Epic vs Film - the Decisive Battle is looming

[Tom Lowe]

I have never engaged in any specific predictions about a timeline for when digital will displace chemical film. You can go back to AC articles from the 1980s and find people making bold predictions like this, all of which look foolish in hindsight.

But I will go out on a limb and predict that Epic will engage in - and win - a decisive battle against cinema chemical film in 2010. Epic will obviously be aided by next-gen digital cinema cameras from Sony, Panavision, Arri, Panasonic, etc. Not to mention Red One, Genesis, etc.

This means that by the end of 2010, more major studio pictures will be shooting digitally than on film.

"Opportunities multiply as they are seized."

- Sun Tzu

[Jaime Vallés]

I think you're right.

[Tom Lowe]

I think you're right.

I think YOU are right. :)

[Unwounded]

Honestly, I think there are just two small hurtles left and those are

1: a couple more stops of dynamic range
and
2: rolling shutter issues

[Tom Lowe]

Dynamic range did not stop DSLRs from overtaking SLRs.

[Peter Majtan]

For the last issue standing (the million dollar question) is the archiving of the "digital negatives". The only feasible solution for now are magnetic tapes with shelf life between 10~25 years...

[Thor Wixom]

For the last issue standing (the million dollar question) is the archiving of the "digital negatives". The only feasible solution for now are magnetic tapes with shelf life between 10~25 years...

I know, make a film print!

-Thor

[Thor Wixom]

Actually, how about storing zeros and ones on microfilm?

-Thor

[Peter Majtan]

Thor - You are not that far from the truth. I have designed archival system for Kurosawa that indeed records the digital data onto an analogue film with minimum shelf life of 100+ years... But this system is not entirely economical and fast... :D

[A. Bastaki]

the funny thing about film is.. if you take a still you will notice how shitty it is.. but in motion it looks flawless.. almost grainless. red is quite the opposite.. you take a still.. it looks flawless.. you run it in motion starting from asa 320 .. you will notice the noise and the flaws.

you will notice the flaws in the clipping skies.. you will notice the flaws in hard light. you will notice the flaws in the leaves.

the extra 2 and a half - 3 stops of dr do make a difference. the noise makes a difference. compression artifacts make a difference.

but honestly.. so far... red is kicking ass.

[Stephen Williams]

You can go back to AC articles from the 1980s and find people making bold predictions like this, all of which look foolish in hindsight.

This means that by the end of 2010, more major studio pictures will be shooting digitally than on film.



Hi Tom,

Film is dead was first published over 50 years ago, 30 years before those articles in AC.....

When do you think EPIC will be out of beta?

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

Film is dead was first published over 50 years ago, 30 years before those articles in AC.....

When do you think EPIC will be out of beta?

Stephen

Hopefully in time to make my prediction come true, so I don't look like a fool. :)

[David Mullen ASC]

If you keep predicting the death of film, eventually you'll be right.

Of course, how many people here predicted that the RED ONE would kill film? It seems every new camera that comes out will be the film killer... until the next one comes out...

I remember someone on DV.Com predicting that the DVX100 would kill film -- and then he said that the Canon XL2 would -- and then he said that the Varicam would kill film. He also said that 2001 was the year every household would buy HDTV sets. Then he said it would be 2002. Then he said it would be 2003.

Eventually he's bound to make an accurate prediction. He only has to be right once, no one is going to remember the fifty times he was wrong.

[Dylan Reeve]

I bet Nostradamus has predicted the death of film. And the day HD is the only broadcast option.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Guys, go and see the Dark Knight in Imax, and tell me if you think film is dead.

[Craig Schober]

I remember someone on DV.Com predicting that the DVX100 would kill film -- and then he said that the Canon XL2 would -- and then he said that the Varicam would kill film.

it's about the perspective of the user. if you look at all the micro-budget and even some low budget "films" made in the past 5 years, film was dead...for them. the dvx100 did kill film for many filmmakers...of course they probably still wouldn't have shot film anyway but that would also mean they probably wouldn't have gotten any project off the ground if it wasn't for digital acquisition of some sort. if you have the means to shoot/afford 35mm production, you probably won't think film is dead or will die anytime soon and you also probably won't care. if you're on the fence and straddle the micro/low budget world like myself, the film is dead argument is almost academic because i began caring years ago right after i made my first feature (s16) and began dreaming of a better way.

[Priyesh P.]

taking the massive delays into account a fully operating epic is 2 years and more ahead. but what I totally don`t understand is: why the hell do they announce the "monstro" sensor when "mysteriumX" is not even at the horizon?

[Peter McCully]

If you keep predicting the death of film, eventually you'll be right.

Of course, how many people here predicted that the RED ONE would kill film? It seems every new camera that comes out will be the film killer... until the next one comes out...

I remember someone on DV.Com predicting that the DVX100 would kill film -- and then he said that the Canon XL2 would -- and then he said that the Varicam would kill film. He also said that 2001 was the year every household would buy HDTV sets. Then he said it would be 2002. Then he said it would be 2003.

Eventually he's bound to make an accurate prediction. He only has to be right once, no one is going to remember the fifty times he was wrong.

You are so right about remembering only right predictions. This is why so called psychics continue to scam the gullible.

[Ramesh Jai]

I have never engaged in any specific predictions about a timeline for when digital will displace chemical film. You can go back to AC articles from the 1980s and find people making bold predictions like this, all of which look foolish in hindsight.

But I will go out on a limb and predict that Epic will engage in - and win - a decisive battle against cinema chemical film in 2010. Epic will obviously be aided by next-gen digital cinema cameras from Sony, Panavision, Arri, Panasonic, etc. Not to mention Red One, Genesis, etc.

This means that by the end of 2010, more major studio pictures will be shooting digitally than on film.

"Opportunities multiply as they are seized."

- Sun Tzu
I love film and I also hate the whole film vs digital debate. But the truth is out there.

In 15-20 years there will be a whole new generation of 'film' makers who would have never shot on celluloid just like many of today's generation of still photographers who haven't shot on 'film'.

Long live Film. Long live Digital. Long live story tellers.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Please guys, don't kill film :waaa:... just remove its monopoly.

I personally don't have a problem with film aesthetically.

The main problem is price.

And the complexity of the workflow - cans, labs, processing, telecine, filmouts...

RED is really close, but film still has its advantages.

I can't explain why.

Maybe it's the many layers inside [for color]... maybe it's the extra latitude... or that silver stuff... or the combination of all these... dunno.

But film has its thing... which, on the other hand, seems impossibly expensive.

I think digital will ultimately win when sensors start physically acquiring the image the way film does. FoveonX3 and such. :ph34r:

Anyway, I'd like film to stay as a niche. If I could afford it, I would use film... as long as its fitting the story.

Story rules.

[David Birdy]

Digital Cinema will certainly gain a large share of the market,(and already has)
Trying to pin a date and time is very difficult.

I shot a Red test in Talladega for a NASCAR race and was amazed at the fact that NO photographers in the media room were shooting "film".

I asked one photographer how long it had been since he saw a "film" camera in the room and he said it was a few years!

The freelance photographers use digital cameras for these reason's:

Reduced cost.

Quick turnaround times.

Reduced cost.

Great images.

Reduced cost.

Easy and cost effective distribution.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Do you think any motion picture companies would benefit from the list above?

Do you know any producers that would like to reduce cost?

Seems like Mr. Jannard may have come to this conclusion a few years back!


While we were shooting on the "grid" I saw a well know sports "film person" shooting 16MM,one of his crew members pointed out the Red One we were shooting with and he glanced over and looked down his nose at the Red One. When I asked him if he had shot with it yet he said," Why would I want to shoot with that Star Wars looking camera"...That comment said it all...

It will take time and effort to move "film People" from film to digital, but just as the freelance professional Photography industry transitioned, so will a majority of the motion picture studios. Will it be 2010? It's unlikely, but the market share for Digital Cinema will certainly continue to grow!

Don't forget about this guy named George Lucas that has embraced Digital Cinema and used the benefits of the medium to his advantage, releasing a few popular movies........

P.S.

I never owned a Porsche or Ferrari but that day in the Photo room with the Red One gave me that feeling, as crowds of people gathered around to see the Red One and ask about it!

Dave

[jpp]

This means that by the end of 2010, more major studio pictures will be shooting digitally than on film.


That's a very short period of time, for a generally conservative industry to make that kind of a switch.

Digital urgency, and in some cases evangelism, seems to be felt most strongly among people who aren't actually making films, because they see it as an enabling technology. If you're already enabled, you may be more likely to stick with film for a few years more or to work in both mediums. And why would there be a hurry to adopt new technology when the existing technology is grand and improving, and with workflow and archiving proven and well-understood?

The analogy with D-SLRs may not be a good one. Convenience, and cost to individuals seems to be the crucial factor there. If you needed a production company, a large crew and $75 million to take still photographs, there would probably be more film cameras around.

[Chris Pickle]

No offense, but "reduced cost" is the weakest part of the argument. Any budget above a certain amount will not benefit from reduced cost. Everyone thinks it will, but it doesn't.

Someone will say if we save money we can afford more X or Y. But budget line items are like a pack of wolves. If there is some stray money, all the wolves descend on it, each getting a little taste, which then doesn't translate directly to the screen. Most producers know this. If you save a few bucks somewhere, it only ends up with slightly better craft services, or maybe more fair day rates or an extra trailer.

If you tell a producer on a 2 million dollar budget and above that they could save 50k if the shoot the Red, they won't jump at it. Yes, you could save more maybe, but producers hate risk as much as spending money. Tell them the post will be a challenge and you will lose them. They currently have a very proven work-flow and it's hard / scary to change. Many big spot houses and post houses still offline in 3/4 which I think is just complete insanity, but hey, they've been doing it for years that way.

