Jump to content
Nigel Stanford

Film Vs. Red

Recommended Posts

What do people think of Nigel's software? So far I've only seen one real reply.

 

The software is okay but as was already stated, an app is not going to change the fact that RED has good shadows and film has good highlights. And also it was stated that why shoot digital if you want film look? I dont really know what else needs to be said about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, me thinks you should not deal with such Producers if you actually want to make a living. As you know, Profit = Revenue - Expenses. And the wear and tear on your gear makes you very unlikely to profit if you are getting a low rate to begin with. I would think all DPs would push for film as a sort of test of what class of Producer you are working with. Unless of course you like being a bottom feeder.

 

Really? We're gonna insult people now? I was merely making a point and using past experience as an anecdote. By the way in dealing with such producers, I made a very nice day rate on those jobs. I Do not own a camera package but again was just making a point. Also, why would one immediately push for film nowadays? Unless they are ONLY doing the big shows; that would be ridiculous for every project given that they are all different beasts in regards to budget, needs etc. In a perfect world sure, but I don't know many DP's at my level anyway who have impressed a producer by blowing up the budget just to make a point.

Edited by David Desio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, I am not insulting. You said that on some shoots you have a hard time convincing penny pinching producers to even rent HMIs. Now you turn 180 and claim that those same producers pay you a good rate and rent a nice digital package. You arent making sense.

 

Unless the "package" was a DSLR package, it isnt that great of a savings to shoot digital over say, S16MM? Unless, like I said, you "know a guy" who owns a rental house and is going to free ride you which most of us dont (at least I don't.)

 

If you disagree with this, put up some financial figures to back it up. Otherwise, don't accuse me of insulting you when you make producers out to be stingy and that would make you the lowest bidder (aka bottom feeder.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and as Mr. Borowski pointed out, 35mm short ends can be had as cheaply as .10/ft (Actually, on my last short, I was going to shoot 35mm because my DP found a guy who had Fuji short ends for .075/ft). So that really makes the case for film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, I am not insulting. You said that on some shoots you have a hard time convincing penny pinching producers to even rent HMIs. Now you turn 180 and claim that those same producers pay you a good rate and rent a nice digital package. You arent making sense.

 

Unless the "package" was a DSLR package, it isnt that great of a savings to shoot digital over say, S16MM? Unless, like I said, you "know a guy" who owns a rental house and is going to free ride you which most of us dont (at least I don't.)

 

If you disagree with this, put up some financial figures to back it up. Otherwise, don't accuse me of insulting you when you make producers out to be stingy and that would make you the lowest bidder (aka bottom feeder.)

 

By calling me a bottom feeder you are insulting me. Yes, those penny-pinching producers were the SAME ones who paid a nice day rate for the department heads. They also wanted us to get them the best possible image for the lowest cost. I.E. they wanted to know why we needed a light that was so expensive when we could get tungsten units for less, or why the 1st couldn't do the job of both a 1st and 2nd. Producers HAVE to be stingy, it's their job to keep the budget in check and save where they can, isn't it?

 

By your response you seem to only take the big jobs that come your way...great. Glad you have progressed but for some of us working stiff who need to pay bills, our bill collectors don't care where the money comes from as long as the check clears. I have worked on projects that i'm proud of and ones that were merely a paycheck and a way to get my name out there. There's a difference between being a bottom feeder as you say, and someone who is trying to advance their career. We ALL start somewhere unless we are blessed to have such immaculate talent that we can jump right in to the big budget world.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh but man, being presumptuous about someone you've never met irks me.

 

As for the film vs. digital cost, i'm not arguing your point at all...see my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not being presumptous about anything. You were saying that some of the producers you work with are penny pinchers. Okay, fair enough. Now you say they care about getting "the best possible image at the lowest cost." That was my point all along. You still have yet to say what type of camera package said producers were in favor of. If it was an Alexa, RED, Viper, etc then it is highly unlikely that the producer was able to procure said packages for less than basic 35 package with short ends or a higher end S16 package with stock.

 

And it wasnt insulting to call you a bottom feeder. Maybe you arent but I dont know how else to take it if you are working with such a tight producer who cannot even see the merits decent lighting, how is such a producer going to care about the quality of your work vs some student or amateur who will underbid you? That's why it seemed plausible to think that you were the lowest bidder, or at least among the lowest bidders but the highest quality. Call me crazy but a producer who doesnt value lighting probably wont value experience much either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea if anyone has posted this before.. But if you haven't seen it, check it out

 

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011

 

Film was involved too in this test.. If i recall correctly.. Shot with Kodak Film stocks on ArriFlex.

 

The idea of the whole series was to show you the behavior of each available digital camera.

 

http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not being presumptous about anything. You were saying that some of the producers you work with are penny pinchers. Okay, fair enough. Now you say they care about getting "the best possible image at the lowest cost." That was my point all along. You still have yet to say what type of camera package said producers were in favor of. If it was an Alexa, RED, Viper, etc then it is highly unlikely that the producer was able to procure said packages for less than basic 35 package with short ends or a higher end S16 package with stock.

