs to be enough demand for it or production will just stop - this has already pretty much happened with analogue magnetic recording tape used in music recording studios, and to some extent with stills film.

[Brian Drysdale]

It could be argued that computer/video games are a different meduim to moves and television.

 

Film continues to be used in fine art photography and I suspect it may get down to one audio tape manufacturer who services those niche people who wish to master onto tape because of that overload saturation effect. The people using this won't be those wanting to do things the standard way or a quick plug in.

 

Often the best method is a combination of analogue and digital. Unfortunately, even CGI can look rather uninteresting compared to a real physical effect.

[Keith Walters]

Regarding Red, are these cameras capable of doing live broadcasts?

 

No, and if they were, there would be a damned sight more of them being used on shows that are seen by more than 0.02% of the population.

 

You can have a somewhat flaky 720p realtime output, or a slightly less flaky 1080p in-camera playback, or you can sometimes wait longer than it takes to get an equivalent amount of 35mm negative processed and scanned, to render the Redcode Raw into something mainstream studios can understand.

 

That fact that the RED is currently getting sand kicked in its face by vastly less capable cameras like the 5D or even the decade-old f900, but which deliver content immediately, says just about all that needs to be said about the futility of format tails attempting to wag the industry dog.

 

(Actually "Industry Cat" would be more appropriate, since the two are about equally responsive to attempts at altering their preferred direction of locomotion :-)

Edited June 27, 2010 by Keith Walters

[Mei Lewis]

It could be argued that computer/video games are a different meduim to moves and television.

 

Completely true, they are, but increasingly they're watched on exactly the same screens.

[Brian Drysdale]

Completely true, they are, but increasingly they're watched on exactly the same screens.

 

 

 

Good screens do reveal the "look" of the source material, so the use of the same screen shouldn't be an issue.

 

However, I don't like going to the cinema and looking at something that can look like it's an AV video projector. The worst being the visual quality of the ads, which has deteriorated in the cinemas in recent years.

[John Sprung]

I forget who, but someone said the internet is proof that putting a billion monkeys on typewriters will NOT produce Shakespeare.

 

Maybe it does, but we just can't find it. ;-) To be or not to be, that is snkso0.s-n,[0oe k .s 3.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.