And ironically at the low end, you could rent film gear cheaper than a Red kit. And with Red, you still have to sync audio in post--same as film. Render to an offline codec overnight--same as a film transfer. It's kind of ironic that you could get film developed and transfered faster than a Red render. In the big cities they turn around film in hours.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Red and plan to shoot my next project with it, but I think it shines mostly in very low budget projects where you could never get the image quality with anything else, as well, I think it's also good on the very big budget projects where you can make a choice to use it, and you have enough resources to trouble shoot, the still in development, work-flow.

I'm impressed when a big-name filmmaker uses the Red, but I also know they also have access to a money hose to put out fires.

I think film will be here for many more years.

Just my thoughts.

Chris

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's how it will probably go, since it is already happening:

More and more TV production companies will mandate shooting digitally for dramatic series normally shot on film, following Showtime's lead and other cable companies. Someday you'll hear rumors that, let's say, ABC Television wants all their new season shows to be shot on the Genesis or RED, etc.

The smaller studio-owned feature companies will also start pressuring their producers to shoot digitally once they are comfortable with the workflow and reliability. Those producers will start pressuring their directors and DP's to choose a digital option.

Eventually only the biggest feature productions (and commercials) will be left on their own to decide what format to shoot, but as more and more of their directors come from a background of shooting digitally, more and more will opt for what they are comfortable with.

Who knows how long for all of that to happen. It's already happening, of course, but it's not at a steady rate. It will probably be happening in big chunks or leaps as whole production entities and studios switch over. So in three years, five years, seven years, I don't know. I don't think it will be a specific camera like the EPIC that causes the conversion though, it will be the expansion of options combined with the comfort of using a proven workflow available at a wide variety of post houses, and a belief in the reliability of the cameras. For all the people who want to be first in line to use something new, there are a lot of people who would rather be last in line and stick to what they know works until then.

[Tom Lowe]

If you keep predicting the death of film, eventually you'll be right.

Well, this is my first such prediction. :)

[James T Mather]

This "film is dead" thing is so incredibly boring and juvenile (I'm sorry but it is). Given that an appreciation of "the film look" is why most people are interested in the Red camera, it seems a touch ungrateful to be celebrating it's death so joyously. Maybe give it a rest - when was the last time you went to the cinema to see a movie shot on bigibeta (they we're heralding the death of film when that was released too). Why not be grateful that films shot up to fifty years ago still look great - celebrate the fact that its still around instead of everyone jumping on the same bus with hand-wringing glee at it's extinction. Its like you all want to see it gone.

[Häakon]

Of course, how many people here predicted that the RED ONE would kill film? It seems every new camera that comes out will be the film killer... until the next one comes out...
I suppose this all depends on how one defines "killing film." Does it mean that the majority of productions in the world have shifted to digital acquisition? Does it mean that film is literally dead - that Kodak has completely stopped manufacturing stock and no one is shooting it anymore? When we say "film," are we discussing common run-of-the mill 35mm scope, or does it encompass larger formats like IMAX and beyond? Everyone likes to throw this phrase around, but I don't think it really has a unified, singular "definition."

For me, the RED ONE has already killed film. I get the quality I want, the DOF I want, the solid state architecture I want, and the vastly superior digital workflow I want in a package that's actually affordable. (Hey, what a concept)! I think many have prophecized about other cameras' legacy in much the same way (as you mentioned, the DVX, the XL2, the Varicam, etc.) because *on paper* the cameras look pretty good. I was pretty hyped up about the HVX myself with it's "1080p," true overcranking, and tapeless media. Then I got it home and found out it was quasi-720p at best, full of noise, and had a very poor codec that could be pushed around very little in post without disastrous results. It's easy to get caught up in the hype when companies make grandiose promises... but far more often than not, they fall pretty flat.

That, then, is what I think makes RED's story so interesting. Many have credited RED's "brilliant marketing" as a reason for the enormous hype/success the camera has received, but I honestly don't think they have marketed it much at all. They simply made a superior offering to everything else that's available - and then perhaps more importantly, delivered what they promised. Indeed, the the legion of fanboys have taken the hype to the next level and maybe it's this "marketing" which has annoyed more than a few... but honestly, I think there are quite a few reasons to be excited over what RED has put on the table.

Do I think RED ONE is the ultimate camera? No. There are still flaws, and hey... call me picky, but the quality of the image still has room to grow. All of this technology will only continue to evolve and get better. Remember that film has a hundred-year start! Look where digital offerings were 10 years ago compared to today. The improvement is exponential. Even Epic won't be there quality-wise, I don't think... we need in the realm of 6K-8K before that happens. Perhaps that's what "Monstro" is for, but I honestly don't think that's more than a great idea on a piece of paper at this point. What excites me is that I believe RED will actually deliver that cool idea someday. :-)

Anyway - *for me* - 2007 was the tipping point in the digital vs. film equation in that RED was the camera that's finally "good enough" to best film given all of the advantages it has. Image quality had to reach a certain threshold before this could happen, absolutely, but now that it's there - AND you throw in the benefits of instant playback, realtime accurate monitoring, no processing, no developing, no telecine, instant editing opportunities... I mean, do I need to go on? I see very little reason to shoot film unless the project absolutely demands it and production can afford those costs. And unquestionably there are pictures where film would be more appropriate - but the vast majority don't. If you are shooting a commercial, music video, industrial... even if you're shooting a big-budget studio film like "Meet Dave" in 2008, I think RED is a far better choice. And for those reasons, I think film is already dead.

And for others, it will never be. :-)

Isn't in a wonderful time to be a filmmaker?

[Chris Parker]

i can say that digital is coming faster and faster. i have posted several times on my thoughts on this, with 2012 as my prediction as i recall.

over the past 5 years, digital has begun replacing film on the commercial sets i work on at an increasing RATE. the percentage is still about 80% film, 20% digital. this is accelerating though, and i think it will continue to accelerate. i would actually agree now that by the END of 2010, over 50% of the jobs that I work on (high end commercials) will be shot digitally. thing is, once it gets to 50% or so, the rest will go quickly in commercial world. it has to become considered the 'norm' and then it's all the execs will budget for, except the odd old director/DP that won't bite.

[Chris Pickle]

This "film is dead" thing is so incredibly boring and juvenile (I'm sorry but it is). Given that an appreciation of "the film look" is why most people are interested in the Red camera, it seems a touch ungrateful to be celebrating it's death so joyously. Maybe give it a rest - when was the last time you went to the cinema to see a movie shot on bigibeta (they we're heralding the death of film when that was released too). Why not be grateful that films shot up to fifty years ago still look great - celebrate the fact that its still around instead of everyone jumping on the same bus with hand-wringing glee at it's extinction. Its like you all want to see it gone.

Hey James,

Here! Here!

BTW - Did you ever release Prey Alone as a full download. I'd love to watch the entire short. I read every bit of info and "making of" clips that you had on your Saint & Mather site.

Oh, I just checked. Is the "Watch The Movie" link the entire film?

I'm downloading it now!

Cheers,
Chris

[James T Mather]

Hey James,

Here! Here!

BTW - Did you ever release Prey Alone as a full download. I'd love to watch the entire short. I read every bit of info and "making of" clips that you had on your Saint & Mather site.

Oh, I just checked. Is the "Watch The Movie" link the entire film?

I'm downloading it now!

Cheers,
Chris

Yep, thats the whole thing Chris. Compressions a bit strong at times though.

[Tom Lowe]

This "film is dead" thing is so incredibly boring and juvenile (I'm sorry but it is). Given that an appreciation of "the film look" is why most people are interested in the Red camera, it seems a touch ungrateful to be celebrating it's death so joyously. Maybe give it a rest - when was the last time you went to the cinema to see a movie shot on bigibeta (they we're heralding the death of film when that was released too). Why not be grateful that films shot up to fifty years ago still look great - celebrate the fact that its still around instead of everyone jumping on the same bus with hand-wringing glee at it's extinction. Its like you all want to see it gone.

I don't think we are celebrating the death of film. Rather, we are celebrating the rise of digital cinema technology and all the democratizing benefits it brings to filmmakers. I mean, 15 years ago if you wanted to shoot and edit a little movie, you had to basically go to film school, spend a fortune on film and lab costs, camera rental, etc, then cut the thing on a hand splicer, and even then you had no real way of showing it to the world. It was not even possible to teach yourself editing, or special effects, or the art of color correction. You couldn't just "fiddle around" on After Effects or an NLE.

I used to shoot 35mm still film for years. But I remember what it was like to hand my precious roll of film over to some punk, pimple-face kid at the lab and PRAYING that they would not F up the exposure on my shots.

Now I'M THE LAB. I control my shots from start to finish, and the power of RAW makes me laugh when I think of handing a roll of film to some punk. :)

It's not so much a celebration of the death of anything. It is a celebration of new opportunities.

[jpp]

I mean, 15 years ago if you wanted to shoot and edit a little movie, you had to basically go to film school, spend a fortune on film and lab costs, camera rental, etc, then cut the thing on a hand splicer, and even then you had no real way of showing it to the world. It was not even possible to teach yourself editing, or special effects, or the art of color correction. You couldn't just "fiddle around" on After Effects or an NLE....

There's no question that it's much easier today, but 15 years ago there were loads of people making ultra-low budget 16mm movies, and no need of film school. Cameras were cheap to rent from non-profits or finagle from local universities, and you could put a Steenbeck in your apartment for $100 a month. Gus van Sant, Richard Linklater, Christopher Nolan, Kevin Smith (alas), and others launched careers with 16mm features well under $20,000.

Where you really see the difference today is the low cost and portability of video opening up documentary filmmaking to the masses, often to the good. But in the dramatic realm, it's not all that clear that technological change has altered the equation much. If anything, there may have been more possibilities in those days.

[James T Mather]

I don't think we are celebrating the death of film. Rather, we are celebrating the rise of digital cinema technology and all the democratizing benefits it brings to filmmakers....

It's not so much a celebration of the death of anything. It is a celebration of new opportunities.

Despite all of the above Tom your first post says this:


But I will go out on a limb and predict that Epic will engage in - and win - a decisive battle against cinema chemical film in 2010.