 

And it wasnt insulting to call you a bottom feeder. Maybe you arent but I dont know how else to take it if you are working with such a tight producer who cannot even see the merits decent lighting, how is such a producer going to care about the quality of your work vs some student or amateur who will underbid you? That's why it seemed plausible to think that you were the lowest bidder, or at least among the lowest bidders but the highest quality. Call me crazy but a producer who doesnt value lighting probably wont value experience much either.

 

 

Ok, to clear things up, these producers went back and forth depending on the project, between a varicam and a RED package. They are professional, but they do not like to cut into their profit margin. These are commercial guys I'm talking about. These guys DO in fact value experience and pay for it, for the most part. Yes, they couldn't afford a $1200/day DP but that doesn't mean I'm underbidding those guys. They are on a different level and not even competing for the same jobs. Also, though the camera package and stock may be about the same for film and digital, the post part of it would still be more expensive. See these guys, and a lot of people that I have worked with who originate on digital formats (in the commercial world) have access to basic editing suites at the very least and can ingest the footage, make an EDL, and even do a rough cut before sending it to an editor if that is even part of the workflow. Some do the post themselves, then build that into the price they charge the client.

 

Trust me, I'd rather not work for low-budget producers but I also don't see any offers for bigger shows coming my way at this point and I need to eat and build up a name for myself. I don't know of any other way than starting at the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the high end the cameras are cost competitive with film but the stock is enormously cheaper.

P

Not trying to be disagreeable Phil, but...

I've worked on films (shooting 35mm film) where the cameras were literally free. Accessories weren't, and lenses weren't in some cases, but the actual camera bodies were. When you consider what Alexas or Epics or even Reds are renting for, this is a significant savings. Probably somewhere between $2000 and $5000 a week minimum for a two camera show. That's a very rough estimate I know, but even $2000/week adds up fast. One of these films was 2 perf and while I don't know the exact budget comparisons the producers did, I do know that being able to shoot 2 perf and get the cameras for free was the exact incentive the producers needed to be convinced to shoot film instead of digital. That's a pretty great option in my opinion!

BTW, one of the shows with the free cameras carried 5 camera bodies (four 3 perf and one 4 perf). The other two free camera shows both carried two bodies. There are rental houses willing to make these deals on film cameras, and people should be aware of that. Rental houses want to keep their film cameras working.

Of course, this is in Los Angeles, and it's certainly different in different markets and parts of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can this even be an argument?

 

I am not arguing any point, nor am I making any assertions.

 

Read my posting again. You will see that I am merely pose a number of questions to which, I would have thought, there might reasonably have been expected some convincing answers.

 

What I will assert is that the quality of film as opposed to digital imagery is entirely subjective. There is no definitive answer to the question of which is the "better".

 

That then leaves only non-qualitative issues to be considered, such as cost. That issue, in turn depends on what cost elements are taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I will assert is that the quality of film as opposed to digital imagery is entirely subjective. There is no definitive answer to the question of which is the "better".

 

Okay then Robert, if you had the choice and the budget was identical to shoot a RED or 35mm...which would you choose?

 

The defense rests...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay then Robert, if you had the choice and the budget was identical to shoot a RED or 35mm...which would you choose?

 

The defense rests...

 

Matthew ... you seem to have forgotten ... I ask the questions! I do not provide the answers.

 

That having been said, I would expect any cost benefit analysis to deal with all aspects of cost and not least, labour, equipment, processing and the long term security of imagery.

 

By the way ... the defence is not able to "rest" without first having presented a case. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way ... the defence is not able to "rest" without first having presented a case. LOL

 

My "case" was the point that I have yet to meet someone (who isnt on a Jarred Land hosted website, that is) who would choose to shoot RED or any other digital cinema camera over 35mm if they had the choice. And you failed to answer the question of which you would choose if it were up to you so it seemed as though 35mm would be your choice as well. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "case" was the point that I have yet to meet someone (who isnt on a Jarred Land hosted website, that is) who would choose to shoot RED or any other digital cinema camera over 35mm if they had the choice. And you failed to answer the question of which you would choose if it were up to you so it seemed as though 35mm would be your choice as well. B)

 

I can accept that for "instant" requirement such as news gathering, digital imagery has a place and indeed has marked advantages over film, but I am far from convinced that that it is as "low cost" as some would have us believe. Unlike with film imagery, the constant changes in format and with them the need to use the latest technology, as the latest camera systems are introduced, in order to be with the "in crowd" just never seems to be reflected upon by those who advocate digital as the lower cost approach. As for the long term security of the imagery, it is interesting to note that that also never seems to be costed in by those who advocate digital, and yet the industry standard seems to be based on the long term recording of the digital image in the form of black and white film, which seems, at least to me, to be something of an acceptance that all is not so well in the digital world, and certainly not so low cost from the material, processing or space perspectives.

 

As for digital in the "film world" - that is to say the world of the cinema - it fascinates me that those who advocate the digital form seem constantly to seek the "quality of film"...which, interestingly, is how this thread opened. However I cannot think of one occasion when the cinema going public has been consulted on whether they wanted digital projection as opposed to film projection with the increased costs of admission which seem to be a concomitant of digital projection.