See what I mean about the Dickensian hand-wringing glee and delight in seeing film go (and I'm not just talking about you - it's across this board) - In general it makes this board sound a little juvenile and like amateur-night IMVHO. (no disrespect intended to you Tom, this is a general observation on camera boards). Any fervent zealotry in any field can only be met with derision - and the drum-beating fanboy thing makes people sound like Red Jihadists crashing into the "film" monopoly.

The Red is a CAMERA - that's it. It's a tool which should be able to co-exist with other tools. and before everybody claims that Red is the second coming of Christ almighty let me say that while the response to the system has been excellent overall, there are some issues with it (Digital cameras in general) that film beats hands-down at this stage - film is only dead to people who cannot afford it - but it also costs a lot to make a film - unless, like you Tom, they are a one-man timelapse show. Cameras and stock are a small percentage of a motion picture budget unless it's some guy making a movie in his auntie's kitchen with his sister in the lead role.

Right now, for general work on high end stuff there is no better format on the planet than 35mm film - it's bulletproof - no codec errors, no IR contamination, extended DR, good archival format (not to mention it's self archiving), wider range of ASA's available (as in digital cameras are really only good to about 500/640 and then look very "digital"), heat proof cameras, better daylight colour rendition, no shutter skew, no split screen strobe artifacts, proven workflow. There are reasons that Hollywood has been slow to adapt - too much money is at stake on a movie to risk it on a camera that hasn't got some road under it's tyres.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Red camera - - I've shot about twelve commercials on it at this stage - it's a great piece of kit and people love the pics etc but it's not a religion or a competition. The "film is dead" polemic just makes people on this board sound slightly unbalanced - as a consequence other opinions have no weight because this board is viewed as being a hotbed of Red fundamentalism.

And all of this is very respectfully IMVHO.

best to all - and Tom, I love your timelapse stuff BTW - incredibly cinematic.

James

[Häakon]

See what I mean about the Dickensian hand-wringing glee and delight in seeing film go (and I'm not just talking about you - it's across this board) and in general it makes this board sound a little juvenile and like amateur-night IMVHO. Any fervent zealotry in any field can only be met with derision - and the drum-beating fanboy thing makes people sound like Red Jihadists crashing into the "film" monopoly.

Right now, for general work on high end stuff there is no better format on the planet than 35mm film - it's bulletproof - no codec errors, no IR contamination, extended DR, good archival format (not to mention it's self archiving), wider range of ASA's available (as in digital cameras are really only good to about 500/640 and then look very "digital"), heat proof cameras, better daylight colour rendition, no shutter skew, proven workflow.
Hi James,

I completely respect where you are coming from and I understand the frustration you are expressing, although I don't think that calling anyone a juvenile zealot is likely to win you many points. This is, after all, a forum for discussing all things RED; it would be foolish to pretend that a chunk of those participating aren't going to want it to "win" over other options. Fighting that is like going on an Apple discussion forum and saying that Windows is far superior because it still has 90% market share and the widest selection of software and peripherals of any OS available. This may be true, but is such a battle worth waging there?

You totally lose me when you start declaring film as the "best" format because it's "bulletproof" - I can tell you that for every codec error and "IR contamination" problem I've had shooting with RED, I've had plenty more hairs in the gate, registration errors, light leaks, lab f*ups, scratches on the negative (the list is endless) with film. No medium is perfect. And while you make some valid points about film image properties like extended DR or wider usable ASA values (debatable), you completely fail to take into consideration all of the severe workflow advantages that digital brings to the table - not the least of which being able to see exactly what you're shooting while you're shooting it. That's a feature that you really can't trump no matter how you spin it.

There is no question that digital acquisition still has a ways to go, but what I think people are latching onto is that the improvements being made in the technology are so exponential on a year-to-year basis that it is clear to see an end-of-life for traditional celluloid on the horizon. That's a glaring new reality for our craft (even though as David has pointed out, many have "predicted" such an outcome for years), and as it's a sharp detour from the singular way things have been done in this business since the inception of motion picture, it is bound to be a little disruptive!

Again, it all depends on how one chooses to define "the death of film," but I am with many others that at some point in the not-too-distant future, the majority of motion picture releases will be shot with digital equipment. That alone is a fairly revolutionary idea worth discussing whether you're excited about it or not.

Best,

Häakon

[James T Mather]

I'm not anti-red - I happen to own one (another on order) and shoot regularly with it - it's great - I'm saying that it's only a camera not a religion. - It's all a bit "Manchester United is better than Liverpool" - a bit school boyish. Live and let live.


you completely fail to take into consideration all of the severe workflow advantages that digital brings to the table


The workflow is not up to spec yet as far as the post houses are concerned with all the (ludicrously slow) Redcine processing of rushes - the ability to manipulate the data directly from the camera is an absolute necessity and not just in FCP (which is a desktop package, albeit a good one I understand) but from all major editing systems in professional use (eg: AVID). Also maintaining access to the full RAW data until the final step of colour grading is also a priority. The shooting workflow I think is great - it's about the easiest camera in the world to learn. Just clean up the codec stuff and we're rocking in terms of shooting.


image properties like extended DR or wider usable ASA values (debatable)

I personally thought Apocalypto looked awful with the overcranked noisy chip resulting in poor latitude and awful video noise characteristics - it's entirely subjective. Great movie - poor format choice, given they were shooting in a place where contrast control would be a problem. IMHO.


I can tell you that for every codec error and "IR contamination" problem I've had shooting with RED, I've had plenty more hairs in the gate, registration errors, light leaks, lab f*ups, scratches on the negative (the list is endless) with film.

I haven't seen a hair in the gate for about four years, no registration errors for about ten years, light leaks (sure, mostly pilot error in terms of assistants blowing a mag) labs etc. In fairness, digital has been on the road for only a couple of years while film has been going for a century - as such more stories will abound regarding errors because it's had more time to gather them. Digital will have it's day too - corrupted data, drive errors, codec problems, people erasing cards accidentally etc.

Look back at Lawrence of Arabia - still one of the most beautiful films shot - it stands up well even today. Blade Runner, The Duellists, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - all still great looking movies. I can't see those early Blondie and Rolling Stones videos shot on video looking too hot these days.



No medium is perfect.

Agreed. That's exactly my point. A bit of balance.


not the least of which being able to see exactly what you're shooting while you're shooting it

That's never particularly been a problem for me - but then I make my living as a cameraman. All I'm saying is that rabid fandom creates a situation where the opinions are no to be trusted because it comes from a place where there is no balance. If I wanted to learn something about Islam, for example, I wouldn't talk to a fundamentalist who thinks that all other ways of life should be terminated in favour of his vision. In the end of the day Red is great - but it is a camera (and, all things being equal - a very good one)

[Harry Clark]

James,
Couldn't agree more. Rabid fanboy-ism blocks intelligent discussion no matter what the subject.
Cheers,
Harry

[Tom Lowe]

jtm, this whole passive-aggressive "you're a zealot... no offense" gets kind of old, dude. :)

i have stated very clearly, on this forum, that right now, 35mm beats Red for feature films. does that make me a blind zealot? when most of the people on this board claimed Red One was going to put film out to pasture, i was one of the few people here saying that it would not. for a couple of years now i have thought that it is Red's second offering (which we recently learned would be the 5K Epic) that would tilt the balance and start an exponential trend toward digital adoption. along with Panavision, Sony and other companies coming out with new cameras in the near future.

what i am predicting is similar to what has already taken place with SLRs. i don't think anyone actually denies that this is going to happen. so it's a matter of when.

if i came on here and predicted with glee that 10-core CPUs were going to replace 8-core CPUs, does that mean I am anti-8-core? No, it just means I am pro 10-core. nerds are sitting around discussion boards all day predicting when some new technology trend will occur. Kurzweil has made an entire career out of it. so just because i predict that digital will overtake film by the end of 2010 on studio features i am automatically tossed in with all the stark raving clowns who have made bogus predictions about digital in the past?

sometimes it seems like the guys who feel the need to defend film are sort of shadow-boxing against strawmen. anyone who says digital is going to do this or that is automatically lumped in with all the trash-talking pro-digital loudmouths who have ever graced the internet. you know, it is possible to have a nuanced view on these matters, and it does get a little tiresome to be lectured continually on the same two subjects: 1. More resolution won't make your script or actors better and 2. People have been predicting a digital takeover for 20 years.

most of us here are well aware of these two facts. i addressed point number 2 in the op of this thread.

[James T Mather]

Sorry Tom - it just caught me on an off day - and another "film is dead" thread just caught in my throat. Apols if i offended as it wasn't your specific post that I was responding to but rather the "film is dead" argument on general principle.

I agree that digital will make massive inroads (hell, if the past month is anything to go by, I might be surprised if I ever get to shoot film again) - it just seems that some people seem to want it to go that way. (yourself respectfully excluded of course :wink: )

and in fact more resolution will make your script and actors better - everyone knows that.

Best - James

[jpp]

Most of the anti-film fundamentalism, present on the board (though not in this thread), seems more of a consumer fantasy than anything else: the belief that owning a high quality non-film camera is tantamount to access to the feature film market, because film is the gate (so they say) that Hollywood uses to keep the rest of us out. The fact that visual beauty rarely has anything to do with the success of low-budget non-Hollywood movies, even assuming it can be achieved on low budget, and that resolution per se has next to no market influence, is easily forgotten.

Those who found 16mm too daunting or expensive, or believe DV isn't good enough, or that Scarlet won't be good enough, are likely to find reasons not to shoot anything with Red or Epic either. And those reasons could be excellent: for example, there just isn't enough to money to pull the film off, even if the camera were free. It's also true that most of the low-budget non-Hollywood film successes, most of them shot on 16mm, aren't very good. Making those films turned out to be a life-transfiguring decision for the directors, but few of these productions could be justified on aesthetic grounds today or yesterday.

In the end, the drive to make films seems to have very little to do with technology or even money. Determination and fearlessness are far more important than any camera. Spoken by someone (me) who will almost certainly buy a Scarlet, but can't readily explain why.

Hope this doesn't sound like another lecture on why resolution won't improve the script or the performances, or make the film more marketable, but too much interest in equipment, in a camera, can be another kind of impediment, an avoidance of reality. Anyway, I speak from personal experience of this malady, no imputations of others intended.

[James T Mather]

jpp - wow! :ohmy: that gets my vote for post of the year - never a truer word spoken, er, typed.

Kudos.

In fact - getting your hands on a free camera to shoot is pretty easy once you have everything else in place. A friend of mine planned shooting on DV - I talked him out of it and we made the short on 35mm for 5000 euros - camera package provided for free by Panavison, stock donated by FUJI, he even got a discount processing rate and free TK. Most of the five grand went on production expenses such as getting actors to the set, catering, lighting rental, location fees, props, costume, etc. The camera is the least of your worries when making a narrative film.

Last year myslelf and a friend put together this little 3 minute thing - all greenscreen. Got the studio for free, lights for free, crew for free, Arri donated a d-20 camera for free, editing was free, I did all the post effects myself - a cast of around six people for a three day shoot - actors got only expenses. It still cost 18000 euros making it. In short, the hidden costs of shooting only become apparent when one is shooting - things like catering, locations costs etc tend to cost a lot and the bills mount up pretty fast.

[Tom Lowe]

Listen, I agree with you guys regarding the whole issue of people thinking a nicer camera is going to magically make them filmmakers. Most of us here totally get that - we understand it. We understood it 5 years ago on DVXuser. That's why the lectures are getting tiresome. :bleh:

[James T Mather]

the lectures are getting tiresome. :bleh:

I thought I'd apologised for jumping on your "film is dead" thing a few posts ago. Take it or leave it. Plus I don't recall "lecturing" you (as you condescendingly put it) on the subject of "buying a better camera magically makes you a filmmaker" in the last few posts. I thought we were on the well-worn "film is extinct" lecture - which isn't getting tiresome at all.

[Bob Gruen]

No way by 2010...

The thing that must be understood is industry inertia. There are investments at every level: the DoP who has an educational investment, manufacturers that make cameras and duplicating equipment, production companies who have a history with a given workflow and technology...

Structured industries are always slower to adapt. The professional photography industry is different as it is made up of many independent individuals that have much less in terms of capital investment, and suppliers moving many more low cost units (when compared to motion pictures equip). Comparing Hollywood to the professional photography industry is so apples to oranges as to be ridiculous.

We (the small independent filmmakers) do have more in common with photographers in terms of how we are positioned in our respective industries. We are buying tools to build a low cost workflow that can ultimately be printed to filmstock and sent to theaters, but we will fight the uphill battle in doing so. An executive producer is looking at my project but sees the Red Camera as a major problem. I see it as a huge asset that will allow me to spend my time instead of dollars in getting to the final product. To me the fewer people in the workflow the better (fewer cooks in the kitchen). It will also allow me to attempt camera movements and special effects that I wouldn't dare with precious filmstock and know right away if it is working.

As for the democratizing effect of the Red Camera, also ridiculous. It is an improperly used word so I am assuming it is meant to mean that anyone, anywhere could get something into theaters. Not true in the foreseeable future and probably not true in our lifetimes. When 4K projectors become prevalent at theaters it will still not be true. There will be distributors who will have to pay for the advertising and you will have to sell your film to them to make it work. The only cost savings will be the print cost, but that unto itself is not a key to democratizing the process.

Bob

[Tom Lowe]

I thought I'd apologised for jumping on your "film is dead" thing a few posts ago. Take it or leave it. Plus I don't recall "lecturing" you (as you condescendingly put it) on the subject of "buying a better camera magically makes you a filmmaker" in the last few posts. I thought we were on the well-worn "film is extinct" lecture - which isn't getting tiresome at all.

We're here to discuss cameras, not to trade personal jabs. I suggest you move on and get back to the discussion of cameras instead of personal issues.

Bob, you make some good points about the investment a lot of people have in the current system.

[James T Mather]

What personal jab?

I was responding to:


the lectures are getting tiresome.

that's not a personal jab, no? Talk about the pot and the kettle.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tom, you're the one who used the term "battle" -- i.e. conflict. So don't be surprised if conflict is one of the things your post generates! You set it up as a confrontation with a clear winner and a loser, and many of us don't think in those terms, not in regards to tools. But then, I don't really like sports either, let alone wars. I don't like us vs. them arguments, this vs. that, who wins, who loses, partisan politics, etc. It just as much confuses the topic under discussion as clarifies.

We are in a transitional phase in regards to technology, with a lot if hybrid approaches being used currently and a lot of people working with a wide variety of tools who don't particularly have to "take sides" when it's not an either-or world they work in.

I think what some of us find a bit distasteful is this constant betting on when film will die, as if we were at a dogfight or something. Film has such a rich heritage that when it does finally die, hopefully someone will take a moment to thank it for all the great images it brought us for over a century. In the meanwhile, constantly talking about it's impending death is a little like talking constantly about how much longer your parents are going to be alive. It's not something I feel comfortable with. I'd rather focus on the here and now, and just enough into the future to be practical.

[Tom Lowe]

David, my prediction was specifically about market share. That's a zero-sum game. There are winners and losers. Similar to the SLR vs DLSR situation.

Sorry if my whole thread title was too dramatic. Maybe I was being a little mischievous :)

[Stephen Williams]

, I've had plenty more hairs in the gate, registration errors, light leaks, lab f*ups, scratches on the negative (the list is endless) with film.
Häakon

Hi Häakon,

With those problems clearly working with film did not suit you. It's 7 years since I have had a hair in the gate on 1 take, I never had a light leak or registration error in 29 years, and once a lab lightly scratched some neg that could be printed without any problem in a wet gate printer.

My best,

Stephen

[jpp]

Trying to guess the year in which 50.1% of studio productions are shot digitally is about as interesting as predicting next year's corn harvest, or the year when not one American believes the sun orbits the earth. So your post was quite naturally read as subtext, dancing on the grave of film.


Listen, I agree with you guys regarding the whole issue of people thinking a nicer camera is going to magically make them filmmakers. Most of us here totally get that - we understand it. We understood it 5 years ago on DVXuser. That's why the lectures are getting tiresome. :bleh:

Since you're probably referring to my lecture - not jtm's - here goes: I wonder how many people really do understand this? How many of those DVXUSERs are still waiting for "better" cameras? How many "filmmakers" with zero experience have decided that nothing less than 6K is up to their standards?

Needless to say, these views are unimportant, it's nothing worth flogging here. But one does hear a lot of it on the boards.... Or so it sounds, anyway.

[Sean]

I think in some instances a better camera does make the difference for a filmmaker. The camera can be the difference between a film going far and a film disappearing from sight completely. There are a couple of DVX100 features that were done so brilliantly five years ago, and I know they never got any semblance of distirbution, even on DVD. I mean these films are REALLY good, in terms of script and performance. They were low-res, muddy SD movies though, and I believe the same people would be shooting on a borrowed Red now, and I bet those films would be distributed. A camera doesn't make a filmmaker, but a camera can make a difference to the filmmaker's film.

I'm a huge fan of Inland Empire, shot on the PD150, so there are lots of examples of great filmmakers showing their brilliance with any camera you put in their hand. But the low budget film we want to make won't have the benefit of Laura Dern and a brand-name like Lynch to attract the budget and the public notice.

[jpp]

I think in some instances a better camera does make the difference for a filmmaker. The camera can be the difference between a film going far and a film disappearing from sight completely. There are a couple of DVX100 features that were done so brilliantly five years ago, and I know they never got any semblance of distirbution, even on DVD. I mean these films are REALLY good, in terms of script and performance. They were low-res, muddy SD movies though, and I believe the same people would be shooting on a borrowed Red now, and I bet those films would be distributed. A camera doesn't make a filmmaker, but a camera can make a difference to the filmmaker's film.

This might be true in individual cases - impossible to know - but it's not true generally. If a film is "REALLY good" (or marketable) the format has proven to be irrelevant in the marketplace. Whatever you think of it, "Once" was a far bigger hit than all the 35mm and HD productions which never got distributed in the first place. And of course Blair Witch was/is the most successful indie of all time, except maybe for porn.

This is not an argument for shooting DV, if you've got access to Red. Just a marketing observation.

[Sean]

Nah. A really really good DVX100 drama still won't get distribution. I thought it would, but if you saw a couple of these films (at fests) and then watched them disappear. Yes, there are exceptions. They're just really truly miniscule exceptions. And yes, so few films get distribution anyhow. But I still believe a few of these awesome DVX films shot on Red WOULD have got distribution, even if straight to DVD.

Blair Witch was shot on film for the most part. And the video parts were supposed to be "consumer video" in appearance.

I'm talking about movies shot as movies with DVX100, not docs or films incorporating a look that is supposed to be a video camera.

Anyhow the discussion was about whether a camera makes the filmmaker. And it obviously doesn't. It never will, no matter how good a camera it is. And who is gonna make a DVX feature now anyhow. You could make an EX1 feature, and that's got a shot. So I guess my point is sorta moot. It's old news.

[jpp]

Nah. A really really good DVX100 drama still won't get distribution. I thought it would, but if you saw a couple of these films (at fests) and then watched them disappear. Yes, there are exceptions. They're just really truly miniscule exceptions. And yes, so few films get distribution anyhow. But I still believe a few of these awesome DVX films shot on Red WOULD have got distribution, even if straight to DVD.

Blair Witch was shot on film for the most part. And the video parts were supposed to be "consumer video" in appearance.

I'm talking about movies shot as movies.

The odds of getting a DVX100 film distributed are extremely poor, but the same is true of an indie HD or 35mm production. If the productions don't have stars, the determining factor will be the nature of the drama or the festival audience response, not the acquisition format. Saying otherwise may seem more reasonable or just, but that doesn't make it true. Look at the distribution history of non-celebrity indie film, and draw your own conclusions about the importance of production value.

Straight to DVD is a still weaker argument, since production value is even less crucial.