 

The perception of "quality", however, is highly subjective. What pleases one does not necessarily please another, which is why, in an earlier posting, I posed the question why this could not simply be respected. Choice is so important, it seems to me. It tends to lead to "quality" decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perception of "quality", however, is highly subjective. What pleases one does not necessarily please another, which is why, in an earlier posting, I posed the question why this could not simply be respected.

 

I agree that quality is subjective but this is to a point. There comes a point where trends do seem to point to certain mediums over others. For instance, most people feel that a THX certified sound system sounds better than a clock radio. I cant tell you why this is but it does seem to be the case. Most people will also tell you that tube amplifiers sound better than solid state...again, I dont know why this is.

 

And the untrained people I have talked to, who know nothing of the Film VS digital argument, they have said that when they look at movies (that they are later informed were shot on film) that they look "colorful", "have depth", "rich". The digitally acquired footage usually gets remarks like "flat", "soap opera like", "too much like real life", or even "harsh."

 

If quality is totally subjective, why is there such a leaning toward film even for those who are not informed? Is it programming because of 100 years of film or is it because of how humans perceive quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that quality is subjective but this is to a point. There comes a point where trends do seem to point to certain mediums over others. For instance, most people feel that a THX certified sound system sounds better than a clock radio. I cant tell you why this is but it does seem to be the case. Most people will also tell you that tube amplifiers sound better than solid state...again, I dont know why this is.

 

And the untrained people I have talked to, who know nothing of the Film VS digital argument, they have said that when they look at movies (that they are later informed were shot on film) that they look "colorful", "have depth", "rich". The digitally acquired footage usually gets remarks like "flat", "soap opera like", "too much like real life", or even "harsh."

 

If quality is totally subjective, why is there such a leaning toward film even for those who are not informed? Is it programming because of 100 years of film or is it because of how humans perceive quality?

 

I didn't actually say that "quality is totally subjective". I said that it is "highly subjective", which is somewhat different.

 

I do agree, however, that "quality" is a concept that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define or explain.

 

This then leads to the question of why it is that those who claim that digital imagery is better than film really do believe, if indeed they do, and if they do, they should seek to impose their choice (whether it be to record or project digitally) on those who happen not to agree with them. Whether they really do believe what they say is raised into question by acknowledging that the search for a digital equivalent to the "quality of film" goes on.

 

Perhaps this is the point at which the whole thing returns to the issue of cost, that is to say that those who claim that digital imagery is better than film do so because at a particular point and depending on what the relevant business interests are, it is more profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone like a copy of a CD on HD cameras? It is a compilation of interviews on HD technology, but it's not exclusively the RED camera, and some of the cinematographers and directors do shoot both on film and HD format. I'm very curious to hear opinions about the interviews, and can send a free copy, it's a great resource on HD technology. If anyone's interested feel free to send me a message.

Edited by Jenna Whitney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much did the video camera cost you? And how many hours of post did you need?

I bought a 35mm cam for $900.

Bought 2 U16s for a total of $700 and I can shoot a feature for the price of a few days rental of an arri alexa.

How much was your camera to buy or rent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the question of why it is that those who claim that film imagery is better than digital really do believe, if indeed they do, and if they do, they should seek to impose their choice (whether it be to record or project using film) on those who happen not to agree with them. Whether they really do believe what they say is raised into question by acknowledging that the search for a digital equivalent is know mostly reduced to a search for some poorly defined "quality of film".

 

Perhaps this is the point at which the whole thing returns to the issue of cost, that is to say that those who claim that film imagery is better than digital do so because at a particular point and depending on what the relevant business interests are, it is more profitable. (If you can convince producers that film is no more expensive but that you are one of the few who has the skills to work with it you're more employable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this thread was almost dead so sorry to bump it.

 

Just wanted to say that I find that getting a better final image for me is easier in film. This may be because it requires competent colorist to be in the chain while digital productions often overlook this important step, asking the editor to color rather than someone who has dedicated his life to color. It certainly has something to do with the dynamic range that film offers and can help fix my mistakes in lighting and exposure.

 

While the Alexa probably comes close enough in the latitude arena, I can't own one of those cameras for $1500 like I can my crystal Arri 2C. I can pick it up any time I want a go out and shoot. No insurance needed and I get to really know the camera.

 

In most professional situations I would probably go with an Alexa or RED but for lower budget situations where the image is truly important (like doing a promo for a vineyard) I'd bring out the 35mm and have fun. I just know that camera and it's results better.

 

I have more film in my fridge than I know what to do with that I picked up for next to nothing. HD transfers on a Spirit with a competent colorist can be had for $.09/foot. Processing for $.14/foot. For me, the results are worth it on smaller projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • The Original Slider



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Glidecam



    Ritter Battery



    Tai Audio



    Visual Products



    FJS International



    G-Force Grips



    Abel Cine



    Just Cinema Gear



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    CineLab



    Metropolis Post



    Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Serious Gear



    Wooden Camera



    Broadcast Solutions Inc


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...