Not more than few minutes of Blair Witch was shot on 16mm, some of the mock interviews. The rest was consumer hi8. Whether it was supposed to look like "consumer video" or not, people went to see the film. I don't think they were concerned with the format.

[Steve Sanacore]

Dynamic range did not stop DSLRs from overtaking SLRs.

But in the still world, most of us had to shoot reversal film, which is the print industry standard. There's not much dynamic range on transparency film and exposure had to be perfect, so it wasn't hard to improve on with digital. Once still cameras reached 10 megapixels digital replaced film in less than a year for most jobs. It was amazing how fast it took over.

Negative film is a different animal with lots of dynamic range but much more grain. And it looks fantastic when projected where I think the grain gives it an organic feel. I think digital will replace film for sure, but it's not as cut and dry for movie work.

[Joel Kaye]

Nah. A really really good DVX100 drama still won't get distribution.

That same drama shot on film wouldn't have gotten distribution either. Drama's don't sell without stars, and even with stars they have a very hard time getting off the ground.

[James T Mather]

I think that regardless of the tech specs the truth is that digital will replace film eventually due to the simple economics involved. The eventual decison will not be made by cinematographers but, in fact, I think, producers. All digital images needed to reach was a position where, broadly speaking, Joe Sixpack cannot differentiate between it and film - It's pretty fair to say that we've arrived at this stage.

Producers are hot on the Red because it's cheaper - no labs, telecine costs, no couriers, no buying filmstock, no directors out of control shooting highspeed, etc - it will spiral budgets downwards in a competitive marketplace as we head into a global recession. Producers aren't interested in dynamic range etc. that's the DP's job as far as they're concerned.

[Emanuel A.]

If you keep predicting the death of film, eventually you'll be right.

Of course, how many people here predicted that the RED ONE would kill film? It seems every new camera that comes out will be the film killer... until the next one comes out...

I remember someone on DV.Com predicting that the DVX100 would kill film -- and then he said that the Canon XL2 would -- and then he said that the Varicam would kill film. He also said that 2001 was the year every household would buy HDTV sets. Then he said it would be 2002. Then he said it would be 2003.

Eventually he's bound to make an accurate prediction. He only has to be right once, no one is going to remember the fifty times he was wrong.:) :)

[Emanuel A.]

I don't think we are celebrating the death of film. Rather, we are celebrating the rise of digital cinema technology and all the democratizing benefits it brings to filmmakers. I mean, 15 years ago if you wanted to shoot and edit a little movie, you had to basically go to film school, spend a fortune on film and lab costs, camera rental, etc, then cut the thing on a hand splicer, and even then you had no real way of showing it to the world. It was not even possible to teach yourself editing, or special effects, or the art of color correction. You couldn't just "fiddle around" on After Effects or an NLE.

I used to shoot 35mm still film for years. But I remember what it was like to hand my precious roll of film over to some punk, pimple-face kid at the lab and PRAYING that they would not F up the exposure on my shots.

Now I'M THE LAB. I control my shots from start to finish, and the power of RAW makes me laugh when I think of handing a roll of film to some punk. :)

It's not so much a celebration of the death of anything. It is a celebration of new opportunities.Well said, too. As implied, 'this' vs. 'that' is so stupid as not to celebrate a whole world in changing progress. In the case, the technology opening up doors to non-technology issues. Not necessarily just a mere 'dying'. The only 'dead body' here seems to me the technology itself or the 'vices' from there. Or yet its limitations -- that's all.

[Tom Lowe]

Another major point here, that I fear might be getting overlooked, is the CONTROL directors and DPs gain over their images with the RAW workflow specifically. It will be a driving factor.

Like I said earlier, I remember handing in film and crossing my fingers that the lab would do things right. At that point, control was out of my hands, literally. One of the main reasons DSLRs swept SLRs away so quickly is the control photographers were suddenly granted over their images. The same will become true with digital cinema. How many RED shooters are already becoming spoiled to the control and flexibility they are getting with the RAW workflow?

How many DSLR shooters who shoot RAW are willing to go back to JPEG or film?

[James T Mather]

I, for one, miss cross processing. I used to shoot all my snaps that way.

[Häakon]

I think that regardless of the tech specs the truth is that digital will replace film eventually due to the simple economics involved. All digital images needed to reach was a position where, broadly speaking, Joe Sixpack cannot differentiate between it and film - It's pretty fair to say that we've arrived at this stage.
...and I think that's pretty much all Tom was saying in his original post. :-)

[Stephen Williams]

Another major point here, that I fear might be getting overlooked, is the CONTROL directors and DPs gain over their images with the RAW workflow specifically. It will be a driving factor.


Hi,

Actually we loose all control of the image as it's done in post.

Stephen

[James T Mather]

...and I think that's pretty much all Tom was saying in his original post. :-)

the difference in my post is that I am saying it will be driven by economic concerns from a production standpoint rather than aesthetic concerns.

[jpp]

Another major point here, that I fear might be getting overlooked, is the CONTROL directors and DPs gain over their images with the RAW workflow specifically. It will be a driving factor.

Like I said earlier, I remember handing in film and crossing my fingers that the lab would do things right. At that point, control was out of my hands, literally.

Sorry to insist on a not very subtle point, but here we go again. What you say is absolutely true. Desktop control over images is wonderful. Although, like cinematography, it's best left to specialists.

But this wealth of powerful technology, and the fact that individuals of modest means can now own a virtual studio, has very little to do, I'd argue, with actually making movies. If worries about handling film or trusting the lab or cutting on a flatbed are really impediments, then the movie will probably never get made on any format, because there are million other reasons, Red or no Red, not to make features. And most of those reasons are grand: making a movie is the dumbest undertaking going if viewed as a business venture. Even having high hopes for a successful aesthetic realization is pretty dumb, unless you've got a lot of money.

I'm not sure I'm saying quite what I want to say here, but.... There's a falsity in all this digital enthusiasm. Seems like an evasion of the real difficulty, or a taking of comfort in all the wrong things. In its worst form, it can be just another kind of consumerism. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong here. Hope so, anyway.

[David Mullen ASC]

As a cinematographer, I can lose control over the image just as easily if it were digital or shot on film -- if I'm not there for the final color-correction. It doesn't matter how perfectly I delivered the image to post, how closely it matched my vision... it can still be screwed up in the D.I. process, whether it was shot on the RED or on film.

Control over the image on a typical feature film is much more of a political issue than it is a technology issue.

There are aspects of digital cinematography that I like in terms of controlling the image... but once it enters the post phase, it doesn't matter much how I shot it because it can be changed by other people. What really matters more is if I'm there at the finish line to complete what I started. Even when I shoot film and the dailies aren't accurate, as long as I know what is on the negative and I'm there for the final color-correction in the D.I., the final image will be how I want it to be. So ultimately, with digital (including film transferred to digital), the ultimate control is in post, and the issue is who controls that post.

At least with a photochemical finish through contact printing, I could lock in the look on the film negative a little more easily. Traditional RGB color timing couldn't make radical changes to contrast, saturation, or framing, not like today with digital post. So do I have more control today or less control? It all depends on if I'm the one doing the final color-correction. If so, then today I have more control, but I have that control whether or not it was shot digital or on film, but if I'm not doing the final color-correction, then I have less control today than ever, whether I had shot digital or on film.

There is a lot I like about shooting digitally... but to be blunt, everything about film sucks... except the final quality! So it partly depends on whether the process is more important to you than the results, because the results with film can be beautiful, whereas the process of shooting digitally is more fun (for me.)

It's sort of like shooting in 35mm anamorphic -- everything about it is a pain in the ass, except that the results are great.

[Tony Post]

I totally enjoyed that last post from David. The wisdom is just oozing. This is the program we all need to get with, especially post people. The new tech gives us the chance to reclaim the workflow, make it work for the film makers first, Directors, DOPs, people who have the vision. Thats what us post pros want too.
Film is the coolest thing ever, but roll over Beethoven, if we can make movie making easier, cheaper, more modern, more now, and still retain the discipline that our forebears have taught us......
The goal has to be a better experience for everyone, shooters, posters, clients, and most importantly the viewing public.:weight_lift:

[Bing Bailey]

I know the DOP is the guardian of the image , but isn't the director the final authority on if that image serves his intent and if it does not can he have it changed so that it does ? I think in the past colour timing was more like voodoo and the dop got to instruct the lab because he really was the only one besides the lab tech and colour timer who knew anything about the process.

I think whats happened since digital colour correction and post everyone is that much more informed and the process has been demystified somewhat and is more open to opinions of directors and producers. I'm not saying one way is better than another. but dop's kinda had the world to themselves for a very long time via the fact nobody else knew enough to instruct anybody and know things have evolved and thats changed for good and for bad.

DOP is now only one voice of many on the final image. maybe thats terrible but thats the way it is.

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble is, we DP's often get the blame for a bad shot in a movie that's only bad because of the way a director asked for it to be color-corrected. Then later you read these comments: "jeez, the DP was an idiot -- did you see how noisy that scene was? He clearly had no idea what he was doing..."

When the truth may have been that the scene was shot a certain way because that's what the director said he wanted... but in post, the director changed his mind and wanted it another way, and the image couldn't handle the post manipulation and fell apart, but the director didn't really care about the technical quality.

Truth is that not all directors even notice some image problems. And not all directors have a sophisticated visual sensibility. They may end up brightening everything because they have this notion that comedy should always be bright regardless of scene content or the story point, or that there should never be a dark shadow in a movie.

Of course it's the director's right to make decisions that affect the image, but it can have an impact later on quality control standards for distribution... or the reputation of the DP, who may end up losing work because of some poor post decisions made by other people.

The thing is that half the time if the DP is there for the color-correction and points out some bad artifact that arises from a decision the director just made in regards to the timing, the director will say "thanks for pointing that out" and back-off from the mistake. There is a reason why some good directors surround themselves with experts in every department.

And sometimes I've found out that a bad color-correction decision made by the director was done as a lark, that they didn't really care one way or the other and were just goofing around with the image. Not every decision a director makes is a brilliant one, or even one they are passionate about or committed to. Half the decisions they make, they will modify when presented with a reasonable argument by one of their key trusted collaborators.

For example, you can have one scene where the director takes out all the warmth in the faces to make them neutral, causing the shadows and blacks to go blue-ish. You see it later and point out that the scene was supposed to be an orange sunset scene for a story reason and the director says "that sounds great -- I wish you had been there to remind me of that when we timed it!" He didn't have an opinion one way or the other, he was just "correcting it to look normal" as a default.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not sure the process has demystified at all -- I think some directors are more confused than ever about the color-correction process now that it has gotten so advanced. Sometimes having a lot more options just makes things more confusing for people.

I find myself having to explain a LOT MORE to directors these days about how things work in terms of image creation and color-correction and the path through post.

If the process is so demystified, then why do we have more "image experts" than ever in the process? DIT's, colorists, engineers, DP's, etc. Not every director is interested in the subtleties of RAW versus video encoded, compressed versus uncompressed, RGB versus YUV, CMOS versus CCD, etc.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Excuse me, I'm not too informed on this...

Doesn't the DP have the right of veto [kinda] over what happens with the shots?

And the right to be present and supervise the overall grading process, in case the director or someone else tries something crazy with the footage?

It is evident that improper grading can ruin the efforts and work of the DP.

Can all this be put in the contract?

I mean,... I thought that the director and DP have joint power over what happens to the vision of the film?

If one of them doesn't agree = nothing happens.

The DP is the main specialist on the creation of vision, and so - should have the right of co-authorship and control over that aspect of the film.

[Bob Gruen]

And most of those reasons are grand: making a movie is the dumbest undertaking going if viewed as a business venture. Even having high hopes for a successful aesthetic realization is pretty dumb, unless you've got a lot of money.



I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought, or if you are being sarcastic, but to not view making a movie as a business venture is beyond foolish. how are you going to get investors to pony up a quarter of a million dollars to make a low budget shoot without treating it as a business venture?

To the original point of Epic vs Film (and the implied Red One) I'd say that there are many attractive aspects on either side, and it is the job of the producer to make the ultimate decision as to how the project is built.

I think that the Red One will emerge as a real player in the low budget realm for one reason: shooting ratio. I can build a 22TB storage server complete with tape backup for under $6,500, which is effectively an open shooting ratio for a low budget, single cam feature. That allows you the ability to give your actors repeated chances to get the scene right which means you get better performances. After all, poor acting is the single biggest problem in low budget independent film, and a low shooting ratio is usually why.

Finally (and I'm sure this will draw a lot of fire), I think Epic may be a flawed concept when looking at a current filmout workflow. My understanding is that there are two dominate resolutions of film printers in the industry, 2K and 4K. If you shot 5K a computer process would have to unevenly scale your 5K image down to 4K to print it, which would actually degrade the image as the math is uneven. (as an example, even scaling would mean that 4 pixels would be scaled down to 1). If there are laser printers that go beyond 4K then it's a non-issue, but until then you are probably better off shooting with the Red One as you will not have to scale the image when printing.

Bob

[James T Mather]

I'm not sure if I'm following your line of thought, or if you are being sarcastic, but to not view making a movie as a business venture is beyond foolish.

Bob

I think what jpp is saying is that most indy movies don't make money - as opposed say to, say, investing in property or selling building supplies. I'd have to agree with that idea. It's a risky investment and prone to more failures than successes.

[M Most]

Can all this be put in the contract?

Yes, if you're Vittorio Storaro. If you're not, it's a bit more difficult.


I mean,... I thought that the director and DP have joint power over what happens to the vision of the film?

If one of them doesn't agree = nothing happens.

The DP is the main specialist on the creation of vision, and so - should have the right of co-authorship and control over that aspect of the film.

Theory (and often common belief): What you said.

Reality: The amount of "power" a director of photography has is at the discretion of the director and the producers. Being a specialist doesn't grant you power. Everyone on a film set is a specialist. The ultimate creative decision making power on every aspect of a feature lies in the hands of the director, unless and until the producer or studio takes it away. Now, in television, it's a different story - the director is usually a gun for hire and has little to do with the final product once his cut is turned in, for which he or she gets 4 days with the editor. The power in television lies with the executive producer, who is often also the head writer/show creator. It's often said that features are a directors' medium, while television is a writer/producer's medium, and that's usually how the "power" is delineated.

[Jeff Coatney]

What we are in the midst of is the transition from Petro-Chemical Celluloid to Digital - Silicon based Imagers. So, in that respect, celluloid is doomed and it is very likely to happen within two years in the distribution/exhibition sector. It is already dead in the post-production sector, and celluloid is facing serious, rapid erosion in the production (acqusition) sector.

Those things that we most prize and mostly associate with "Film" are aesthetic characteristics. Those are well protected because we all care deeply about them, regardless of how we feel about the digital vs. celluloid debate.

Celluloid has a growing list of enemies that include the price of petroleum, transportation, environmental re-mediation, layer upon layer of needless labor-intensive and power-intensive processes to both make the rawstock and then to deliver a moving image.

Digital imagery is so throughly, so ruthlessly efficient at delivering a high-quality moving image, when compared to celluloid, it staggers the imagination. To produce the same amount of footage, a few ounces of silicon and gold replaces tons of mined minerals and chemicals that require vast resources and are not recoverable. There is no contest. Digital has already won, celluloid's life-span has reached its end. The final death-rattle may be a few years out, but there is no going back. The march of digital continues unabated and it cannot be stopped.

Dynamic range, rolling shutters and optical viewfinders may be important, but they will be solved very shortly and their current absence is not enough to render digital cameras unsuitable for full-scale studio production, a fact that has been proven over and over again.

The DP's that find themselves at the top of their career trajectory will best serve the industry, the audience and themselves by embracing the technology and influencing its development rather than fighting it. It's time to unplug celluloid's life-support system and let it go peacefully into history with the dignity and grace it deserves.

[Peter Majtan]

Finally (and I'm sure this will draw a lot of fire), I think Epic may be a flawed concept when looking at a current filmout workflow. My understanding is that there are two dominate resolutions of film printers in the industry, 2K and 4K. If you shot 5K a computer process would have to unevenly scale your 5K image down to 4K to print it, which would actually degrade the image as the math is uneven. (as an example, even scaling would mean that 4 pixels would be scaled down to 1). If there are laser printers that go beyond 4K then it's a non-issue, but until then you are probably better off shooting with the Red One as you will not have to scale the image when printing.

Bob

Scaling down from 5K-RAW to 4K-RGB will IMPROVE the image quality, not the other way round. You are not scaling down pixels, but an analogue sensor signal... I think that was the main reason for Epic to be 5K - to deliver pristine 4K images - same goes for Scarlet being 3K in order to deliver pristine 2K deliverables - and this was confirmed by RED-TEAM... :)

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I was about to post the same thing -- since you're talking about a conversion or transformation from a RAW Bayer-patterned monochrome image into RGB, you are doing so much interpolation and whatnot that it's not a simple mathematical scaling process, not like RGB to RGB, so having a few more pixels to convert RAW Bayer to RGB can't hurt.

[Tom Lowe]

David, I've been thinking about this RAW vs film color correcting issue. I realize you haven't really sat through the Manure post completely yet, and your opinions may change for better or worse after that is done, but generally speaking, here is my question:

If you shoot 35mm, the film is processed and scanned, and then you color correct with a 2K or 4K DI, aren't you basically working with a scanned film image that is more similar to a "burned in" JPEG file than to a RAW image?

Would it be fair to say that you would have more control over color, exposure, etc, working in a pure digital RAW workflow?

I know with stills, I have far, far more control over a RAW image than a scanned 35mm neg.

[David Mullen ASC]

No, just because it's a RAW image doesn't mean it contains more information to work with. Besides, a 2K or 4K scan isn't a compressed JPEG format, it's generally an uncompressed DPX file.

RAW isn't a superior way of color-correcting, it's just a way of storing a Bayer-pattern image. The only thing "good" about it is that it is basically right off of the sensor and its not compressed into a JPEG.

Besides, you have to convert RAW into color, i.e. RGB, just to view it and color-correct it. So there's no reason why a RAW recording is better than an RGB recording that doesn't need conversion to RGB.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Comparing a RAW digital camera recording to an RGB scan of film isn't the same thing as comparing a RAW recording from a digital camera to a JPEG recording from a digital camera.

The film negative holds more dynamic range, which gives you more color-correction options. If the RAW recording from the digital camera contained the same dynamic range as the film scan, then you'd be about equal in terms of flexibility, ignoring other factors like noise vs. grain, exposure problems, etc.

But RAW versus JPEG is not the same as RAW versus uncompressed RGB. RAW is just the result of not processing a Bayer image into color yet. Eventually you have to convert it to RGB, just that if you recorded RAW, you have all the information that the Bayer sensor could deliver. But you are still limited by what the camera could deliver.

And I'd point out that the RED camera records compressed RAW, which is almost a contradiction -- you aren't recording color JPEGS... but you are recording a RAW Bayer image with JPEG-2000-like compression.

There really isn't such a thing as as "pure RAW workflow" -- at some point, a RAW recording has to be converted out of RAW just to be viewable and to color-correct it. RAW is just the first step in the process, it's not the overall process. It doesn't stay in RAW other than the original files. You aren't creating a RAW project, you are creating a color project.

[Tom Lowe]

I didn't mean to make a direct comparison (I realize color film scans aren't compressed JPEGs), only a general one, in the sense that once you have a JPEG image, it seems like your ability to manipulate that image - in terms of color, exposure, etc - is limited, compared to what you can get away with straight off a RAW file - .CR2, for example. I'm wondering if the same is generally true for a developed color negative?

With film, you are really talking about two steps. First you have to chemically process the exposed negative (and hope that this is done to your liking) and then comes the scanning and eventual CCing. What if, for example, you accidently underexposed a shot by a large amount, and the lab did not bring up the exposure enough? Then you are stuck with a negative with limited information to work with, right? Or am I wrong about that? What the lab does with the negative makes a difference, right?

My point being, that with RAW, you are the lab. You control every single step along the way.

Anyway, thanks for always indulging me and my half-baked theories, David. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[James T Mather]

Unless something goes wrong or push/pull processing is requested, the lab's processing shouldn't make a difference to the neg density. That said, in eighteen years I've only seen the lab screw it once (eighteen years ago).

At the printing stage is where density of the final print is controlled (assuming a healthy neg) - generally higher figures result in a denser image - lower numbers in a thinner image. If you massively underexpose by accident then the next step is to see if it is contained within the latitude of the neg - if not then reshoot. Unless you tell them to force the film in this case (before processing) then there is nothing you can do about it - discovery after the fact is too late. The same could be said of an underexposed raw image though. The beginners rule of thumb on film, as I was taught it is expose for the shadows and print for the highlights (this wouldn't be true for digital since the highlight latitude on digital is not as wide as film). This, however, was before Darius Khondji and Harris Savides started a vogue for moody underexposed images.

In short the upside to digital possibly is that you can see it on a monitor in realtime - the only thing that could fool the eye is shooting in different conditions: looking at the monitor in bright sunlight vs. indoors. It's why a meter for narrative work is handy as you can note your ambient vs. keylight etc as hard numbers against your camera stop - so if you have to recreate a setup much later you can do so with a certain confidence in matching your lighting.

[Tom Lowe]

But I mean, it's not the DP or director sitting there at the lab pouring chemicals onto the negative and deciding how long to leave it sitting in the chemicals, right?

[Stephen Williams]

What if, for example, you accidently underexposed a shot by a large amount, ]

Hi Tom,

Very simple, the DOP gets fired.

Stephen

[James T Mather]

What Steven said :biggrin:





In the lab it's a technician but it rarely has problems these days, I find, if you go to a good lab. Processing is a pretty mundane job which is highly automated in general.

But yes, you are handing over your neg to someone.

The only things I've seen are dirty neg and scratches or chemicals left on the film which can cause the odd flicker but (1) not for about 10 years and (2) wet gate and a clean usually got rid of them then.

[Peter Majtan]

In the modern DI workflow what really matters is the process of scanning the negative to master digital files. It is at this stage where skilled operator can "pull" the most info out of the neg by calibrating his range, frame and exposure. This is almost the equivalent of what can You do with RAW. The only difference being that if You get it wrong with film - You have to re-scan the neg... :)

[Stephen Williams]

In the modern DI workflow what really matters is the process of scanning the negative to master digital files. It is at this stage where skilled operator can "pull" the most info out of the neg by calibrating his range, frame and exposure. This is almost the equivalent of what can You do with RAW. The only difference being that if You get it wrong with film - You have to re-scan the neg... :)

Hi,

It's very important that different emulsions have seperate set ups.

Stephen

[M Most]

The DP's that find themselves at the top of their career trajectory will best serve the industry, the audience and themselves by embracing the technology and influencing its development rather than fighting it.

What makes you think they aren't?

[Peter Majtan]

Hi,

It's very important that different emulsions have seperate set ups.

Stephen

That was precisely my point Stephen... :)

[M Most]

But I mean, it's not the DP or director sitting there at the lab pouring chemicals onto the negative and deciding how long to leave it sitting in the chemicals, right?

Nobody "decides" these things based on personal taste. Professional film labs operate on standards. This is very different than in the digital world, where there seem to be very few standards (or too many "standards," depends on how you look at it). Lab work is not creative, it is scientific. Calibration procedures for DI's work because they're based on standards, developed by Kodak a number of years ago, that define digital levels and their resultant negative densities. Scanners are set up based on these standards. Film recorders are set up based on these standards. And printing lights, while a bit different in each lab, are determined (at least for DI work) by what light values produce specific print densities on a LAD image, usually using 1.09, 1.06, and 1.03 as the basic standard (although some DI providers like to make the prints a bit darker, so those aim values will be specified a bit higher than that). What I'm trying to say is that unlike the digital world, where the approach is basically "do what you want as long as it looks good", the film world has standards that all major processes are based on. Developing a negative at just about any reputable lab in the world will generally produce a very similar result. There is very little of the guesswork you seem to think is prevalent.

[Bob Gruen]

Scaling down from 5K-RAW to 4K-RGB will IMPROVE the image quality, not the other way round. You are not scaling down pixels, but an analogue sensor signal... I think that was the main reason for Epic to be 5K - to deliver pristine 4K images - same goes for Scarlet being 3K in order to deliver pristine 2K deliverables - and this was confirmed by RED-TEAM... :)

So that would be setting up the 5K camera to scale the analog signal stream from the 5K chip (A to D converted) into a 4K image? You would then be in the same 4K workflow just with a qualitatively better image?

Bob

[David Mullen ASC]

It would be a 5K RAW digital recording -- the sensor would be a 5K Bayer-filtered sensor, so the RAW signal that is converted from analog to digital would also be 5K.

Then you'd have a choice as to what resolution to convert it to when transforming from RAW to RGB. Again, remember that a 4K RGB signal is 4K per color channel, whereas a RAW file is a single 4K monochrome file with a Bayer pattern that has to be decoded and converted into three files for red, green, and blue. The 5K RAW file would have information from 2500 photosites filtered green, 1250 photosites filtered red, and 1250 blue (not exactly since it may not be exactly 5K) -- from that information, you have to create an equal number of pixels per red, green, and blue. So during that transformation using a "smart" debayering algorithm that attempts to interpret the information to know what the surrounding color information near that photosite should be, you have some flexibility to create new RGB files in different resolutions.

But in terms of measurable line resolution, the RGB image that results from a RAW conversion tends to be around 75% of the original monochrome resolution, so hopefully a 5K Bayer sensor would deliver a measurable 4K line resolution. But that depends on a host of other real-world variables, from the strength of the optical low pass filtering, the quality of the debayering, and the quality of the lens on the camera, etc.

A "dumb" conversion algorithm would just involve scaling pixels -- you'd take the 2500 green-filtered photosites and scale those green pixels to 5K, let's say, but then you'd be scaling the 1250 red and 1250 blue pixels to 5K. But that's not how most debayering is done.

[Jerrod Cordell]

I think film won't die without a fight. Sure, Epic may render 35mm film obselete in the filmmaking process, but motion picture film could always evolve. The reason why DSLR overthrew film SLR cameras was because still pictures are more limited in size. Who really wants to look at a 6 story picture? Motion Picture film on the other hand, has the advantage of becoming more grand and amazing. Hence the iMax theater. Film could always get bigger and better along with digital cinema. And until Red develops the Godzilla sensor that can handle 10K on the iRed camera, film will still have a home.

[David Mullen ASC]

The good and bad thing about film is that more quality (essentially more "data") can easily be achieved just by increasing the size of the negative... but at considerable cost, and perhaps physical awkwardness. But the technology to do this has existed for decades. 5-perf 65mm cameras gather dust at some rental houses as we speak.

Same goes for film projection -- you want more quality, then use a bigger print size, or shoot and project at higher frame rates.

But the momentum is all on the side of digital.

One aspect I find interesting though is that when you look at individual frames, most tests show digital stills to have more resolution than film stills, yet when you project these images, often film looks better, at least, better than it did as a single frame. This is because the "data" on a piece of film is in different positions on each frame, due to the random nature of grain, so as you project the image fast enough, there is an averaging effect of multiple frames in your eye-brain that seems to increase the perception of detail while reducing grain. Digital camera images don't quite benefit as much from this effect due to the fixed nature of pixels.

But I think film is ultimately doomed to being phased out of existence, except for perhaps a boutique market. But we're only haggling over the time it will take to happen. I think two years is too short of a time for such a major flipflop in Hollywood production. Maybe five to seven years.

[Tom Lowe]

David, if you had to, what year would you predict for the benchmark I mentioned earlier - 51% of major studio pictures shooting digital? My prediction is Dec 31, 2010.

I'm not sure exactly how you'd measure this. Maybe IMDB techinical specs, but then you also run into the problem of deciding exactly what qualifies as "major studio picture." And sometimes tech info is not listed on IMDB right away.

[Daniel Browning]

One aspect I find interesting though is that when you look at individual frames, most tests show digital stills to have more resolution than film stills, yet when you project these images, often film looks better, at least, better than it did as a single frame. This is because the "data" on a piece of film is in different positions on each frame, due to the random nature of grain, so as you project the image fast enough, there is an averaging effect of multiple frames in your eye-brain that seems to increase the perception of detail while reducing grain. Digital camera images don't quite benefit as much from this effect due to the fixed nature of pixels.


I think I've experienced this myself and I would agree. The human brain has an amazing capacity to combine detail over hundreds of milliseconds.

[Graeme Nattress]

Remembering of course:

That you can't get the rated resolution from any sensor of any kind unless you also allow for high levels of aliasing artifacts. RED, nor any other camera manufacturer is immune from this. At RED, we sensibly start with a very high resolution sensor so that we can use proper optical low pass filtering, and still ensure lots of resolution and detail in the finished result. This is not always the case with other cameras.

Graeme

[Michael Lindsay]

Graeme

Would it be possible to build a camera without an OLPF if the sensor clearly out resolved all the glass that could be used on it? Since lens softness is not the same as a OLPF what would the 'out resolving factor' have to be?

just curious

Michael Lindsay

PS I'm personally glad you went with a fairly strong OLPF..

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, if you can ensure the MTF of the lens is such that the sensor is not provoked into aliasing, then an extra OLPF would not be needed. All that matters is that detail higher than the sensor can cope with be properly attenuated enough that nasties don't occur.

Graeme

[Michael Lindsay]

Thanks.. I assumed as much but was not 100%.

regards

Michael

[Nova Invicta]

The world currently assumes everything digital is better when in fact it is not. Digital has well known artefacts including current specs like MPEG4 AVC / H.264 / JPEG 2000 etc.
I take many digital still photograpghs and quite frankly digital B&W photography is miles off of chemical so while DSLRs may well be perfect for news, paps etc for quality exhibition many exhibitors still use B&W film developed traditionally.Secondly a new generation are going back to spinning discs rather than CDs or i-tunes because they preffer the analogue sound.
What may kill film for theatrical is economics if both Kodak & Fuji fall below a certain threashold it will be unviable to simply supply for high end features so digital would win by default.
The whole digital debate and particularly from evangelists on the reduser pages misses the point about choice and using a medium in a certain manner to tell the story they are the same people who assume (wrongly) you can fix everything in post. Think of film & digital as oils & water colors are you going to tell artists to stop using oils?
David Mullen said the film workflow up to the finished product was messy, read the article from Gavin Finny in British Cinematographer issue 28, digital is messy Red has its code, Sonys its, Panasonic its, Phantom its, no common platform until DPX files whereas 35mm film will go in any 35mm camera. Anamorphic on HD is barely represented (Arri D21) and anyway looks nothing like anamorphic on film. Still digital has allowed all our hard work to be watched on a 2" screen on an i-pod where all that 4K detail makes a mockery of all the boasting people regularly do. Is digital the future yes, is it better or superior to film? depends what your definition of better or superior are. Unfortunately boffins dont understand this they simply get locked into technical chest puffing instead the losers are thoses only asking for reasonable choices which we should embrace and accept as normal.

[Graeme Nattress]

There are, of course, plenty of fine art photographers shooting digital, be it on high end DSLRs or medium format backs, and they get superb results for black and white or colour. DSLRs are not just for news etc, and are not just used for that.

I firmly believe that there will be increasing choice in camera technology be it digital or chemical based. I still listen to vinyl, on tube amplifiers (no transistors) because I like that. People will still project film because they like that. A friend of mine has one of the largest private collections of 16mm film that I know of. But although he watches film all the time, he still projects from digital sources also.

When it comes to aesthetics, there is no "better", just "preferable". All we're doing at RED is producing the best digital acquisition we know how to.

Graeme

[Tom Lowe]

Nova Invicta, we have to be careful not to lump all digital proponents in the same boat. Yes there are plenty of pimple-faced punks who are beating their chests, thinking that Scarlet 3K is going to make them the next Peter Jackson. But most of the people here are fairly sensible and level headed.

Many of us have a great love of film AND a great love of new technology.

[Jorge Díaz-Amador]

be it digital or chemical based. I still listen to vinyl, on tube amplifiers (no transistors) because I like that.

Graeme

Graeme,

Any medium has an intrinsic quality that cannot be accurately measured or explained away technically. I'm so glad to know that you "get it". When I first saw "Crossing the Line", I went in (to your booth at NAB 2007) expecting to pick the image apart. Instead I saw the first digital capture that I actually would be willing to use myself. I was seeing the result of your visual aesthetic applied to the RED ONE's digital technology.

Even the best turntable / cartridge / vinyl record combinations and the best tube amps measure poorly on test equipment compared to relatively inexpensive CD players and transistor amps. Yet each of these "outdated, obsolete" technologies has a special quality (very enjoyable to listen to, non-fatiguing) that is simply not possible to replicate with transistors and digital. They are just simply more musical.

Despite this, I believe that when designers have the right values and a good aesthetic sense, they can mold new technologies to have as much of the aesthetic qualities of the traditional mediums as possible.

And no, it's not just thinking something sounds better or looks better because you think it should. I did not *want* to believe that a vinyl record, played back on a good turntable, could sound better than a CD. But I believe my ears.

I did not *want* to believe that a digital cine camera (RED ONE) that had been developed in just over a year by an unknown startup company could produce and image that would be a satisfying to watch on a big screen as 35mm film (and even hint at some of the qualities of 65mm). But I believe my eyes.

Cheers!

[Rubancam]

i agree with Tom, film will be obsolete soon just like it happened in Still Photography world. By 2010 they will address all inefficiencies in workflow, display capability etc.

The question i have is who will dominate the world in Cinema cameras.
RED has a great lead, Many are adopting it but who ever has the better chip will end up leading. It happened in Still photography world. Nikon used to be the king in film days but Canon killed it with it's DSLR with the great CMOS chips. i do not know who design/manufacture Mysterium chips for RED but RED should heavily invest in R&D in developing better chip (Less noise, better exposure latitude etc). Canon and Sony have edge on that. Not at all Panavision or Arri. Never know what Nikon has in store for Cinematographers : -)

End of the day, every Cinematographer cares the best quality ( very rich, Pleasing to look at ) images possibly one can get.

[Deanan]

Despite this, I believe that when designers have the right values and a good aesthetic sense...

Our highest priority internally is to put the 'soul' in to image regardless of technical specs. All the features and specs in the world are meaningless if you have a cold and heartless image. The tough part is that there's no way to measure these things :).

[Thomas Mathai]

Digital Cinema will certainly gain a large share of the market,(and already has)
Trying to pin a date and time is very difficult.

I shot a Red test in Talladega for a NASCAR race and was amazed at the fact that NO photographers in the media room were shooting "film".

I asked one photographer how long it had been since he saw a "film" camera in the room and he said it was a few years!

The freelance photographers use digital cameras for these reason's:

Reduced cost.

Quick turnaround times.

Reduced cost.

Great images.

Reduced cost.

Easy and cost effective distribution.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Do you think any motion picture companies would benefit from the list above?

Do you know any producers that would like to reduce cost?

Seems like Mr. Jannard may have come to this conclusion a few years back!


While we were shooting on the "grid" I saw a well know sports "film person" shooting 16MM,one of his crew members pointed out the Red One we were shooting with and he glanced over and looked down his nose at the Red One. When I asked him if he had shot with it yet he said," Why would I want to shoot with that Star Wars looking camera"...That comment said it all...

It will take time and effort to move "film People" from film to digital, but just as the freelance professional Photography industry transitioned, so will a majority of the motion picture studios. Will it be 2010? It's unlikely, but the market share for Digital Cinema will certainly continue to grow!

Don't forget about this guy named George Lucas that has embraced Digital Cinema and used the benefits of the medium to his advantage, releasing a few popular movies........

P.S.

I never owned a Porsche or Ferrari but that day in the Photo room with the Red One gave me that feeling, as crowds of people gathered around to see the Red One and ask about it!

Dave

The photography model is a little different from motion picture.

They are all about immediate turnaround for publishing and online deadlines. They may shoot dozens or hundreds of shots. They can easily archive their choice shots to negative if they want to.

I don't even know if the digital negative is even important for some, as long as prints are made.

Motion pictures may acquire millions of feet per project that need to edited together. How do you decide what to archive and what not to? Historical value isn't always evident til much later.

The dvd producer of Blade Runner said, dozens of boxes of Blade Runner material were labeled for disposal. He was lucky they just never got around to it.

I look at music as an example of where the tea leaves may fall for movies. Majority will use digital tools, but in pockets a choice will be made to go traditional.

[mezmo]

The whole concept of producing image for motion picture drama is to
create somthing unique and different for each project.
What a boring world with everyone forced to use digital as the 'demise of film
dudes' keep predicting.
Variety IS the spice of life, including art. More tools the better, RED included.
Mezmo

[AntiMutant]

All due respect to the original post by Tom. This is a fun place to speculate and chat about the present and the future and ... cool gear. I often speculate myself on these issues.

But what interests me is why people find it necessary to evangelize the world as to Red's (or any other camera's) prowess. I mean my SI-2K and Red One are far superior cameras, as far as I can tell, to what the digital Star Wars films were shot on. I mean ... WOW. Think about it. Many of us posting here own, or plan to own, cameras that could have done a "better" job than what Lucas used (at least in terms of image quality). I think even some of the earlier Genesis projects were shot at 1080p with a 4:2:2: colorspace due to the limitations of the tape format used at the time.

I think the reason people get defensive, or offensive, about the Red camera is because if the rest of the world "admits" that the Red is amazing then they feel validated in the value of their investment. If you buy a Lotus, but everyone laughs at it because it isn't a Mustang, then you feel personally attacked, even though you can drive pretty damn fast.

I think the only other reason that makes sense to me is that if you are planning on supporting yourself by renting the Red, and you feel people aren't buying into it, then of course you want the world to believe the hype.

However, I think we ought to rejoice. Everyone that has a Red is free to make movies that will look pretty damn good ... providing every single other aspect that goes into capturing beautiful footage is respected.

Again, I love the topic. I'm curious as to when (and if) film will die. I'm just also curious why people are happy that film will die, and feel the need to convince others that Red is good. So what if 90% of movies are shot on film 10 years from now? And you (we) are in the minority shooting on digital? Isn't that OK?

Again, not trying to argue anything here, just mildly curious. And way too long winded due to fatigue.

[Jason Sinclair]

Nova Invicta, we have to be careful not to lump all digital proponents in the same boat. Yes there are plenty of pimple-faced punks who are beating their chests, thinking that Scarlet 3K is going to make them the next Peter Jackson. But most of the people here are fairly sensible and level headed.

Many of us have a great love of film AND a great love of new technology.

Peter Jackson was once a pimple-faced punk without a budget... He made "bad taste" for a tiny budget (he would have used scarlet if available) over four years on weekends. Badly shot. Badly editited, bad sound, lame plot, terrible acting. Great movie. Sold well...

If you haven't seen it, then i recommend it.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

What's wrong with being a pimple-faced punk? :ph34r:

[Joseph Ward]

I think most independent film makers want digital to have a ''look'' of Film. Film is a love/hate relationship with indepedents. They want the overall last results of film, but hate the process/cost. How many of us just wanted to make a movie that was on par with and be shown at a theatrical release? Maybe now its about the creative art and business side instead of tech. :umm:

[Jim Exton]

Maybe now its about the creative art and business side instead of tech. :umm:

It should always have been this way. Shooting on 35mm or the Red isn't going to automatically get you a distribution deal.

Making a film with a good story and/or having a name actor can get a regular 16mm or mini DV film in the theaters.